Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[kiwipatriot69]

Just like there is no way in hell any NZ government is going to spend NZ$2.3 Billion on four P-8A Poseidon's and NZ$1.15 billion on Anzac upgrades and a new tanker to support them ..... hang on a minute.

Really govt had no realistic option, canning the P3 when there's no better option for the role? and Anzac upgrade just buys us time till its enivitable replacement.

Easier sell really to our public the Aotearoa being multi role, as one can argue the same for the P8, touting its multi role capability.

I hope though recent terror events will be shock enough for our Pm to realise that we no longer live in a benign environment, such attacks could happen anywhere, land sea or air, and we need in my opinion, better intelligence monitoring, more funding to fight terror networks, that means our military too.

 

[MrConservative]

This is such a specious argument.

No actually it was clearly sarcasm.

Surely you understand why the government will spend money on certain capabilities and be reluctant to spend on other capabilities?

Better than most.

The funny thing is you're the one who posted the helicopter options the military wanted only to have the government fund only 8 NH90s, the cheapest, bare minimum capability.

Nothing funny about that my friend. You are drawing a long and very inadvisable bow bring me into you argument about a decision made 15 years ago that went against a Defence recommendation.

 

[beegee]

Nothing funny about that my friend. You are drawing a long and very inadvisable bow bring me into you argument about a decision made 15 years ago that went against a Defence recommendation.

Why is it inadvisable? I'd love to hear what you have to say on the matter.

 

[Gracie1234]

There's no way in hell any NZ government is going to spend NZ$2.3 billion on two frigates.

I think everyone needs to remember that this government is not like the ones in the past, NZ inc and the government have a lot of spare cash. So if a good case can be made then it has a far better chance. In the past we were running up huge deficits and were cuts across a lot of core government services now we are running surpluses. It is a lot easier to write checks when there is money in your account.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

I think everyone needs to remember that this government is not like the ones in the past, NZ inc and the government have a lot of spare cash. So if a good case can be made then it has a far better chance. In the past we were running up huge deficits and were cuts across a lot of core government services now we are running surpluses. It is a lot easier to write checks when there is money in your account.

So far we've seen them drag the chain with the Hercules replacement for yrs on a decision now overdue, we got shortchanged from 6 to 4 with the P8 replacement, and got a dive hydrographic ship that will be pimped out to meet our naval requirements, however capable is still a far cry from what was intended.

And from future navy plans, retiring the Ipv ships as Aotearoa , dive ship, and possible third Opv comes online. If govt was truly serious about National security, a bare minimum in my book would be an extra frigate, 2 extra P8, a third Opv, and a few extra NH90, and three A400 M or C2 to go with five C130 J. Though that still won't address shortfalls in Air defence, battalion numbers etc.The ipv have shown capability in being deployed to the islands, keep at least a few in service too.

 

[beegee]

I think everyone needs to remember that this government is not like the ones in the past, NZ inc and the government have a lot of spare cash. So if a good case can be made then it has a far better chance. In the past we were running up huge deficits and were cuts across a lot of core government services now we are running surpluses. It is a lot easier to write checks when there is money in your account.

I would love for that to be true, but the defence budget continues to chug along at just over 1% of GDP, despite the surpluses.

I want to see a change in the country's attitude to defence, but I'm still waiting.

 

[ngatimozart]

Why is it inadvisable? I'd love to hear what you have to say on the matter.

Because Mr C has quite extensive knowledge of the history of that acquisition and knowledge of the people involved. I would suggest that you do some good research before going down that path. Secondly, he is a Moderator and picking fights with a Moderator are a not good idea.

 

[beegee]

Because Mr C has quite extensive knowledge of the history of that acquisition and knowledge of the people involved. I would suggest that you do some good research before going down that path. Secondly, he is a Moderator and picking fights with a Moderator are a not good idea.

Awesome, I'd love to benefit from his knowledge and experience of that matter. I'm not trying to pick a fight with him.

 

[seaspear]

From what I have read the business case for the R.N.Z.N Anzac replacement is not due till 2023 ,we could speculate and suggest different ships for several years ,perhaps others here with a better understanding of the navies needs may comment if frigate sized ships are whats required

 

[seaspear]

What changes would be required to the shipyard? The design is for a module production line. I may be practical to increase the drum beat of the process to add additional hulls as the modules can be constructed in parallel. Ordering long lead items would be necessary. Until we see the yard in operation it would be inappropriate to try and determine what its output potential is.

Implementation : Plan : Department of Defence
I understand the ships after 2027 will be delivered at well under two yearly intervals ,I haven't found anything to suggest a flexibility to increase the production rate

 

[alexsa]

Implementation : Plan : Department of Defence
I understand the ships after 2027 will be delivered at well under two yearly intervals ,I haven't found anything to suggest a flexibility to increase the production rate

Yes the implentation plan has a hull being delivered at a fixed interval .... that does not necessarily mean the shipyard is restricted to that capacity. In fact it would be resonable to asusme an output growth potential given the current governments focus on military exports. Suggest you read my post again, I questioned your assumption that the yard would need to reconfigured for additional hulls and asked you to justify this. As I said you should not assume a limit on capability of the yard until it is completed and in operation and there is information on its capabiliyt. Given the design and footrprint of the yard I suggest it may be capable of faster build rates, however, manpower and long lead items may be consideration.

 

[seaspear]

I understand your point I just cant find any flexibility mentioned to increase the production rate which is very similar to Govan and Scotstoun in the building of the City class , BAE there declined to spend money on new buildings requiring much of the later work on the frigates to be done outdoors ,the build tempo of the Hunter class seems to indicate that after the first ship two hulls may be worked on at the same time , there may not be physical room for 3 hulls ,this is why I would suggest that a country like New Zealand whose white paper on this may not come out till 2023 on the business case that then tenders is late for this build schedule ,
But if there was a new building on site and the future asw destroyers were built there then the frigate program could continue past 2040

 

[StevoJH]

I would be very surprised if BAE couldn't construct the Type 26's faster then the contract specified if they needed to, even without the yard at Portsmouth they had when building the Type 45's. They commissioned at a rate of one every 11 months, except for the last which commissioned 6 months after the ship before.

Just because the contract specifies a rate of delivery, that doesn't mean a yard isn't capable of building at a greater rate, it just means that either for financial, technical, or crew availability reasons they are being constructed at that rate.

 

[KiwiRob]

NZ would be better avoiding any UK link at all, dealing direct with OMT and acquiring a licence to the Iver Huitfeldt design and having the ships built in a South Korean yard, fitted out to NZ specs. Would work out cheaper in the long run. The original ships were built to military specs but built using commercial practices in the OMT yard (now defunct) The design also includes commercial practices which makes the Iver Huitfeldt FFG class easier and cheaper to operate, maintain and upgrade.

Why would you want to buy the older outdated OMT vessel? The Arrowhead 140 is a modernised Iver, if it wins it will be in production or near the end of production when the NZG looks at ordering new frigates. The Iver will have been out of production for close to 17 years at that point, it's going to be fun finding all the little bits and bobs which are no longer produced, whereas the Arrowhead will have already had all those bit and bobs found and replaced and the design thoroughly modernised.

The next issue is the Korean yard will have to adapt the design to their capabilities, they won't just be able to build off the class design provided by OMT. All shipyards have different building methodologies, capabilities and equipment, they will have to make workshops drawing to match there yard not the Odense Yard. Two ships built to the same class design at two different yards will be built differently, the Burkes are a good case in point, whilst they look identical the Bath and Ingalls built Burkes are built different under the skin.

So IMO if we are going to go down this road and Babcock's win Type 31E we would be much better off buying the modernised version from the established production line than buying the older design which hasn't been built in years from a yard which has never built one before.

 

[swerve]

NZ would be better avoiding any UK link at all, dealing direct with OMT and acquiring a licence to the Iver Huitfeldt design and having the ships built in a South Korean yard, fitted out to NZ specs. Would work out cheaper in the long run. The original ships were built to military specs but built using commercial practices in the OMT yard (now defunct) ....

That always makes me sad. Ancestors of mine were shipwrights in Odense 200 years ago, & others sailed the ships they built.

 

[MrConservative]

Why would you want to buy the older outdated OMT vessel?

The Arrowhead 140 is not the only offering of an OMT redesign of the baseline Iver F370. OMT offered albeit unsuccessfully the RAN a higher specification version of the Iver F370 design than the Arrowhead 140 Type 31e design currently on offer to RN for SEA 5000.

In my view one should not get hooked up on the Type 26 or Type 31 or other hull as the starting point because that is only one important dimension - to paraphrase the analogy of the P-8A that GF used - it is not just the airframe (hull) it is what is inside the airframe (hull) that also matters. Radar, sensors, EW, weapons, levels of integration all have a dramatic difference in cost and capability. One could have a Type 31 with all the bells and whistles or a cut price Type 26 variant and end up with the Type 31 being more expensive.

 

[alexsa]

I understand your point I just cant find any flexibility mentioned to increase the production rate which is very similar to Govan and Scotstoun in the building of the City class , BAE there declined to spend money on new buildings requiring much of the later work on the frigates to be done outdoors ,the build tempo of the Hunter class seems to indicate that after the first ship two hulls may be worked on at the same time , there may not be physical room for 3 hulls ,this is why I would suggest that a country like New Zealand whose white paper on this may not come out till 2023 on the business case that then tenders is late for this build schedule ,
But if there was a new building on site and the future asw destroyers were built there then the frigate program could continue past 2040

Yep ... there is not the physical room for three hulls in the consolidation hall but there is considerable room for modules. Again until we know the flow of the construction process we cannot make a call in this. The modules will be larger and more completely fitted out in this build meaning consoliation and then roll out for final fit may be a great deal shorter than the Hobart DDG.

Finally BAE are not building this yard (and the Naval Group are not building the Submarine yard). This is being done by a government entity so it is not BAE who will cost cut.

Home

 

[seaspear]

You are correct that BAE does not have to build the yard but their responsibility is for only nine frigates and there is nothing in the link below that suggests flexibility to in crease production in that timeline
Steel raised at Osborne Naval Shipyard
The later part of the build rate has been described as ambitious at a rate of 18 months per ship ,this appears much faster than the Hobart class

 

[Redlands18]

You are correct that BAE does not have to build the yard but their responsibility is for only nine frigates and there is nothing in the link below that suggests flexibility to in crease production in that timeline
Steel raised at Osborne Naval Shipyard
The later part of the build rate has been described as ambitious at a rate of 18 months per ship ,this appears much faster than the Hobart class

To be absolutely honest about it Australia’s chances of getting a export order to build T26s is pretty low. Just about every Country looking at Warships of this size can build there own and Australia would have to compete in that Market
Realistically who else would buy the Type 26? US is a long shot at best considering it was not in the original 5. NZ we don’t know at this stage and will not know before the middle of next Decade and that will be at best 2 Vessels.

 

[spoz]

Australia is not expecting to export the Hunter class - the drumbeat is supposed to complete the SEA 5000 Program at a time when they can roll straight into Hobart replacements. So if Kiwi (or anybody else, unlikely as that may be) wants some, the drumbeat would have to be compressed, something Australia is not planning for.