The Type 31 look like they will be fairly lightly armed with very basic sensors. They would need to be considerably upgraded to be considered as an ANZAC replacement.
The dilemma facing NZ is that the Type 26 is too much ship for what they require and the Type 31 may not offer enough capability. Their choice could be to upgrade the Type 31 or go with a simplified version of the Type 26. In the end you may find that there won't be that big a difference in price.
The Type 31 is based on the OMT F370 which is the design that the RDN Iver Huitfeld class is based on. The Ivers are a proven high end design much admired by their peers. Hence, if the RNZN went down this path, then the Type 31 as adopted by the RN per se would most likely not be the end product that the RNZN acquires.
I really get sick of repeating myself and some basic research of the Type 31 and reading of prior posts would have shown you the variability and antecedents of the design. OK.
A three hull fleet of T26 for the RNZN is only going to possible if and when there is geo political upheval in the current status quo. The doubling of hull tonnage over an ANZAC is not a bad thing. More hull should mean better sea keeping.
The decision to up gun or up missle will be the kicker. Although optimised for ASW these ships have capabilities that the current RNZN lacks. Will a future government be willing to invest in the electronics and associated missles in order to have a fully capable destroyer / frigate?
If T26 is bought i can foresee two hulls fully fitted and the third FFBNW the armament. This hull would receive the warload when another T26 would be in maintenance. Still better than todays scenario of no frigate available.
Having T26 regardless of the variant would offer great benefits of familiarity amongst the Commonwealth fleet. Cost will be the challenge. Not that I want to see it happen but something needs to happen to push the pollies into a decision sooner rather than later. The lack of long range SAM and SSM with the ANZACs makes them little more than big patrol boats.
No matter what design is bought three hulls must happen.
First thing: FFBNW is to be avoided at all costs. A minimum of a three hull fully capable fleet has to occur, and I am totally in agreement with that. Where I differ with some is that I see the NZFFX as a GPFF rather than a specialised ship, hence in my book it covers ASW, ASuW, and AAW. It doesn't have to be the same hull as the RAN & RCN ships in order to be compatible and integrate with RAN, RCN, USN ships and task forces, because that is using comms, for data sharing, target info sharing etc., as well as common strategic and tactical plans, strategies, tactics, trainings, cultures etc. I prefer the OMT F370 design over the T-26 design because I think that we can have the ships built cheaper in South Korea and retain the same or similar level of capability that the T-26 has. Even if it costs us NZ$1.0 - 1.5 billion per ship, it is still cheaper than the NZ$2+ billion ship that the T-26 would cost us, and means that we could afford 3 hulls rather than 2.
I see that Canada is
pivoting towards the Indo Pacific, so there will be more opportunity for the RCN, RAN & RNZN to work together in the region, which is really great.
Curious to know.
