The major ships of the fleet follow below:
Iver Huitfeldt Class Frigates (2)
These ships are intended to replace the Anzac Class Frigates currently in service and will have the capacity to fire Tomahawk cruise missiles to provide a strategic deterrent. They must also be fitted with towed sonar arrays to improve their ASW capabilities and CIWS to deal with missile threats. Their main gun is to be either the Advanced Gun System or the Otobreda 127/64 gun. Each ship will come equipped with a multi-role helicopter, either an AW101 or SH-60R, that can conduct anti-submarine duties as well as surface attack. Shipboard UAVs, that may include future multi-day endurance airships, must be included as standard equipment.
Absalon Class Support Ships (2)
These vessels have two functions: to operate as Combat Frigates, having a similar capability to the Iver Huitfeldt Class, or as Logistical Support Ships with their flexible deck system. The flex deck, with a stern roll-on roll-off capability, allows for 200 troops and their vehicles, a mine laying (300) capacity, command and control systems, standard container carriage, or a containerised hospital. Each ship will also be equipped with two AW101 multi-role helicopters and UAVs, including multi-day endurance airship variants.
HMNZS Cantebury Strategic Sealift (1)
HMNZS Cantebury, currently in service, must be fitted with CWIS to deal with missile attacks and have anti-torpedo countermeasures. A RAM anti-aircraft system should also be incorporated. UAVs will be necessary and may include future multi-day endurance airship variants. Serious consideration must be taken to replace this vessel with a more seaworthy ship at some time before 2024.
Gowind Class Offshore Patrol Vessels (6)
These OPVs are intended to replace all the current patrol vessels. In addition to the 76mm deck gun these ships will be equipped with a RAM system for missile and air defence. All vessels will be fitted to carry anti-ship missiles, but only two equipped with these weapons. The OPVs will be modified to extend the flight deck over the RHIB dock allowing the aircraft hangar situated under the bridge to be moved further aft. These ships will typically carry 2-3 UAVs, likely Camcopters, with the capacity to operate a light helo, such as the Super Seasprite or AS565 MB Panther, when desired. If budgets allow an evolved Damen 2400 OPV design should replace two or more of these ships and have ASW capability.
MH-60R Seahawk Multirole Helicopters (14+)
MH-60 Romeo helicopters are to be shared between the Navy and land based forces with at least six acting as ground attack platforms in support of the Army. Provision should be made to field a 20mm to 30mm gun on one side of the aircraft when operating from land. Their armaments should also include air-to-air missiles for self defence. Another option is to acquire additional Super Seasprites and have them upgraded to perform this role.
Vessel Summary:
(2) Iver Huitfeldt Class Frigates - displacing 6,645 tons.
(2) Absalon Class Support Ship - displacing 6,600 tons.
(1) HMNZS Cantebury Strategic Sealift or replacement - displacing 9,000 tons.
(6) Gowind Class Offshore Patrol Vessels - displacing 1450 tons.
(1) HMNZS Endeavour oiler replacement - displacing 16,000+ tons.
(1) Mine Sweeper - displacing 1500 tons.
(1) Survey Vessel - displacing 2000 tons.
*The HDW 216 Submarine Option (3)
The decision to purchase submarines rests upon the desire to provide a strategic deterrent. If costs allow, three 4000 ton long range HDW 216 boats should be commissioned. The roles of these vessels are many - to act as a strategic strike platform (via Tomahawk LAMs), as an anti-submarine platform, as an anti-ship platform, and also conduct intelligence and special forces operations. These boats must also come equipped with towed sonar arrays, expendable UAVs, and (later) field a tube-launched anti-aircraft system for downing ASW aircraft. *Note: The verticle launch tubes may be deleted from the final design as Harpoon and Tomahawk (TTL) missiles can be fired through the torpedo tubes. An alternative to the HDW 216 is a modified version of the Sōryū-Class or the SMX Ocean-Class boat.
Submarine??? Is this New Zealand your saying??
ReplyDeleteThe page is a conceptual exercise. The boats would be purchased off an existing line and act as the primary deterrent and partner in joint exercises - where a considerable increase in spending would be in order.
ReplyDeleteFuture ADF Page also outlines a modest proposal to reintroduce a squadron of frontline fighters for the RNZAF.
I understand that politically New Zealand Governments have severe difficulties in spending money on defence. I tried not to stray too far beyond what might be possible, and wanted to include a serious deterrent.
I appreciate your sentiment !
Submarines are a bridge too far. Frigate's definitely - New Zealand should just piggy back on what Australia purchases (just add 2-3 onto the order). Minimises spare parts costs! I also agree the time has now come to consider a small fighter aircraft unit, although I would consider an attack helicopter squadron as an alternative.
ReplyDeleteFrustration with New Zealand is that they are running large government surplus's and have plenty of cash, yet seem to resist taking defense seriously. As a reasonably 'wealthy' western economy, they need to spend more.
Hi Unknown,
ReplyDeleteI assume you saw the entry on the RNZAF where I recommended Gripen E fighters. I wanted the best and easiest to maintain aircraft on the market. They could take the earlier Gripen C which would be the cheapest option, but I am looking forward and considered that the more capable costlier choice was more appropriate:
http://futureadf.blogspot.com.au/p/future-royal-new-zealand-air-force.html
With the NZ Frigate selection I wanted to include the Absalon class as it gave them an expanded sealift capability whilst also allowing for an increase in the number of fighting ships.
Adding attack helicopters is a good idea. I'd still like to keep the fighter aircraft. As a matter of national pride I feel the New Zealanders should have a credible fighter.
In terms of attack helos I am considering expanding their naval helo numbers and replacing their Super Seasprites with 12+ MH-60Rs. With NZ I am trying to get as much dual use as possible to keep platform numbers as low as possible. I am open to suggestions here.
I understand everyone's reaction to the submarines. For the Australian Navy I included CVL aircraft carriers, preferably two, as an option. These are the sorts of things that I would choose if buckets of money were forthcoming, aside from an overall expansion in every service.
Sometime in 2017 I intend on updating all the existing entries on the main page thread. In the intro I mentioned that the site is partly inspired/influenced by the Falklands War. I will archive the older posts (that appeared from 2012 onwards) and alter the emphasis with a greater focus on Army (expanding it), and taking cues from my 2015 White Paper submission:
http://futureadf.blogspot.com.au/p/2015-defence-white-paper-submission-key.html
Rather than simply (and improbably?) gearing towards defending the continent from invasion I will also seriously consider engagements in defence of East Timor, the defence of Singapore and a war in West Papua against an Islamist Indonesian presence. In the next 10 years Governments may change, economies will grow and perhaps collapse, so who knows exactly what we will face in the future.
Thanks for your comment.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLose the frigates. Swap them out for a littoral ship and an icebreaking OPV. Then combine the Airforce and Navy to form an armed Coastguard. It is very much an expensive Coastguard at the moment.
ReplyDeleteAll of it is a Pipe dream !!!!
DeleteUnknown,
ReplyDeleteI strongly favour a full sized frigate in place of any littoral vessel or increased numbers of OPVs - where the latter tend not to have enough range and/or armament/logistical capability. The real expense here are the hypothetical submarines when compared to what the Navy currently operates. The frigates allow much better expeditionary capability as opposed to the OPVs that would be somewhat limited.
However, if the NZ defence budget is drastically cut then your suggestion would be the way to go.
Thanks for your comment.
Latest scenario due to chinese and Russian aggression is that NZ Govt should be upgrading it's defence capabilities to include 4 type 31e frigates with ASW Capability, 5 inch main gun, CIWS HelI copters, 2 type 26 frigates, corvettes, minesweepers and support ships. Thought the idea of type 216 submarines could be feasible if money forthcoming plus patrol ships for harbour defence duties. RNZAF at least two fighter squadrons and bomber squadrons. Army, field guns, medium tanks, armoured vehicles with wide ranging capabilities for scouting/reconnaissance duties. Of course personnel for each of the Armed services should be increased. After all, it's better to be prepared than not. Politicians need to see things as they are and not to be going round with rose tinted glasses and burying their heads in the sand. Need to work closely with Australia, UK and other allies in helping to defend NZ back and front yards so to speak as well as providing support in other oceans of conflict.
ReplyDeleteHello Unknown,
ReplyDeleteIt looks like people are thinking about a larger and more capable NZ Naval force, and defence force, than I laid out here. The vessels above were chosen to reflect the NZ Government's reluctance to spend money on defence. Given your comment one might stick to the cheap Iver Huitfeldt designs and make the total vessels 4, having them fitted out for ASW, with the two existing Absalom support ships. Their corvette types could remain the same or go with the Australian OPV80s (I recommended at least choosing the OPV85), where they could be equipped with anti-ship missiles and an ASW suite with helos, and numbers remaining at six in total. With the submarines, on the main page, dealing with ADF equipment, I called for the construction of up to 15 Shortfin Barracuda types with three of these crewed and operated by New Zealanders (in NZ). If 15 boats are made then a continuous submarine building program could be put in place.
In terms of the NZ Air Force. I recommended one squadron of Gripen Es, to keep costs under control. They could expand that to two squadrons. The other option would be to buy much more expensive twin engine fighters such as Super Hornets, F/A-18Fs, and include some Growlers for EW. Ideally they should buy the mix of long range 5th Generation aircraft I have listed on the main page that included the FA-XX, and FB-23 bombers acting in the same role as the F-111.
As for their Army, they can sort that out for themselves, but the key issue would be to dramatically increase overall numbers.
Trying to match up NZ in a peer v peer situation is difficult because their country is small. The intro to this post has them acting in a support role to other larger nations, with the submarines acting as the key strategic deterrence (able to sink ships and other submarines - key to pacific ocean operations). The more submarines the better, along with long range (ground and air launched) anti-ship missiles.
Thanks for the update on NZ defence thoughts.
Given New Zealand has just blown $100B+ on COVID, it’s not lack of money that guides their defence agenda. New Zealand needs at least two deep water modern Frigattes, three preferably, and a modern OPV fleet. It also needs a strike fighter force of 15 planes - Eurofighter or Gripen would suit. It then needs to steal pilots. I also believe it needs a fleet of attack helicopters- it sends troops into hot spots with no air cover - criminal in a way given they can afford to solve the issue.
DeleteI just feel New Zealand is selfish. It knows it is too small to seriously deter an enemy like China, so instead sits back and watches Australia get a bloody nose (eg Aussie exports banned etc while New Zealand sells more dairy and meet in to fill the hole). I think it’s time Australia started asserting pressure on New Zealand to step up more in defence of the region . Whether that means New Zealand pays Australia a $1B per year fee to subsidise their costs enabling NZ to use part of the Air Force (fighters etc) - effectively just a.lease fee. Given that may be a bridge too far (eg who gets first dibs if NZ and Aus call an air strike at the same time), then NZ needs to step up. I think New Zealand is lazy and does not pull its weight , while Australia leads with its chin on China. Reality is if China attacks Australia, New Zealand would fall at the same time , so New Zealand is so closely bound to what Australia does it needs an integrated fair strategic approach to military spending that complements Australia and provides some capability that is unique to New Zealand’s situation.
I firmly believe New Zealand must have at least one of an attack helicopter fleet and a carrier capable of
Launching it, or a strike fighter force. I’d go for the attack helicopter fleet , and borrow or have some Agreement with Australia re leasing their fighters.
The Frigattes are mandatory . Purchase 3 blue water best of breed vessels capable of launching conventional missiles and advanced missile defence and anti sub capability to complement the P8s New Zealand was told to buy by the US. Note - NZ was instructed to purchase the P8s - they didn’t want to - so NZ could contribute to advanced sub surveillance in the South Pacific and take the load off the US and Australia. More weight needs to be applied to NZ re it’s Frigatte replacement and air support capability. NZ forgets that it needs to contribute and can’t leave its closest ally Australia doing the hard yards on foreign affairs with China and getting beaten up while NZ sits back and expands their exports as Aussie beef and Dairy is blocked.
You mentioned the update to the RNZN Helo contingent. Is this in addition to 3 SQN’s NH-90’s which are currently based on the two frigates and HMNZS Canterbury or as a complete replacement to this as a designated Navy support Squadron similar to the RN’s Fleet air arm?
ReplyDeleteThe SH-2G(I) Super Sea Sprites are being replaced in 2028.
DeleteThe DCP 2019 states getting an Enhanced Sealift vessel either a large LPD, or even a small LHD by 2029. And then replace Canterbury with a second vessel in 2035.
Hello Unknown,
ReplyDeleteThese aircraft are in addition to the NH90s. The intention is to have them operate with both Navy and Army. The NH90s have good transport capabilities, whereas the Romeos are more specialised helos (ASW/surface attack).
Admittedly the page here is a few years old and needs some tweaking. A serious look at replacing HMNZS Canterbury is on the cards. I was thinking of the Tide Class ships but there is the issue of choosing a vessel with a strengthened hull for Antarctic travel. Perhaps two ships should be put in operation, one being a dedicated ice-resistant vessel and the other a standard fleet replenishment type. I am open to suggestions !
What are your thoughts on developing or modifying existing models and adding them into small fleet of maybe 4 or 5 long range fast attack craft into the combat fleet?
ReplyDeleteThey could also potentially dual as patrol craft eliminating the need for them
DeleteI think the issue with smaller sized attack craft is the range, but if you want firepower for coastal defense they are a good idea. The bigger you get the more you run into a corvette sized ship (such as the listed OPVs).
DeleteTake a look at the Visby Class corvettes at 650 tons. They can do 35 knots and are armed to the teeth. The thinking on this page was to have the Gowind OPVs acting as missile boats if needed - but with better self defense (anti-missile) systems. The ships also have good sensors and the ability to launch substantial UAVs or a helicopter to detect potential targets. The Gowind ship was in large part chosen for its long range, and is admittedly fairly slow.
A fleet of much smaller fast boats could be fielded that would mount the weapons available to the larger OPVs, particularly the anti-ship missiles, and would use mounted MANPAD sized missiles for defense (such as Mistral or Stinger missiles), but only being effective against aircraft or drone attacks.
It's hard to eliminate the usefulness of a long range OPV so I don't think fast attack craft (with necessarily more limited range) would replace them in the patrol role. They could compliment them. This is a good idea. The issue would be the added expense and the more effective patrol capabilities of the up armed OPVs.
Another issue with the attack craft is their role could likely be taken by the Air Force (at least in defense of the mainland, not in forward deployments). However, overlapping capabilities is always a plus.
The big question is what sort of vessel to pick? The right equipment could sell itself.
Thanks for your comment Marius.
The premise that “like for like” replacement of the current fleet should not be the default force structure option. Fleet
ReplyDeletere-building must be based on a unified, top-down view of operational requirements, informed by technological and doctrinal opportunity and by affordability in acquisition and through-life sustainment. If you want to design a fleet, not replace ships, and the very short time frame in which most of our ships wear out gives us an opportunity to do so