Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[ngatimozart]

I have no idea why any nation would want to build frigates using commercial shipping standards. NZ needs to look at the most capable ship it can afford and I am not convinced that the Type31 ... whichever ship that turns out to be ... is the answer.

The naval shipbuilding standards aren't the be all to end all either. During WW2 the RN CVs had armoured flight decks and IIRC most of their CVs that were sunk were sunk by torpedo, apart from HMS Glorious which was sunk by gunfire by the Kreigsmarine battleships Gneisenau and Scharnhorst during the Norwegian campaign in 1940. By contrast the USN CVs had wooden flight decks which were easily punctured by bombs, resulting in the loss of CVs due to air attack.

The RN ships that were first line ships at the time of the Falklands War, had a significant amount of aluminium as part of their build which, in hind sight, turned out to be a mistake. As any school student, who took an interest in chemistry knows, when aluminium ribbon is subjected to naked flame it burns very well. So when the RN ships were hit by Exocet missiles or bombs, the aluminium ignited and burned quickly and hotly, whereas the steel was more resistant to the ensuing heat because it had a higher ignition temperature.

There is also naval tradition which dictates that some things happen certain ways because that is how it is done in the navy and the hierarchy in navies, per se, can sometimes be resistant to change. Just because Grand Admiral Noah did it that way, when he sailed his Ark, doesn't mean that we should still continue to do it that way now.

This region will become increasingly more contested over the next 30 years and buying equipment that isn't up to the task of dealing with this problem is just a waste of money.

My first preference would still be for NZ to buy the Type 26. If they can't afford the Australian Aegis equipped version then just get the UK version. If they can't afford that then look at the US FFG(X). There are lots of other candidates which offer a lot more proven capability than theType 31 will be designed to deliver.

First things first, NZ is not in a position to afford the T-26 either from the UK or Australia and most likely Babcock and UKG will not be agreeable to it being built in an Asian yard. Well we could maybe buy one sans weapons. Secondly we don't need a specialised ASW or AAW ship but a FFGP that has a good AAW and ASW suite.

If we acquired Iver Huitfelds we would not be buying the T-31 because that would not meet NZ requirements AND why should we allow Babcock to clip the ticket, when we want to Kiwi-ise the ship? For what we would pay for a pommy T-31, that would basically be useless to us, we could with OMT build on the Iver Huitfeld design adding modern sensors and weapons that meet our needs. Start with what is going into the RNZN FFH upgrade as an example and add SSMs etc. We would need to add some coin, but for what two T-26 would cost us, we could get four Iver Huitfeld NZ variant ships or three or four SK or Japanese 5 - 6000 tonne FFGs, all built in SK or Japan.

 

[oldsig127]

The RN ships that were first line ships at the time of the Falklands War, had a significant amount of aluminium as part of their build which, in hind sight, turned out to be a mistake. As any school student, who took an interest in chemistry knows, when aluminium ribbon is subjected to naked flame it burns very well. So when the RN ships were hit by Exocet missiles or bombs, the aluminium ignited and burned quickly and hotly, whereas the steel was more resistant to the ensuing heat because it had a higher ignition temperature.

The aluminium myth persists despite the release of an unredacted copy of the official report into the sinking of Sheffield. The first quote is from Wikipedia, not a faultless source but a decent sumary of a deal of information available on public record

The sinking of Sheffield is sometimes blamed on a superstructure made wholly or partially from aluminium, the melting point and ignition temperature of which are significantly lower than those of steel. However, this is incorrect as Sheffield's superstructure was made entirely of steel.[22] The confusion is related to the US and British Navies abandoning aluminium after several fires in the 1970s involving USS Belknap and HMS Amazon and other ships that had aluminium superstructures.[22][a] The sinking of the Type 21 frigates Antelope and Ardent, both of which had aluminium superstructures, probably also had an effect on this belief, though these cases are again incorrect and the presence of aluminium had nothing to do with their loss.[23][24][25]

The fires on Sheffield and other ships damaged by fire caused a later shift by the Royal Navy from the nylon and synthetic fabrics then worn by British sailors. The synthetics had a tendency to melt on to the skin, causing more severe burns than if the crew had been wearing non-synthetic clothing.[citation needed]

The official report into the sinking of Sheffield, disclosed in 2006 under UK Freedom of Information laws after an extensive campaign by ex-RN personnel,[16] severely criticised the ship's fire-fighting equipment, training and procedures and certain members of the crew.[26] In 2017, a complete copy of the report was issued, revealing information that had been redacted from the summary of the board’s findings in the 2006 release. Multiple issues that left the ship unprepared for the attack were identified, including findings of negligence by two officers.

Also this article which (to be fair) could be considered self serving given the authorship, quotes impeccable sources on the subject

ALUMINUM'S NOT TO BLAME FOR WARSHIP LOSS

oldsig

 

[ASSAIL]

Found this interesting article on the ABC website, you RNZers will be happy that your favourite little steamer lives on

'You can't find these in Kmart': NSW couple buys warship

Re Manawanui, sorry folks the link is misbehaving. You can find the whole link on the ABC news online today.
If anyone can successfully copy could you do me a favour.

 

[Jezza]

'You can't find these in Kmart': NSW couple buys warship

Should be working now

 

[John Fedup]

Looks like lots of potential for an exploration yacht conversion.

 

[Rob c]

The naval shipbuilding standards aren't the be all to end all either. During WW2 the RN CVs had armoured flight decks and IIRC most of their CVs that were sunk were sunk by torpedo, apart from HMS Glorious which was sunk by gunfire by the Kreigsmarine battleships Gneisenau and Scharnhorst during the Norwegian campaign in 1940. By contrast the USN CVs had wooden flight decks which were easily punctured by bombs, resulting in the loss of CVs due to air attack.

All the RN carriers sunk during WW2 did not have armoured flight decks, these were only fitted to fleet carriers post Ark Royal (1938) a total of only 8 were so fitted of which 6 where to see service in WW2 and all carriers so fitted survived the war, often after suffering considerable damage. Illustrious survived 13 hits from 250 kg (550 lb) and 500 kg (1100 lb ) bombs in the Med. The RN Pacific fleet armoured carriers all were hit at least once and sometimes twice by Kamikazes and all were operational after hits within hours due to the flight deck not being penetrated and the high level of fire suppression the RN insisted on in their carriers. They considered the hangar area as a magazine. This did impress the USN and was partly responsible for the Midway class which had armoured flight decks. However I do consider that USN underwater protection was superior to that fitted to RN ships.

 

[ASSAIL]

'You can't find these in Kmart': NSW couple buys warship

Should be working now

Thanks Jezza

 

[Redlands18]

'You can't find these in Kmart': NSW couple buys warship

Should be working now

Intending to put it to a worthy cause too, the preservation of Naval wrecks from WW2, mainly stopping Oil Leaks.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

'You can't find these in Kmart': NSW couple buys warship

Should be working now

Intending to put it to a worthy cause too, the preservation of Naval wrecks from WW2, mainly stopping Oil Leaks.

Says a lot really about the durability of ships of this type, good to see shes not being scrapped, and will provide an essential role for many years to come! I hope the "new" Manuwanui does Nz Navy a similar service.

 

[ngatimozart]

The aluminium myth persists despite the release of an unredacted copy of the official report into the sinking of Sheffield. The first quote is from Wikipedia, not a faultless source but a decent sumary of a deal of information available on public record
Also this article which (to be fair) could be considered self serving given the authorship, quotes impeccable sources on the subject

ALUMINUM'S NOT TO BLAME FOR WARSHIP LOSS

oldsig

@oldsig127 Thanks. I stand corrected.

 

[KiwiRob]

If we acquired Iver Huitfelds we would not be buying the T-31 because that would not meet NZ requirements AND why should we allow BAE to clip the ticket, when we want to Kiwi-ise the ship? For what we would pay for a pommy T-31, that would basically be useless to us, we could with OMT build on the Iver Huitfeld design adding modern sensors and weapons that meet our needs. Start with what is going into the RNZN FFH upgrade as an example and add SSMs etc. We would need to add some coin, but for what two T-26 would cost us, we could get four Iver Huitfeld NZ variant ships or three or four SK or Japanese 5 - 6000 tonne FFGs, all built in SK or Japan.

BAE have nothing to do with the Iver Huitfeld, that's the Babcock entrant, BAE aren't even a prime contractor for Type 31e, they are part of the Cammell Laird lead consortium, what BE have provided is an upgraded patrol boat design turned into a very light frigate.

So what you're proposing is paying OMT to make all the upgrades to the Iver and get some Asian yard to build it? Why wouldn't you go with the already modernised Babcock version? They are planning on building many more than just the 5 vessels the RN wants, the production line for Arrowhead 140 should still be active when NZ is ready to replace ANZAC.

 

[40 deg south]

BAE have nothing to do with the Iver Huitfeld, that's the Babcock entrant, BAE aren't even a prime contractor for Type 31e, they are part of the Cammell Laird lead consortium, what BE have provided is an upgraded patrol boat design turned into a very light frigate.

So what you're proposing is paying OMT to make all the upgrades to the Iver and get some Asian yard to build it? Why wouldn't you go with the already modernised Babcock version? They are planning on building many more than just the 5 vessels the RN wants, the production line for Arrowhead 140 should still be active when NZ is ready to replace ANZAC.

Sure, but first they have to win the Type 31 contract. Actually, first the British government have to decide they actually want the Type 31 at all, go through the process of contracting for them. The on-again off-again nature of the project so far doesn't fill me with confidence.

I assume that Babcock wouldn't proceed with the Arrowhead 140 if they didn't win the Type 31 contract. Unless they already had some pretty firm leads on offshore sales, which seems unlikely.

Incidentally, it is interesting that the Arrowhead 140 seems to have disappeared from the Babcock website, while the 120 lingers on. Perhaps there is some sort of grand re-launch planned.

Cammell Laird are certainly going all out on the PR front with their Leander.

 

[40 deg south]

On another NZ forum , a user called nighthawknz posted some interesting pics from Australian Maritime Technologies. (I have a feeling they are descended from the local outpost of the German company that build the ANZACs, but haven't confirmed that)

RNZN Frigate System Upgrade |

AMT have played a key design role in both the Platform Systems Upgrade and the current Frigate Systems Upgrade. The piece contains the best computer-generated pictures I have seen of how the Kiwi ANZACs will look post-refit. To this landlubber, the changes are very striking.

 

[ngatimozart]

BAE have nothing to do with the Iver Huitfeld, that's the Babcock entrant, BAE aren't even a prime contractor for Type 31e, they are part of the Cammell Laird lead consortium, what BE have provided is an upgraded patrol boat design turned into a very light frigate.

Sorry, my mistake. I've corrected it.

So what you're proposing is paying OMT to make all the upgrades to the Iver and get some Asian yard to build it? Why wouldn't you go with the already modernised Babcock version? They are planning on building many more than just the 5 vessels the RN wants, the production line for Arrowhead 140 should still be active when NZ is ready to replace ANZAC.

I don't buy into the pommy hyperbole about how their kit is the best in the world. I've had the misfortune of owning 2 to many pommy cars. At present the Type 31 is some pommy pollies and MOD bureaucrats wet dream, to justify not building enough Type 45 DDG and Type 26 FFG for an adequate escort screen for their new CVs, let alone the rest of the RN's needs to meet requirements made of it by the UK GOTD. The Type 31 is something I won't believe until the first ship achieves IOC, especially given the history of pommy defence procurement since WW2. The way things are going, in 50 years the RN will consist of 3 rowboats armed with an automatic grenade launcher, each commanded by an Admiral.

Babcock are going to install a GT into the Arrowhead which I initially thought was a great idea until spoz posted this about a month ago:

But the GT guzzles fuel; and from a silencing point of view the gear box (and indeed the complete shafting and the propellers) are, or at least can be, significant sources of noise. Depending on how the diesels are mounted they can be quietened; and driving through electric motors rather than gear boxes (a la T23 or T26) is the best solution - although the least noisy designs do have the diesels used for quiet state mounted above the water line. And of course GT ships driving through gear boxes need SSDGs (or dedicated GT driven alternators) to provide electrical power.

As for faster power availability, maybe - but there is a significant spool up time (partly because just fully opening the throttle from a lower power state without allowing the engine to catch up risks a flame out so that's normally automatically managed) and usually there is a need to bring an additional GT on line as, because of the inherent inefficiency of GTs low down in the power band, an all GT ship normally runs off the minimum number necessary to achieve the speed required.

However, even just changing out diesels for GTs would be a significant redesign with possibly knock on effects to stability etc, I'm not sure NZ would want to pay for that.

IIRC the current Ivers do 28+ knots at full noise with 4 x diesels and he has a valid point about dampening the engine vibrations and quietening the noise. What about a CODLAD propulsion system?

Regarding upgrades to the the Ivers, I have previously said the sensors, weapons, decoys fit etc., should be the same as on the ANZAC Frigate Systems Upgrade, plus SSM and two millennium guns. OMT have previously said that the Ivers can be tailored to the clients needs, so that shouldn't be an issue. We wouldn't be using STANFLEX so hopefully that should leave space for a minimum of 24 Mk-41 tactical length VLS and 12 - 16 ExLS VLS (SeaCeptor SAM). I would also like to see upgraded ASW along the lines of either towed array or VDS on the ships, ASROC, and a dipping sonar on the helos. Currently the Danish Ivers have 2 x 76 mm guns, but we'd go with 1 x 127 mm gun.

Doing it this way, I believe it's still be significantly better value for money and a more capable platform than going the Type 31 route with Babcock and UKG PLC.

 

[Massive]

We would need to add some coin, but for what two T-26 would cost us, we could get four Iver Huitfeld NZ variant ships

I doubt that the Arrowhead 140 is going to end up being half the cost of a T-26.

Suspect that it will end up not saving much at all given the fit-out proposed.

Regardless of what happens the RNZN is going to end up with a High-Low mix of frigate and OPV. If doing this ideally you would go for the High part of the mix being as high as possible.

Hopefully this will translate into 3 T-26.

But let's see.

Massive

 

[htbrst]

An awesome time lapse of the demise of HMNZS Endeavour.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=563289860769593

 

[seaspear]

The Tide class built in South Korea for the R.N may not be a warship but shows governments may not always build domestically in the right circumstances

 

[StingrayOZ]

The Iver Hutfields were originally built in Lithuania and Estonia. I would imagine if you wanted a overseas build of something like that then Lithuania would be the low cost option. If they Type 31 is based off this design, it still might be possible to have block built cheaper in Lithuania and shipped to the UK for final assembly.

To be honest NZ needs to work out what they want and see if they can join an existing production.

 

[beegee]

We wouldn't be using STANFLEX so hopefully that should leave space for a minimum of 24 Mk-41 tactical length VLS and 12 - 16 ExLS VLS (SeaCeptor SAM).

One of the nice things about the Ivers is they have a ton of space and weight margin in their "bathtub" weapons deck:

As you can see, there are 32 Mk41 strike length VLS cells, with two stanflex module Mk 56 VLS launchers either side (for 24 x ESSM). Then there are stanflex module Mk 141 launchers in front of them for 16 x Harpoons. For NZ we could keep the Mk41s, replace the stanflex Mk56s with the fixed Sea Ceptor launchers from the ANZACs (plus more for the extra ship ) and leave the space occupied by the Mk 141s empty for future SSMs.

 

[MrConservative]

To be honest NZ needs to work out what they want

The systems requirements and their integration is the starting point. Integration in the wider sense as well per the USN as this platform will be primarily a force enabler viz USN, RAN, RoK, Singapore and the JMSDF in the Indo-Pacific strategic domain.