Future force‎ > ‎

Strategic units

What do we need to link our military with the rest of the world?

The fundamental strategic requirement of the defence force is the ability to deliver and support  operational resources in a distant operational theatre.The following considers the replacement options for each of the current force assets in order of their replacement:

HMNZS Endeavour 

picture:Wikipedia
Rapidly reaching the end of its life the Endeavour is designed to provide at-sea refueling of the frigate force. This is far too narrow. Strategic operations need the ability to carry fuel, containers and vehicles plus a helicopter or two. Ideally the ship will also have a large self-loading crane for operations where ports do not have the facility. There is no need for a military spec vessel. The US Navy operates civilian spec vessels perfectly well.
 
Endeavour is a 7,000T vessel with a crew of 50. 
 
Some replacement options:
 
 The US Navy operates the Lewis and Clark Dry Cargo Support Ships
picture:Wikipedia
 Specification
Displacement:45,149 tons
Length:689 ft 0 in (210 m) overall
Beam:106 ft 0 in (32.3 m)
Draft:29.9 ft (9.12 m)
Propulsion:Integrated electric propulsion, with generation at 6.6 kV by FM/MAN B&W diesel generators; single fixed pitch propeller; bow thruster
Speed:20 knots (37 km/h)
Capacity:1,388,000 cubic feet (39,300 m3) of cargo
Fuel Cargo: 23,450 barrels
Complement:124 civilian mariners
11 Naval personnel
Aviation facilities:Two VREP/Support helicopters
 The Lewis and Clark Class are large capable vessels. They lack a large crane and container handling but this design variation would not be difficult. The ships could also be equipped with fast launches and accommodation for soldiers so that they could carry out anti-piracy operations unaided. This would not be a cheap option but would hugely expand NZs strategic capability and ability to assist friendly Navy's
 The German Navy operates the Berlin Class replenishment vessel

picture:Wikipedia
 
Displacement:20,240 tonnes
Length:173.7 m (569 ft 11 in)
Beam:24 m (78 ft 9 in)
Height:17.5 m (57 ft 5 in)
Draft:7.6 m (24 ft 11 in)
Propulsion:2 × MAN Diesel 12V 32/40 diesel-engines, 5,340 kW each
2 × reduction gears, 2 × controllable pitch four-bladed propellers
1 × bow thruster
4 x 1200 kW diesel generators
Speed:20 kn (37 km/h)
Complement:139 (+ 94)
Armament:4 × MLG 27 mm autocannons
Stinger surface to air missile(MANPADS)
Aircraft carried:2 × Sea King or MH90 helicopters
Aviation facilities:hangar and flight deck
 Half the size of the US ship the Berlin Class might be more economical, although the crew size is no different. Like the Lewis and Clark class vessel the ship may need adjustment.
 Spanish Patino Class fast supply ship

picture:Wikipedia

 
Class & type:Supply-class fast combat support ship
Tonnage:17,045 t
Displacement:7,780 t
Length:170 m (560 ft)
Installed power:two Navantia/Burmeister and Wein16V40/45 diesel engines rated at 17.6MW sustained power[1]
Speed:20 knots (37 km/h; 23 mph)
Range:13,450 nm
Endurance:21 days
Crew:148, plus 19 air crew, plus 20 extras[1]
Sensors and
processing systems:

2 × Decca 2690 navigation radar

URN-25A TACAN Aldebaran ESM / ECM system
Armament:2x Oerlikon 20 mm cannon
2x Izar FABA Systems Meroka 20mm close-in weapon system
Aircraft carried:Sikorsky SH-3 Sea King
Aviation facilities:
 The Patino Class ship is slightly smaller than the Berlin class. The Patino showed its usefulness as an anti-pirate vessel when it was attacked by mistake off the coast of Somalia. Patino fought off the attack and captured the pirates.

Logistic Supply Vessel Design Objectives
 
The objective of this design is to develop a "mother ship" able to support a flotilla of smaller ships on a long-range mission. Missions include:
  • anti-piracy patrols
  • support for long range fisheries protection patrols
  • support to pacific islands following disaster or state failure
  • support to military missions in the Pacific
  • support to allied fleets
  • SAR
 
The ship needs to provide the following capability:
 
1. Ship-to-ship refueling
2. Ship-to-helicopter-in-flight refueling
3. Heavy crane able to self load and unload of 20 and 40 foot sea containers or heavy components to 60T
4. Desk space for heavy construction components
5. Capacity for 5x5x5=125  20-foot containers
6. Ro-Ro deck with capacity for 24 x 10m vehicles loaded to and from dock
7. Spare accommodation for 60 personnel and secure accommodation for 20 prisoners
8. Ship-to-ship transfer of cargoes
9. Two NH90 sized helicopters and landing deck
10. Four side-launched  11.3m interceptor RHIBs for anti-piracy work
11. Crew of 60-75
12 Helicopter contingent of 12-15
13 Port and starboard 25mm remotely operated cannon for anti-pirate defence
14. Range of 12,000 nM at cruising speed of 15 knots, max speed 20 knots.
15 Ice class B and antarctic summer operating capability
 
Estimated size: 20,000T, estimated cost based on this review [PDF] at US$7/1000T about US$100 million.
Expenditure in the 2016-17 timeframe.


This 26,000T self-loading Con-ro vessel was delivered by Hyundal for $70m

Usefulness and Vulnerability

Although the replacement for Endaevour would cost more than three times the original ship's cost it would also be extremely useful in responding to all hazards. It would also be a force magnifier by working with all the rest of the blue water fleet. Ideally, in time the blue water fleet would incorporate two such vessels.
 
HazardDesired Utility Vulnerability
Bollides
None Very low
Solar radiation
 None Low
Volcano
Rebuild support with fuel, supplies, helicopters and vehicles and heavy crane.
Evacuation capability with accommodation, helicopters and launches

Ash, poison gases, Tsunami, flying rocks, underwater gas reduces bouyancy

Earthquake
Rebuild support with fuel, supplies, helicopters and vehicles and heavy crane.
Evacuation capability with accommodation, helicopters and launches
Tsunami, beaching, changed drafts 
Tsunami
Rebuild support with fuel, supplies, helicopters and vehicles and heavy crane.
Evacuation capability with accommodation, helicopters and launches
Tsunami, beaching, changed drafts
Cyclone/Flood
Rebuild support with fuel, supplies, helicopters and vehicles and heavy crane.
Evacuation capability with accommodation, helicopters and launches
Heavy seas loss of personnel, aircraft, launches or ship
Pandemic
Evacuation capability with accommodation, helicopters and launches
 Infection
Agricultural epidemic
 
None
 Infection
Chemical fire/gas
None
 Personnel gased
Chemical/oil spill
Unload containers, support containment fleet, divers and helicopters.
 None
Uncontrolled/Unsustainable fishing
Provide mothership support for other vessels
Helicopters and launches for interception and pursuit
20 knot speed means able to maintain pursuits
Loss of personnel boarding
Piracy
Provide mothership support for other vessels
25mm self defence cannons
Helicopters and launches for interception and pursuit
Looks like civilian target
Loss of personnel in combat, surprise boarding, los of ship
Maritime Search and Rescue
 
 Provide mothership support for other vessels
Helicopters and launches for SAR
Launch or helicopter recovery
Cyberwarfare
None
 Systems breached
Terrorism
Provide mothership support for other vessels
Helicopters and launches for interception and pursuit
20 knot speed means able to maintain pursuits

Suicide attack

Missile attack

State Sabotage/Mining
Provide mothership support for other vessels
Helicopters and launches for interception and pursuit
 Hitting a mine (hull loss)
State failure
Provide mothership support for other vessels
Helicopters and launches for various tasks
Evacuation capability
Transport vehicles
Heavy crane for rebuild
Provide fuel and supplies
 Low
Low intensity proxy wars
Provide mothership support for other vessels
Helicopters and launches for various tasks
Evacuation capability
Transport vehicles
Heavy crane for rebuild
Provide fuel and supplies
 Suicide attack

Missile attack

Occupation/Guerilla Wars
Support allies with mission refueling
Provide mothership support for other vessels
Helicopters and launches for various tasks
Evacuation capability
Transport vehicles
Heavy crane for rebuild
Provide fuel and supplies
 Suicide attack

Missile attack

High intensity war
 
Support allies with mission refueling
Provide mothership support for other vessels
Helicopters and launches for various tasks
Evacuation capability
Transport vehicles
Heavy crane for rebuild
Provide fuel and supplies

Air attack

Submarine attack

Submarine Sneak Attack
 
 Provide mothership support for other vessels
Helicopters and launches for various tasks
 Submarine attack
Antarctic Responsibility
 
Provide mothership support for other vessels
Helicopters and launches for various tasks
Evacuation capability
Transport vehicles
Heavy crane for rebuild
Provide fuel and supplies

 Iceberg

Contamination of ice

Loss of personnel in cold

 

 


Conclusions
 
While this would add $100 million in additional cost to replacing the existing ship it would provide an all hazards response platform for well over 30 years.

C-130H Hercules transport and the P-3K Orion Anti-submarine warfare (ASW) aircraft



The next on our list for replacement are

C-130H
x5

$226m for life extension .

Picture Wikipedia

Lockheed Martin C-130H

Design and manufacture: Lockheed Martin
Engines:4 x Allison T56-A-15 engines
Payload (Max): 17.25T (USAF 19T)*
Max Range: 4,000nm
Max Range at max payload: 1050nm
Typical Range: 2,200nM with 12.7T payload
Max fuel: 28.54T

Min Runway (land): 914m
Cruising speed: 300 kts

source: RNZAF and FAS and USAF

*The LAV III weighs 19.8T but can be knocked down.With enough grease and grunting they can be loaded on a C1-30 but won't get far.


and
 

P-3K2
x6
$352 million

Navigation and communications systems refurbishment completion 2014

picture:Wikipedia

Lockheed-Martin P-3 Orion

Design and manufacture: Lockheed Martin
Engines: Four T56-A-10 Allison turbo prop
Maximum fuel weight: 28.7 T
Fuel burn rate: 1.8T/hr
Maximum speed 411 kts
Cruise speed: 328 knots
Loiter speed: 203 knots
Take-off run: 1297m
Ferry range: 4.830 nM
Maximum endurance (internal fuel) 16 hours
Maximum endurance (external fuel) 21 hours (RNZAF World record)
Crew 11

sources: Lockheed-Martin and FAS

 
It is obvious why Cabinet has opted for the lower cost option of refurbishing the old C-130H and P-3K airframes. At the moment the only contenders are the C-130J and SH-130J which cost 6 x US$120m (The P3 suite can be transferred readily) + 5 x 100m US$1.2 billion. However at the same time technology is changing and new players are also emerging.  At some point in the 2020s however replacement will become essential.
 
It should be noted that the Lockheed-Martin aircraft use similar engines and could be considered as a package. In fact this approach has been adopted by other manufacturers. However before we look at the market let us consider the minimum acceptable capability.

Transport Aircraft

A transport aircraft should be able to make an un-refueled return journey of 1,850 nautical miles (Auckland to Honiara) carrying at least 5 tonnes one way.  The aircraft should be able to deliver 5-tonnes to an airstrip less than 1km in length and take off again. It must also be capable of accurately para-dropping supplies or personnel at night and in bad weather. The aircraft must be able to operate in the Antarctic (in summer). It should be capable of landing vehicles. There must be minimal political risk of the aircraft being unsupportable because of sanctions by the manufacturers.
 
Nice to have's
  • Ten tonnes or more to the same distance or airfield length.
  • mid-air refueling capability
  • low operating costs
  • 400 knot or higher cruise airspeed
  • Parts compatibility with the MPA
The following aircraft are simply too small for long range work in the Pacific

Here is Wikipedia's comparison with corrected aircraft range data and updated price estimates
AircraftRoleMax. payload (Kg)Range Max Payload (NM) / Ferry RangeCruise(Mach)Ceiling (Ft.)Price USD
 C-295 Tactical 9250 720 nm max payload  2820 nm Ferry      Mach .39 25,000 Ft $30m (est)  
 C-27J Tactical 11500 1000 nm max payload 3200 nm Ferry      Mach .49 30,000 Ft $40m (est)  
C-130J[4]Tactical18,9551,700 nm max payload 4,000 nm FerryMach .5833,000 Ft$ 92m (est.)  
An-12Tactical20,0001,945 nm max pauload 3,075 nm FerryMach .5533,000 Ft  
Embraer KC-390Tactical23,6001,400 nm max payload 3,250 nm FerryMach .7036,000 Ft$ 70m (est.)  
Airbus A400MTactical37,0001,781 nm max payload 4,703 nm FerryMach .7237,000 Ft€ 192m (est.)  
Kawasaki C-2Tactical37,6003,023 nm max payload 5399 nm ferryMach .8040,000 Ft$ 120m (est.)  
Antonov An-70Tactical47,0001,621 nm max payload 4319 nm FerryMach .7340,000 Ft$ 9m (est.)  
Ilyushin Il-214Tactical22,0001,553 nm max payload 3229 nm FerryMach .7039,370 Ft$ 70m (est.)  
IL-76MD-90AStrategic/tactical60,0002,380 nm max payload  5339 nm FerryMach .7042,700 Ft$ 120m (est.)  
C-17 GlobemasterStrategic/tactical77,5202,380 nm max payload 4740 nm FerryMach .7745,000 Ft$ 360m  
C-5 GalaxyStrategic122,4722,400 nm max payload 6943 nm FerryMach .7734,000 Ft$ 168m  
An-124-100M-150Strategic150,0002,900 nm max payload 8909 nm FerryMach .6535,000 Ft$ 120m  
An-225Strategic250,0002,159 nm max payload 8350 nm FerryMach .6133,000 Ft  

They could be used for shorter range operations but 

 Aircraft ManufacturerRange STOL Paradrop Vehicles Risk 10T refuel400kts  MPA Price
 C-130JLockheed  Yes Yes Yes Yes Low No Poss No Yes US$92m
 A400M Airbus Yes Yes Yes Yes Low Yes Yes Yes No US$192m
 C-2 Kawasaki Yes Yes Yes Yes Medium Yes No Yes Yes $US120m
 KC-390 Embraer ? Yes Yes Yes Low No Yes Yes Yes ~$US70m
 AN70 Antonov  Yes Yes Yes Yes Medium Medium No Yes No ~$US100m
 IL76MD-90 United Aircraft Corporation Yes Yes Yes Yes High Yes No Yes No ~$US120m
 

The risk factor for the C-2 is due to the fact that Japan has a ban on military exports. The risk factor for the AN70 and IL76 is because Russia has developed a highly antagonistic view of the West since the mid-2000s and cannot be trusted. Its relations with the Ukraine have been strained as well but its recent order of AN70s is simply another example of its ability to use economic power for political influence. The Russian stance is a definite pity because the AN70 in particular would certainly be a contender.

The following aircraft could also be added to the list at the lower end of the range

Aircraft ManufacturerRange 5TMax Payload Paradrop Vehicles Risk 10T refuel400kts  MPA Price
C-295AirbusNo Yes small Yes Low No No No Yes US$26.5m
C-27J AermaachiNo Yes small Yes Low No Yes No No ~US$40m

 
As we have seen the existing RNZAF B757-200 offers the lowest cost long-range transport where para-dropping is not required. It is also notable that when we have had to ship three LAV IIIs by air it turned out that Qantas 747-400Fs were (we assume) the cheapest option ( although still over $200,000 each). This shows fundamentally that carrying heavy things by air is not as sensible as shipping them by sea. This means that the point of an aircraft is fundamentally speed not capacity.

Speed means not just flight time but also loading time and availability. If an aircraft is constantly needing maintenance then its availability creates delay on average over time. So a transport aircraft needs to have very high availability and ideally low operational costs. Low operational costs fundamentally come down to capital cost, fuel burn and operational maintenance.
 
While there is no immediate need to replace the C130Hs at the moment the aircraft worth watching would be:
 

KC-390

estimated cost US$70-90 million per unit

picture:Wikipedia
 

Embraer KC-390 

Design and manufacture: Embraer (Brazil)
Engines: 2 × IAE V2500-E5 turbofan,
Maximum fuel weight: 23.4T wing + 2 x 7T external
Fuel burn rate: 1.8T/hr
Maximum speed 411 kts
Cruise speed: 365 knots
Max Payload: 23T
Take-off run: 1297m
Ferry range: 3,250 nM
Range with 14T payload: 2,600 nM
Range with 19T payload 2,000 nM
Cargo: 1 LAV III or 80pax or 6 pallets

sources: Embraer and Wikipedia

 
Although still under development the KC-390 has developed significant momentum in recent years as more and more firms realise there is scope to challenge the C-130J on price and performance. Of special note is the aircraft's inherent air-to-air refueling capability making it a force multiplier for helicopters and similar aircraft.  Obviously they could refuel one-another. This is especially important given the range limitations of the NH-90 which cannot be readily deployed outside New Zealand without help. The KC-390 could extend the NH-90's operational range well into the Pacific.
 
Most important is that the low capital cost means for the amount spent on refurbishing the C-130Hs we could purchase two or three brand new aircraft. The low capital costs also reduces the aircraft's already low operational costs making the KC-390 the most economical option available.

Maritime Patrol Aircraft

The maritime patrol aircraft must be able to make an un-refueled return journey of 1,625 nautical miles (Auckland to Rarotonga) and spend one hour loitering over the target area. The aircraft should be able to operate from a minimum airfield of 1,650m length. The aircraft should be able to para-drop buoys or other devices to the sea surface.  The aircraft should be capable of incorporating new electronic devices and weapons mounts without difficulty.There must be minimal political risk of the aircraft being unsupportable because of sanctions by the manufacturers.
 
Nice to have's
  • Longer loiter time
  • 400 knot or higher cruise airspeed
  • mid-air refueling capability
  • low operating costs
  • Parts compatibility with the Transport Aircraft
See this introductory guide to maritime patrol aircraft available now.
 
Aircraft ManufacturerRange 1 hour Paradrop Flex Risk 2 hours refuel400kts  Transport Price
SH130J Lockheed Yes Yes Good Yes Low Yes No No Yes ~US$120m+
P-8 Boeing Yes Yes Limited ? Low Yes No Yes No US$198m
 P-1 KawasakiYes Yes Limited?HighYesNo YesYes ~US$200m
 Falcon 900 DassaultYes Yes Limited reduced MediumYesNoYesNo ?
 EMB-145MPA Embraer No No Limited ? Low No No YesNo  ~US$100m
 
Do we really need ASW?

One fundamental issue which needs to be resolved, however,  is whether New Zealand really does need a specialist Anti Submarine Warfare aircraft. The military tend to play up imaginary threats but the fact is there aren't any submarines in our part of the Pacific we would want to attack (assuming attacking a French submarine is ruled out as stupid). Indonesian submarines simply don't have the operational range to enter our waters and the Russians and Chinese have other concerns.
 
If we rule out the need for true anti-submarine warfare capability we are looking at a completely different kind of sensor suite. No longer are our aircraft looking for a submerged, high-tech, extremely stealthy weapon of war, instead we are simply looking to find lost sailors on the surface, monitor fishing boats and possibly attack surface targets. For this sort of thing all we need is a relatively broad search radar, electronic warfare capability, good thermal imaging and sonar buoy monitoring . In fact the higher the aircraft can fly the more sea area its radars can sweep.
 
The Raytheon AN/APY-10 used in the P-8 Poesidon, however the full radar package is not physically large
or the Leica airborne Lidar system.
What takes up all the space is the people needed to operate and run all the machinery.
 
Then there is the point that systems like the Poesidon are built with the assumption that the manned craft will also be able to manage and control a small fleet of drones. Drones equipped with smaller versions of the same radar and imaging systems used in the mother aircraft. Operationally the drones would be programmed to fly to the operational area, rendezvous with the control aircraft which would then direct them in a wide-area sea search.
 
A full range of naval drones can be found on the Naval Drones site. Of particular interest are the
 
 
Crew: 2 (ground control)
Length: 13 m
Wingspan: 20 m
Max takeoff weight: 8,255 kg
Fuel capacity: 3,600 kg
Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney Canada PW545B turbofan,  (18.32 kN) thrust
Maximum speed: 400 kts
Cruise speed: 349 kts
Endurance: 18 hours
Service ceiling: 50,000 ft
Internal weapons bay with 1,600 kg capacity.
6 external hardpoints. 450kg each
 

 Elbit Systems Hermes 900

 Gross weight: 1,100 kg (2,425 lb)
Powerplant: 1 × Rotax 914
Maximum speed:  119 kts
Cruising speed: 60 kts
Endurance: 36 hours
Service ceiling: 30,000 ft
 

Denel Bateleur

Max takeoff weight: 1,000 kg
Powerplant: 1 × Rotax 914 4-cyl. four stroke horizontally opposed piston engine, 75 kW
or 1x Subaru EA-82T 4-cyl. four stroke horizontally opposed piston engine, rated at 86kW 
Maximum speed: 135 kts
Range: 405 nm
(dictated by radio range otherwise 2,000nm)
Endurance: 18–24 hours
Service ceiling: 26,247 ft
 
The advantage of the mother-ship + drones approach is that it spreads the the risk and capability over numerous low cost and readily replaceable aircraft. As sensors, engines and intelligence improve the daughter drones become increasingly capable. Were we to ever contemplate needing ASW or other forms of military capability it would a matter of re-engineering the drones rather than an entire aircraft.

Business Jet Option

photo: Wikipedia


Ever since the introduction of the Embraer P-99  with incredibly low operating costs Navies the world over have started looking at business jets as a potential platform for Maritime Patrol Aircraft. Examples include:

 Aircraft Manufacturer Range Cruise Speed Sensor Systems Airframe cost Variable cost flight hour
 P-99 Embraer 1,800 nm 400 knots SAR & ELINT & FLIR $20m $2000
 Falcon 900 Dassault 4,750 nm 450 knots SAR & ELINT & FLIR $40m $4000
 550 Gulfstream6,000 nm 575 knots SAR & ELINT & FLIR $50m $4000
 Global 6000 Bombardier 6,000 nm 561 knots SAR & ELINT & FLIR $46m $4000

All of these jets specialise at flying high and fast. The benefit of flying high is that your radar covers more sea area. The disadvantage is that looking out the window is mostly going to show you cloud. To a certain extent a business jet with a sensor suite is not much different to a low earth orbit satellite. You can scan the sea but if you want to respond to what you find you will probably need to launch another aircraft which will incur even more cost. And while the business jet is cheaper than the traditional MPA it is still far more expensive than the drone, which can also fly high if need be.

Conclusion

Rather than replace the P-3K2s with a dedicated airframe it would make more sense to follow the example of the C-130 and adapt some KC-390s to maritime surveillance tasks. This would provide an aircraft, helicopter (and perhaps one day, drone) aerial refueling capability and retain the advantage of the transport aircraft's large paradropping door. This would reduce the transport aircraft's payload capacity somewhat but allow for the deployment of drone surface craft from the aircraft.

Advantages over the C-130 option

The main advantage over replacing the C-130Hs and P3K2s are
  • Much faster aircraft with higher maximum payload
  • Inherent aerial tanker aircraft to support same model, NH90, RAAF aircraft, and possibly drones

 
  

 KC-390 MPA conversion

Fleet: 3
Estimated Cost: (2013)US$360

Crew: 2 + 12 systems
Max Payload: 5T
Cruising Speed: 465 knots
Operational Range: 1,200 nM + 2 hours on station

Armament: Harpoon or Maverick missiles
                        forward 25mm cannon pod*
                        Submersible or Surface drones

*to intimidate fishing vessels

 G.A Avenger

Fleet: 6
Estimated cost (2013)US$120m
plus relay stations US$100m

Max Speed 400 Knots
Cruise Speed 350 Knots
Endurance 18 hours
Fuel: 3,600 kg

Cost per hour ~$500

Crew 2 (Ground or Air Station)

KC-390 - Transport

Fleet: 4
Estimated Cost: (2013)US$320

Crew: 2
Max Payload: 23T
Cruising speed: 465 knots
Operational Range: 1,800 nM with 10T payload

Armament: Paradropped munitions


 Total estimated cost (2013 US$) 900 million including UAV base stations

Operational cost savings would accrue through: lower maintenance costs of the KC-390 powerplants, new airframes etc. Hugely reduced cost of the GA Avenger per flight hour.  The low purchase price would also reduce the capital charge cost to a similar level as the existing aircraft.


The Hazard response capability profile would be as follows

HazardDesired Utility Vulnerability
Bollides
None Very low
Solar radiation
None Low
Volcano
Observation
Evacuation
Resupply (paradrop)

Ash, flying rocks

Earthquake
Observation
Mapping (subsea mapping)
Evacuation
Resupply (paradrop)
Airland resources
None
Tsunami
Observation
Mapping (subsea mapping)
Evacuation
Resupply (paradrop)
Airland resources
None
Cyclone/Flood
Observation
Mapping (subsea mapping)
Evacuation
Resupply (paradrop)
Airland resources
Minimal
Pandemic
Evacuation
Resupply (paradrop)
Airland resources
Infection
Agricultural epidemic
Observation
Mapping (subsea mapping)
Airland resources
Infection
Chemical fire/gas
Retardant drop
 None
Chemical/oil spill
Dispersant drop
None
Uncontrolled/Unsustainable fishing
Observation
Direct action
None
Piracy
Observation
Direct action
None
Maritime Search and Rescue
Observation
Launch surface rescue drone
Refuel helicopters
Sea drop resources (rescue drones)
Limited
Cyberwarfare
None
Systems breached
Terrorism
Observation
Direct action
Paradrop
Air or Sea land resources
 

SAM

State Sabotage/Mining
Observation
Direct action
Paradrop
Air land resources
Launch surface drone mine-hunter
 None
State failure
Observation
Mapping (subsea mapping)
Evacuation
Resupply (paradrop)
Airland resources
Low
Low intensity proxy wars
Observation
Mapping (subsea mapping)
Evacuation
Resupply (paradrop)
Airland resources
Mid-air refueling
Direct action
 Surface to Air Missile
Occupation/Guerilla Wars
Observation
Mapping (subsea mapping)
Evacuation
Resupply (paradrop)
Airland resources
Mid-air refueling
Direct action
Suicide attack

Surface to Air Missile

High intensity war
Observation
Mapping (subsea mapping)
Evacuation
Resupply (paradrop)
Airland resources
Mid-air refueling
Direct action

Surface to Air Missile

Fighter

Submarine Sneak Attack
Observation
Submersible hunter-killer drone launch
 Surface to Air Missile
Antarctic Responsibility
Observation
Mapping (subsea mapping)
Evacuation
Resupply (paradrop)
Airland resources

 Loss of personnel in cold


MEKO-200 Anzac Class frigates

As has already been discussed the ANZAC frigates are not particularly useful for responding to most of the hazards on the table above. Their main problem is they are too expensive to operate and we have no sensible ASW defence requirement. 
 
While the Navy would probably like to hold on to them the better course of action would be to sell them now while they are still worth something to someone. Prospective buyers would be 
 
1. Australia
2. Turkey
3. South Africa
 
all of whom operate Meko-200s already. Greece is unlikely to be in a position to buy anything. Other potential customers are:
 
1. The Philippines (which abandoned buying old Italian frigates in Feb 2013)
2. Algeria
3. Peru.
 
Probable recovered value for two 20-year old frigates : est $300m (or $150m each)
 
Replacement Vessels
 
1. A further Logistic Supply Vessel bringing the total to Two
2. Two Antarctic offshore patrol vessels modelled on KV Svalbard

  2 x

OPV

$200m
 

KV Svalbard

KV Svalbard is an environment protection ship built for operations off the coast of Norway. The ship is built to contain oil spills, put out rig fires, and break ice channels. The ship operates two NH90 helicopters.  It has a 57mm cannon for air, sea and land engagement. 
 
Name:KV Svalbard
Builder:Tangen VerftKragerø
Cost:NOK 575 million (US$80 million)[Note 1]
Laid down:9 August 2000
Launched:17 February 2001
Commissioned:15 December 2001
Identification:IMO number: 8640387
Status:In service

Class & type:Offshore patrol vessel
Displacement:6,375 tonnes
Length:340.2 ft (103.7 m) (overall)
292 ft (89 m) (waterline)
Beam:62.6 ft (19.1 m)
Height:27.2 ft (8.3 m)
Draught:21.3 ft (6.5 m)
Installed power:Four Rolls-Royce Bergen BRG-8 diesel generators (4 × 3,390 kW)
Propulsion:Diesel-electric
Two ABB Azipod units (2 × 5 MW)
Speed:17.5 knots (32.4 km/h; 20.1 mph)
Complement:50 (20 Officers and 45 Other Ranks split into 3 shifts with 2 shifts on board at any one time)
Sensors and
processing systems:
EADS TRS-3D /16 ES with IFF
Armament:Bofors 57 mm
12.7 mm machine gun
Aircraft carried:Capacity for two helicopters; one Lynxcarried initially, NH90 from 2009

Force Comparison

 Existing Replacement Difference
 
x5

 

x4
Advantages
Lower cost
Faster
Air-to-air refuelling
Higher Max Payload
Supports NH90s

Disadvantages
Not quite the same range


 
x6
 
x3
x6

Advantages
Faster
Lower operating cost
Tactical flexibility
Air-to-air refueling
Supports NH90s
Larger paradrop options

Disadvantages
Not ASW
More reliant on radar

x2
 
x2
 Advantages
Lower costs
Environmental protectio
Icebreaker

Disadvantages
Not a warship
No ASW

x1
 
x2

Advantages
More flexible operational base
Container transport
Vehicle transport
Self loading crane
Marine contingent
Helicopter operations

Disadvantages
More expensive

   
Remaining strategic systems include 
 
HMNZS Canterbury
HMNZS Otago and Wellington OPVs
 
which aren't due for replacement until 2030+
 

Savings

The savings from the changes outlines come from three areas: capital; personnel and operating costs.

Capital

The replacement value of two frigates, five transport aircraft, six ASW aircraft, and one oiler would be in the order of three billion dollars.

By replacing this with two logistics ships, two EPVs, four transport aircraft, three MPA aircraft and six drones we effectively halve the capital cost of the strategic defence overhead while arguably improving the all hazards capability of the force.

Personnel

The crews needed to operate the logistics ships (100) are larger than the existing oiler (50) but the crews of the EPVs (50) are a third those of the frigates (178).  The nett saving is 1/4 or 100 roles. The specialised ASW staff can be greatly reduced. The drone crews are considerably smaller than the eleven specialists on each P-3K2 Orion.  Once again 1/4 saving should be possible.

Operating Costs

The bulk of the Naval Combat Force operating cost is capital and personnel. The EPVS are twice the weight of the Anzac class frigate but their engines are 2 x 5MW diesels as opposed to the Anzacs s x 6.5MWs diesels plus the 22MW gas turbine. The much smaller crew also suggests a reduced overhead. The larger logistics ships have twice as many 5MW engines as the oiler.
The use of drones is far cheaper for maritime surveillance while the operating costs of the KC-390 are expected to be the same or better than the Hercules and P-3K2s.

Total

In total one might expect savings of around 25%.