Yes, Australia's chance of exporting Type 26s is very small, but there are potential customers, e.g. Brazil. Those possible customers would probably want to build them under licence, though.
Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
Itália oferece fragatas FREMM ao Brasil - Poder Naval - A informação naval comentada e discutida
perhaps financing could be an option to purchase frigates for the R.N.Z.N
perhaps financing could be an option to purchase frigates for the R.N.Z.N
The problem isn't whether the NZ government has the money. They have the money, they're just not willing to spend large sums of money on a capability they deem as low priority.
A quick price comparison...
FFG(X) - USD $800m
FREMM - USD $750m
T26/Hunter - USD $1b +
If these are presented... NZ politicians and the treasury wail and gnash their teeth, the NZ public cry "what about the health system and education system? Who will think of the children?"
Wah, wah, wah.
Alternatives...
T31 - USD $331m
South Korean FFX Batch 2 - HHI building two ships for USD $563m
South Korean Thai frigate - USD $410m
A T31 version or a SK designed frigate are going to be a hell of a lot easier to sell to the government, and their relatively low sticker price might even make the possibility of a third vessel possible (a navy commander made the comment he doesn't care what they get as long as they get three of them).
The T31 will look especially good because it will tick the other main procurement box; low risk. That's why I really hope the Arrowhead wins that contest.
That's the situation as it stands today. Who knows what other options will be available in ten years time. The only way I can see the NZ government being willing to spend big bucks on high end ships is if the geopolitical situation in the western pacific turns very bad indeed.
A quick price comparison...
FFG(X) - USD $800m
FREMM - USD $750m
T26/Hunter - USD $1b +
If these are presented... NZ politicians and the treasury wail and gnash their teeth, the NZ public cry "what about the health system and education system? Who will think of the children?"
Wah, wah, wah.
Alternatives...
T31 - USD $331m
South Korean FFX Batch 2 - HHI building two ships for USD $563m
South Korean Thai frigate - USD $410m
A T31 version or a SK designed frigate are going to be a hell of a lot easier to sell to the government, and their relatively low sticker price might even make the possibility of a third vessel possible (a navy commander made the comment he doesn't care what they get as long as they get three of them).
The T31 will look especially good because it will tick the other main procurement box; low risk. That's why I really hope the Arrowhead wins that contest.
That's the situation as it stands today. Who knows what other options will be available in ten years time. The only way I can see the NZ government being willing to spend big bucks on high end ships is if the geopolitical situation in the western pacific turns very bad indeed.
Last edited:
As always with price you need to factor in how the price is calculated. Is it
- the hull and basic systems
- the hull and full systems
- thw hull, systems, spares and sustainment,
The Australian budget for the Hunter Class includes infrastruture and support systems.
As has been said many times ....price comparisions don't work unless the same metrics are used.
Forget about the numbers.
If you put together a package with the same systems, same support, same infrastructure, the larger vessels in the first group are going to be significantly more expensive than the ships in the second group. Which is the only point I was trying to make regarding price.
So it's not OK to do a price analysis based on documented figures, but it is OK to base your price analysis on pure speculation? Understood.
Last edited:
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Missing GF’s informative posts.
Danes Tout $340M Stanflex Frigate For US Navy – But What’s Real Cost?
This article shows some of the discussion over the cost of the Iver Huitfeldt ships that the type 31 was based on , maybe it comes down to you get what you pay for so you better know what you want to pay for before you pay for it lol
This article shows some of the discussion over the cost of the Iver Huitfeldt ships that the type 31 was based on , maybe it comes down to you get what you pay for so you better know what you want to pay for before you pay for it lol
Yep, and the sensors, weapons and electronics that go within have always been the expensive bits. Having said that, build costs do take a size chunk of the budget as well. The reasons why I like the OMT Ivers design are the design philosophy and forethought that have gone into it, with the ability to easily access cables and piping for maintenance and upgrades a no brainer, because almost all other ship designs and builds bury them behind bulkheads, in deckheads, or under decks, requiring time and much labour to access them. Also the companion ways are wide etc., meaning crew can pass each other easily especially when going to action stations etc.
This quote is particularly interesting:
That's a great cost breakdown and ratio of ship to sensors/weapons.
I also noted that the Danes made their first purchase of SM-2s last year for their Ivers
Denmark – SM-2 Block IIIA Standard Missiles | The Official Home of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency
This fits with their ship capability increase over time as funds become available. A policy that, IMO would suit NZ.
Last edited:
However the RDN pulled through equipment from previous warships, there was / is some FFBNW, the ship specs call for one 127 mm gun and two 35 mm Millennium guns however the RDN haven't bought 127 guns yet and only half the required Millennium guns, and they use the STANFLEX system which is unique to the RDN. That is how they have kept costs down. In NZs case if we went down that route we could pull through two 127 mm guns and other systems from the two ANZAC FFGs only having to buy a new full fit out for a third frigate. However my preference would be for new full fit on all the new frigates and recycle the current FFH systems onto other RNZN platforms such as Aotearoa and a future LHD / LPD. Whether that would actually happen or not is a completely different story.
Absolutely. I think there's a lot of scope for equipment pull through, especially all the self-defence kit the ANZACs are being fitted with at the moment (Sea Ceptor, Sea Sentor, MASS, laser warning system, corner reflector decoys). I don't mind FFBNW if it allows the navy to get the platform they want in the numbers they want, at a price the government can swallow.However the RDN pulled through equipment from previous warships, there was / is some FFBNW, the ship specs call for one 127 mm gun and two 35 mm Millennium guns however the RDN haven't bought 127 guns yet and only half the required Millennium guns, and they use the STANFLEX system which is unique to the RDN. That is how they have kept costs down. In NZs case if we went down that route we could pull through two 127 mm guns and other systems from the two ANZAC FFGs only having to buy a new full fit out for a third frigate. However my preference would be for new full fit on all the new frigates and recycle the current FFH systems onto other RNZN platforms such as Aotearoa and a future LHD / LPD. Whether that would actually happen or not is a completely different story.
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
In the 2030 - 2035 time frame the Iver design will be three decades old. Although a good design I think when the time comes for the ANZAC replacement the geo political situation will be different than it is today. Designs will have evolved. The question to ask is not what hull or builder but what capabilities does the GOTD and the RNZN want until the 2070s?
Even today the lack of a SSM capability is truly discraceful. The much less capable French Floreal class pack a pair of exocets.
The threat that I see a NZ surface combatant dealing with in the areas of operations in the SP are more surface and subsurface than aerial. Although important the Sea Ceptor is sufficient as their are limited aerial threats. The ability to reach out and touch someone from a standoff position without risking the vessel or helicopter is more important.
A long range radar system, a hull mounted and a variable depth towed array sonar for ASW, long range surface and land attack missiles, Sea Ceptor SAM, 127m main gun, and small caliber cannon such as Millenium plus HMG. A small crew, extra berths and thw ability to carry cargo are also important as is the need for a large multi role helicopter and RPASs.
Large numbers of VL cells for long range SAMs or super long range land attack missles are not required IMHO.
Exceptional sea keeping qualities and minimal maintenance are factors to invest in so the whole of life costs are as low as possible.
Maybe it will be T31. Maybe T26. Maybe something completely different. Either way the RNZN would be way better off with either of these two designs ..lets just hope it doesnt go the other way and the RNZN ends up with a fleet of OPVs and no large surface combatants.
Lets see what happens with the SOPV first. That should be a discussion point long before new frigates or destroyers.
Even today the lack of a SSM capability is truly discraceful. The much less capable French Floreal class pack a pair of exocets.
The threat that I see a NZ surface combatant dealing with in the areas of operations in the SP are more surface and subsurface than aerial. Although important the Sea Ceptor is sufficient as their are limited aerial threats. The ability to reach out and touch someone from a standoff position without risking the vessel or helicopter is more important.
A long range radar system, a hull mounted and a variable depth towed array sonar for ASW, long range surface and land attack missiles, Sea Ceptor SAM, 127m main gun, and small caliber cannon such as Millenium plus HMG. A small crew, extra berths and thw ability to carry cargo are also important as is the need for a large multi role helicopter and RPASs.
Large numbers of VL cells for long range SAMs or super long range land attack missles are not required IMHO.
Exceptional sea keeping qualities and minimal maintenance are factors to invest in so the whole of life costs are as low as possible.
Maybe it will be T31. Maybe T26. Maybe something completely different. Either way the RNZN would be way better off with either of these two designs ..lets just hope it doesnt go the other way and the RNZN ends up with a fleet of OPVs and no large surface combatants.
Lets see what happens with the SOPV first. That should be a discussion point long before new frigates or destroyers.
Really, it was you that provided a price comparison to support your comments on 'what was a good deal' without consideration of what the the cost may actually include. To give and example the AOR project for Australia is about $1.5 billion. Taken at face value the hulls are $750 million each. In fact the hull cost for the pair of the vessels is around $640 million. The rest of the budget is for infrastructure and support.
All I was trying to suggest was the prices (documented or otherwise) you rely upon may not be a true comparison unless you know what they include. But no matter .............. I will leave it to your expert view because you clearly think you know best.
Exactly. The big question to be answered also is will this future RNZN surface combatant / frigate platform still be relevant in a post 2040 world.
Are you a naval expert? Do you think that you know more than Alexsa who IS AN EXPERT IN THE FIELD. I'll tell you something about Alexsa, what he doesn't know about warships and sailing them, is not worth knowing, OK. So don't come the raw prawn with him or other blue tags.
Moderators and Defence Professionals (blue tags) are becoming somewhat annoyed with a small cadre of posters who think that they know more than the defence professionals do in their fields of expertise. If you think that you are an expert then do not hesitate to submit your credentials to the Moderating team, who will undertake due diligence and check them out as we do with those who have blue tags.
Catalina
Member
Good morning all,
The most commonly built People’s Liberation Army Navy capital ship is the Type 054A Jiangkai II Frigate with 28 in service. Equipped with 8 YJ-83 SSM with a 100nm range these warships have already on multiple times been deployed by the Central Military Commission of the Chinese Communist Party on missions in the waters of the South Pacific in which our Royal New Zealand Navy operates. A comprehensive, yet slightly outdated but well referenced article on these warships, written by G.Collins and A. Erickson, may be found hereThe Type 054/054A Frigate Series: China’s Most Produced and Deployed Large Modern Surface Combatant | China SignPost™
Our only combat warships, the Te Kaha and Te Mana, are undergoing their Frigate Service Upgrade. Does the upgrade to Sea Ceptor SAM make provision in the future for a SSM capability for our two warships? If not has there been any discussion of a future upgrade that will? As a follow up question, what is the reason for our warships lacking SSM capability? Modern combat warships lacking SSM capability appears analogous to warships of previous generations being asked to fufil roles in harms way while denying them large calibre guns.
The introduction to the RNZN PLAN 2017-2025 states that our Navy ‘must dedicate (its) work to . . . Develop capability to meet the missions of tomorrow.’ The description of the maritime combat role of our Navy to ‘protect military and commercial shipping from any threat posed by an adversary to the freedom of navigation and safe passage’ would surely be enhanced by the perceived ability of our warships to influence events over the horizon through the installation of SSM. It seems therefore that not providing our surface combatants with a SSM ability is in contradiction to the aforementioned central them of developing in our Navy a capability to meet the missions of tomorrow and prevents the RNZN from achieving its Vision to be ‘a world-class Navy for a large maritime nation.’
This is my first post here, and the points of Ngatimozart above are taken to heart. I hope therefore that this discussion group will accept in advance my apologises for my ignorance at how our lack of SSM ability for our Naval fleet appears to be a glaring naval capability deficiency at odds with the published NZDF literature regarding the vision and goal of our Royal New Zealand Navy in this era of vastly altered threats.
Yours Faithfully
Catalina
The most commonly built People’s Liberation Army Navy capital ship is the Type 054A Jiangkai II Frigate with 28 in service. Equipped with 8 YJ-83 SSM with a 100nm range these warships have already on multiple times been deployed by the Central Military Commission of the Chinese Communist Party on missions in the waters of the South Pacific in which our Royal New Zealand Navy operates. A comprehensive, yet slightly outdated but well referenced article on these warships, written by G.Collins and A. Erickson, may be found hereThe Type 054/054A Frigate Series: China’s Most Produced and Deployed Large Modern Surface Combatant | China SignPost™
Our only combat warships, the Te Kaha and Te Mana, are undergoing their Frigate Service Upgrade. Does the upgrade to Sea Ceptor SAM make provision in the future for a SSM capability for our two warships? If not has there been any discussion of a future upgrade that will? As a follow up question, what is the reason for our warships lacking SSM capability? Modern combat warships lacking SSM capability appears analogous to warships of previous generations being asked to fufil roles in harms way while denying them large calibre guns.
The introduction to the RNZN PLAN 2017-2025 states that our Navy ‘must dedicate (its) work to . . . Develop capability to meet the missions of tomorrow.’ The description of the maritime combat role of our Navy to ‘protect military and commercial shipping from any threat posed by an adversary to the freedom of navigation and safe passage’ would surely be enhanced by the perceived ability of our warships to influence events over the horizon through the installation of SSM. It seems therefore that not providing our surface combatants with a SSM ability is in contradiction to the aforementioned central them of developing in our Navy a capability to meet the missions of tomorrow and prevents the RNZN from achieving its Vision to be ‘a world-class Navy for a large maritime nation.’
This is my first post here, and the points of Ngatimozart above are taken to heart. I hope therefore that this discussion group will accept in advance my apologises for my ignorance at how our lack of SSM ability for our Naval fleet appears to be a glaring naval capability deficiency at odds with the published NZDF literature regarding the vision and goal of our Royal New Zealand Navy in this era of vastly altered threats.
Yours Faithfully
Catalina
Last edited:
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Welcome
The current major Refit for the 2 NZ Anzacs will probably be there last major Refit as by 2030 they will be past there 30th Birthday and NZ should be looking at there replacements by then. There has been extensive posting in this thread on this subject, especially around the Type 26 and Type 31e(worth taking the time to read through).
The issue with adding anymore Weapons and Sensors to the Anzacs are, they have a Top weight issue.
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
Even a pair of NSM on the foredeck firing to port and starboard would give a significant offensive punch over the horizon. I am sure that 2000 pounds of missles can be accomodated and that the fire controls integrated into the CMS 330 system being installed in Victoria.
IMHO its more the fact that any SSM is offensive and not in the current GOTDs interest to possess such capability.
IMHO its more the fact that any SSM is offensive and not in the current GOTDs interest to possess such capability.
Catalina
Member
Thank you Redlands18 and Novascotiaboy for your replies.
Yes Redlands18 there is lots of valubale information in this thread which I am gratefully reading through. Lots of interesting replacement options for our ANZAC class frigates are discussed. I hope that their replacement will include SSM capability and wonder if the Defence Force has been pushing for that capability to be so included?
With deck mounted NSM having a total installation weight, including electronics and cabling of less than one ton per launcher, and the ability to be purchased in 1,2,4,8 or 12 launcher packs, and the 400kg missiles themselves having a 100nm range they sound like an interesting solution thank you Novascotiaboy. I wonder if this option has been considered for our current frigates?
Until the RNZN has an ability to project power over the horizon by carrying SSM it seems debatable if the current composition of the Navy could fulfil its maritime combat mission in a contested environment.
Yes Redlands18 there is lots of valubale information in this thread which I am gratefully reading through. Lots of interesting replacement options for our ANZAC class frigates are discussed. I hope that their replacement will include SSM capability and wonder if the Defence Force has been pushing for that capability to be so included?
With deck mounted NSM having a total installation weight, including electronics and cabling of less than one ton per launcher, and the ability to be purchased in 1,2,4,8 or 12 launcher packs, and the 400kg missiles themselves having a 100nm range they sound like an interesting solution thank you Novascotiaboy. I wonder if this option has been considered for our current frigates?
Until the RNZN has an ability to project power over the horizon by carrying SSM it seems debatable if the current composition of the Navy could fulfil its maritime combat mission in a contested environment.
Last edited:
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
NSM is likely to become the Harpoon replacement for western navies looking for more range and more punch. As you noted its availability in multiple numbers of launchers means it can be incorporated on almost any sized vessel.
Hopefully the RNZN gets such a system even if only a handful to allow it to gain experience before the replacement for the ANZACs arrives in 15 years. Even two twin packs would fit the forecastle area which appears to be void of any systems.
And if others spend the money to integrate JSM onto the P8 a joint buy for the RNZAF and the RNZN makes perfect sense .
Hopefully the RNZN gets such a system even if only a handful to allow it to gain experience before the replacement for the ANZACs arrives in 15 years. Even two twin packs would fit the forecastle area which appears to be void of any systems.
And if others spend the money to integrate JSM onto the P8 a joint buy for the RNZAF and the RNZN makes perfect sense .