Just got this from The Age, a Melbourne Newspaper.
So it looks like we and the RAN might get the same helos. Since the RAN have just bought SH60R the question is will the NZG stump up the money to replace our SH3Gs with the SH60Rs and more than 5?
Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
t68
Well-Known Member
Might be about a co-operative agreement to Sea 5000 future frigate.
Edit,
Just been looking thru the mainstream news here,cannot find any refrence to the talks.
Thanks - much more complete write up - since there are so many 'stories' out I guess the complete picture may be still to come out !
SH60s would be great, I guess it could also be be allowing NZ to purchase the defunct RAN SH2's from Kaman...or perhaps work on a light naval helicopter project for service on NZ OPV's/ AU OCV's ?
t68
Well-Known Member
Your Seasprite were new builds unlike the Australian version handed back to Kaman and are on average 10 years old. Unless Egypt or Poland are after more you’ll be hanging on to them for some time. With hindsight RNZN I believe went the correct way at the time with RAN offering overly ambitious, but in the end we came away with best aircraft for the job MH-60R.
Looks to be a lot came out of the talkfest, have to wait see the official release.
NZ PM seeks trans-Tasman push in Asia
Regardless of the final outcome, joint purchases with Oz make fiscal sense, given the per unit cost is likley to be lower plus the level of military inflation. There would be logistical benefit in the joint purchases of spares.
The OCV makes sense (ideally 2 - Yes I know get my head out of the clouds). However the time frame indicates an inital in service date are after the decomissioning date of Manawanui. Given she's been around since 79 I don't think an extension is possible.
The OCV makes sense (ideally 2 - Yes I know get my head out of the clouds). However the time frame indicates an inital in service date are after the decomissioning date of Manawanui. Given she's been around since 79 I don't think an extension is possible.
Yep - I am very doubtful this bi-lateral defence framework is initially discussing a single Kiwi OCV - as SEA1180 is at this stage still 10 years away and the Manawanui has a max of 5 years left if it is very gently nursed along. SEA1180 developments may see NZ frequently briefed as to the project - yet project partnership details are years away whilst the IPV's and OPV's are still fresh.
Just a thought, with the SEA 5000 ships likely to end up as virtual AWDs (improvements in technology etc) chances are the RNZN wont be allowed to look at them. However with the OCVs potentially displacing up to 2000tons there is a chance you guys could end up with a higher end corvette version of the OCV. This would be great as it would improve the base vessel that the RAN ends up with as well.
Why do you say that Volk? It is quite clear that the NZ Govt wants to have and needs to have a high end frigate capability. Why would it not be the case? Its requirement for such a vessel is for exactly the same strategic reasons as Australia. It is front and centre in the DWP. It seems that people have to move on from examining the NZDF requirements through the lense of the Helen Clark world view that dominated the previous 15 years.
Why wouldn't the RNZN not be allowed to look at them? You might find RNZN personnel serving on them and other ships in the RAN fleet, just as we will have RAN personnel in our fleet. It's not going to be so much about 'national security' but you may find a lot closer interoperatability between the two navies than exists now. That must be a win win for both navies. For the RAN, personnel who are trained in a very similiar regime and culture, who can be trained in new systems and will be a pool of talent against a time of need. For the RNZN, access to modern systems and training that it hasn't got, because of its size and it's personnel will be exposed to operating in a larger navy that has a very similiar regime and culture. Maybe one day a couple of the sons of collins will, on occasion, be operating out of Devenport. Jeez won't that get the Greens and the peaceniks frothing at the mouth :sniper
I guess we will just have to wait and see what comes out in the wash.
If Coleman & Smith are planning a joint ship project for the near future then I hope it is for an AOR, especially if the comments on the RAN thread about HMAS Success being completely munted have any validity. I find it unlikely that the project would be the OCV or the frigate replacement (both are too early in development for NZ to commit to).
For the time being, NZ should stay well clear of the Aussie OCV project. It's too high-risk. It has the potential for another Aussie Seasprite / Canadian JSS type fiasco. Once it's in the water & proven to actually work then have a good look at signing on, but not before. There are too many competing requirements - it will try to combine 4 ship types (hydrographic survey, MCM, diving, OPV / patrol boat). How do you marry the high speed cruise of an OPV / patrol boat with the low speed loiter / low noise requirement of a survey vessel or the non-magnetic hull & blast protection of an MCM vessel? It's likely to be staggeringly expensive or not meet the requirements at all well in some roles. And they want to arm it & possibly add a helicopter to boot. All in 2000t or less. Dream on!
I would be surprised if we switched the Seasprites for MH-60Rs. Sure, the parts situation would improve, but it must cost a lot more per hour to run a MH-60R.
I can't see the new defence framework working very well. The NZ defence budget is so far south of the Australian one that NZ will never keep up. We will be forever trying to keep up with the Joneses (in NZ's case literally). That is my major beef with the recently released NZDF joint amphibious taskforce plan. It's not our plan - it's Australia's. NZ's budget won't stretch to meet it.
Chis73
If Coleman & Smith are planning a joint ship project for the near future then I hope it is for an AOR, especially if the comments on the RAN thread about HMAS Success being completely munted have any validity. I find it unlikely that the project would be the OCV or the frigate replacement (both are too early in development for NZ to commit to).
For the time being, NZ should stay well clear of the Aussie OCV project. It's too high-risk. It has the potential for another Aussie Seasprite / Canadian JSS type fiasco. Once it's in the water & proven to actually work then have a good look at signing on, but not before. There are too many competing requirements - it will try to combine 4 ship types (hydrographic survey, MCM, diving, OPV / patrol boat). How do you marry the high speed cruise of an OPV / patrol boat with the low speed loiter / low noise requirement of a survey vessel or the non-magnetic hull & blast protection of an MCM vessel? It's likely to be staggeringly expensive or not meet the requirements at all well in some roles. And they want to arm it & possibly add a helicopter to boot. All in 2000t or less. Dream on!
I would be surprised if we switched the Seasprites for MH-60Rs. Sure, the parts situation would improve, but it must cost a lot more per hour to run a MH-60R.
I can't see the new defence framework working very well. The NZ defence budget is so far south of the Australian one that NZ will never keep up. We will be forever trying to keep up with the Joneses (in NZ's case literally). That is my major beef with the recently released NZDF joint amphibious taskforce plan. It's not our plan - it's Australia's. NZ's budget won't stretch to meet it.
Chis73
t68
Well-Known Member
Not to nit pick operating or visiting?
Wonder what slogan they will paint on the side of them. It seems a bit odd that a RAN submarine will use Devonport as staging point, can understand if it were to refuel after an unexpected problem/ long patrol through the South Pacific area.
Have any past RAN submarine made a visit to NZ?
Actually no. Now is a good time to start looking seriously at such a project because it is one that is going to take a long time. By the time a design is on the board the ANZACs will be nearing their use by date.
One design and modular building including materials for specific for a particular role. If you need a MCM with non magnetics and blast protection then all you do is change you materials. Need a slower speed a loiter speed, well thats not a problem you keep the revolutions down. The low noise of a survey vessel? You can allow for that in your build of that particular vessel. Anyway todays multi beam echo sounders and associated software do account for some noise, but you are not sounding at high speed anyway because you want accuracy and high resolution; quality over quantity especially when it involves under keel depths. Same with the latest side scan sonars.
It's not just the parts per se, it's the overall service from Kaman and the fact we are operating an orphan helo fleet. It is costing us money hand over fist because we cannot utilise our helos as well as we should. We aint getting, in this case, flight hours for buck. If we get the MH60R we will in the long term be fiscally better off because we will be tied in the the RAN and the USN logistics tail.
I would have presumed that our polies have done some number crunching before they have bought into this. Bottom line is that they want some things from the AussieG, such as better deals for Kiwis living and working in Australia, and they have to horse trade to get it. This is going to cost them money and I bet you they have it figured out to the last cent. What this boils down to, is that all the penny pinching policy birds of the last 30 years, are coming home to roost and the NZG is starting to realise, it has humungous defence expenditures coming up in the next 15 - 20 years. Me thinks that it is being sheeted home by the Aussies and US, behind closed doors, that NZG must pull its finger out on defence. Uncle Helen didn't do this country any favours at all, and committing to Afghanistan was probably what saved the ANZAC relationship, because she went out of her way to damage it. So hopefully NZG will start quietly committing more resources to Vote: Defence and maybe change it's policy on capital expenditure, in order to sort out the Seasprite issue, the Andover replacement, the Manawanui replacement and the Endeavour replacement. Like you say we will have wait and see, but as sure as yer arse points to ground there was some serious horse trading going on & it'll have cost the NZG some.
Maybe a bit of both. Yes the Oberons were over because I went aboard one in Wellington either 1980 or 1981 for a nosey. It was over for an exercise so it would have been one of the ASW ones, maybe the Fincastle. Some of the exercise would have been done in the Hauraki Gulf and maybe in Cook Strait as well. Cook Strait would make it interesting in some ways for a sub hunt because of the water flows through there and the canyons.
Chris our SH2G’s are extremely expensive to operate for the actual capability they provide @ NZ$31000 per flight hour. That figure does not include the capital charge or depreciation but includes operational costs and fixed 6 Squadron costs. We spend around $95m a year keeping our five in the air.
Going with the Romeo’s over the long term – that may be relatively cost neutral as with a MOU with the ADF can assist both parties (and us in particular) in respect to acquisition, operation, sustainment and controlling costs. We also get a maritime rotary asset that is suitable for the future not one which is 90’s era.
I see the defence framework working very well myself and in fact I am also supportative of the amphibious force concept that General Jones is taking us down. Far more appropriate than what Labour envisaged mid 1990's and enacted 10 years ago. Far more lucid and purposeful than Nationals DWP91 and DWP97. This is just as much NZ's plan than any other nation - a lot of it coming down to the fact the there is real dialouge again evolving under CDR as opposed to nothing of any great substance beyond ministerial talking points as happened between 99-07. The difference in budget has always been there even in the past – we never operated an ASW Carrier or Destroyers or Submarines et al thus we did not need such a greater defence spend GDP%. Australia has far greater and more far expensive defence infrastructural needs due to its land mass being 20 times the size - something which gets lost in the platform this and that chatter.
One thing I can't remember Mr C is if the A109s are marinised or not. Because if they are then we can put them on the OPVs rather than the MH60Rs (if we get them). The OPVs do not need an ASW component so a Romeo would be over kill. Like someone else mentioned the RAN A109s are coming off lease at some stage soon and maybe a cheeky NZG could put an offer in for the 3 helos. Same argument I have for the USAF C27Js. Second hand aircraft, hardly used.
IIRC the LUH airframes we fly can handle short term deployments on the OPV's - of course hangered - which is a moot point because - if my tired brain can recollect aren't the rotor blades not quite right? Agusta did build a 109KN which it marketed as its Light Maritime bird at some stage. I don't think it was really that dramatically different than a spec'ed up mil version.
BTW It was me who mentioned the three RAN 109's ending their lease in a couple of years. Perfect solution for the training role - will be in excellent order, low time, configured for what we need and a quick sale from Raytheon. Won't break the bank.
Yep Putting a Romeo on a Protector OPV is like those boyracer clowns who put $4000 18'' alloys on a 92' Mazda 323. :haha Maybe I am being a bit too harsh........
Alittle off topic perhaps but my understanding was that at this point a displacement for the class was not set and very much in flux.
Also the concept seems to be more about using the OPV as a mothership of sorts for ROVs which are purposed designed for MCM or survey etc. Whether this can actually deliver the capability the RAN wants with regards to MCM is still to be seen but with the advances in unmanned vehicles over the past 10 years or so you would think its possible. There are alot of similar projects going on around the world and lots of potential for collaboration.
There was also talk of a base class with some ships being specialised to suit certain tasks.
You're right though, it would be a big leap of faith for NZ to commit to any of the up coming RAN projects when the RAN hasn't even set down solid plans yet.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
IIRC the A109's are not particularly suitable for deployment aboard the OPV's. From memory they were not marinised which means the salt air enviro could become problematic, and the rotor assembly is not folding.
While some form of LUH with a winch, sea search radar and EO system would certainly be good for patroling and SAR work, such capabilities IMO will need to wait until either the A109 replacement or when they get augmented.
-Cheers
That sounds high, but to decide whether replacing them with another type would save money, you have to do a lot of analysis. You'd need to know -
The fixed costs for both types.
The marginal cost per hour for both types.
The capital cost of the new type, including new infrastructure & other set-up costs.
Any money that could be recouped from selling the SH-2Gs or parts thereof.
If that hourly rate includes fixed costs, then increasing the hours flown wouldn't increase the total cost by anywhere near NZ$31000 per hour.
Tee_Centre_10
Member
No doubt, but is the RNZN and NZG seriously thinking about a 7000+ tonne frigate with high-end threat systems (I would assume not including the Land Attack Cruise Missile capability)?
I only ask because from the upgrades Te Kaha and Te Mana have had so far since introduction to service I would suggest not, and operations in high-threat environments do not seem to be a priority.
Only last year did an upgrade to ESSM from SS and a limited upgrade to sensors go to RFI, some eight years after the RAN began to put ESSM into service. A cynic might think that the ESSM upgrade might have more to do with the expense of sustaining a legacy Sea Sparrow capability.
RAN/RNZN platform commonality is great, but it hasn't done much good for the Anzac-class because there have been very different upgrade needs and resources. The two navies have been on different upgrade paths, and at the end of the RAN ASMD upgrade there will be even less commonality than now.
Reading the NZ DWP 2010, it didn't seem to me that there was an intent to purchase a common platform or indeed necessarily in a high-end frigate capability.
Mentions of frigates was confined to Anzac-class upgrades in order to maintain a "credible combat capability" and indistinct references to a future replacement about 2030. Has there been credible talk about the replacement?
Paragraphs 3.13 and 3.38 (among others) say to me that NZ thinks it is going to find it difficult to keep up with the high-end capabilities, and NZ is going to focus on maintaining the capability to project their own forces independently in a regional way while also having the ability to operate as a part of a coalition.
At the end of the Anzac-class replacement capability analysis, the RNZN might decide that the needs and interests of the RAN are not the same as theirs, and might fork instead to a different design better suited to the needs and resources of the RNZN.
What if a more modest 4500-5000 tonne design meant the RNZN could have three hulls, or even four at the expense of commonality and higher-end defence systems? It depends on how/where the government of the day believes the vessels will be operated.
Similarly the MH-60R conversation is very interesting and raises quite a few issues. The MH-60R is a very expensive piece of kit, I think something in the order of $40-45m each. It may not suit the RNZAF to operate such a type, nor the RNZN to utilise it.
If we are going to go down the commonality road again, perhaps there should be a look at how the RAN/RNZN operates. To make the most of it, the RAN/RNZN has to remain in lock-step regarding upgrades and capability.