Nighthawk.NZ
Well-Known Member
My guess this was before she went into Pearl... or after...
HMNZS Te Kaha on her way again and
Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
My guess this was before she went into Pearl... or after...
HMNZS Te Kaha on her way again and
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
After, she entered Pearl on Dec 7 as per post #7878 from Tuesday,
My guess this was before she went into Pearl... or after...
HMNZS Te Kaha on her way again and
AND it can be helicopter launched, if you so desire... This may well be RNZN / RNZAF’s ‘plan‘ within a few years...
Nighthawk.NZ
Well-Known Member
Nighthawk.NZ
Well-Known Member
An article by the Irish Examiner....
Makes me wonder are they looking at the the RNZN's two IPV's
Full article Naval Service to acquire new ships for post-Brexit patrolsIrish Examiner said:
Makes me wonder are they looking at the the RNZN's two IPV's
From what I can gather the total GFE component of the USN's FFG-62/Constellation Class build including Combat and C4ISR systems is budgeted at USD$480m per build unit. This provides for a very capable "Baby Arleigh Burke" fit out.
On the other hand in USD (USD is a good general denominator when comparing GBP, NZD, CND and AUD costs), and not an exact science but a shallow dive into possible costings, the Type 31 as completed for the RN is earmarked to come in at USD$334m or NZD$470m, if they can keep to the build cost. Obviously there will be trade-offs between the two above figures per hull and GFE, design review and integration costs, as well as some potential cross-decking cost savings such as recycling Phalanx, Mod 5, Terma Decoys et al off Anzac upgrades to offset costs, nevertheless a ball-park figure or target figure for a Kiwi derived muscled up evolved Type 31 viz "Type 33/34/35" based on a GFE + Baseline hull could be USD$820m or circa NZD$1150m in current FX/2020 dollars.
The UK Type 26 build cost per unit is estimated (2017) at USD$1600m or NZD$2250m and one gathers that both the CSC and Hunter Class will not be any cheaper. I understand that the RNZN has been basing their projected Frigate replacement costs on the Type 26 and in previous Cabinet papers circa DWP10 and DWP15 that two vessels would be acquired, with the eventual replacements of the two Protector OPV's to be larger more capable vessels. As the Type 26 has risen in build price so has the cost estimate. The Navy has long held the view that two Frigates are not sufficient and disruptive to training and the sustainability of generating OLOC crews. Furthermore, even with the 3rd OPV being introduced, my view long term is that 2 Frigates and 3 OPV's is no longer justifiable, that at least one more of each type is required.
Last UK estimates saw two UK Type 26's costing NZD$4500m. In comparison the DoD/USN estimates that the Constellation Class will be $950m (NZD$1335m) once the drumbeat is in play (FFG-62 the first hull budgeted at USD$1250m), thus three Constellation hulls would cost a tick over NZD $4000m, though some reports say that the figures are a tad undercooked and those three Constellation hulls will more likely cost $4500m. However three "Type 35's" if kept to a targeted cost with a comparable or near peer fit-out to the Constellation and arguably the UK Type 26, would be circa NZD $3450-3500m, but closer to $4000m once a training facility and baseline weapon stocks are acquired. Theoretically four Type 35's could be acquired for just two Type 26's, however I believe that would be at the eventual detriment of Protector Replacements and the Enhanced Sealift Project, which currently have a combined budget approaching $3000m. From that $3000m for those projects we need to turn four planned vessels into five. Per DCP19 two amphibious ships at up to a billion each and two larger OPV's at $500m each, the only way we would be able to afford the 4th larger OPV is taking $500m off the planned or proposed $4500 million for two Type 26's. Nevertheless the money would be there in this case as three "Type 35's" and a 4th stone frigate would be in that $4000m ballpark. It is doable on the existing funding pathways if they are stuck too!
Back in the later part of the Cold War 1.0, of the four Frigates assign to 11 Frigate Squadron, three were assigned to the traditional Frigate role with the fourth often used as a long range EEZ fisheries protection and sea training vessel, in lieu of having no suitable OPV. For fleet planning purposes my view is that four very capable Frigates will be pushing it (in the context of 2021 - though a fourth could be added if the strategic situation builds even more over the following decade), and that three "Type 35's" as outlined plus a 4th "stone frigate" training system on shore that harnesses augmented reality and virtual verisimilitude tools, would be the way to plan across this next decade.
On the other hand in USD (USD is a good general denominator when comparing GBP, NZD, CND and AUD costs), and not an exact science but a shallow dive into possible costings, the Type 31 as completed for the RN is earmarked to come in at USD$334m or NZD$470m, if they can keep to the build cost. Obviously there will be trade-offs between the two above figures per hull and GFE, design review and integration costs, as well as some potential cross-decking cost savings such as recycling Phalanx, Mod 5, Terma Decoys et al off Anzac upgrades to offset costs, nevertheless a ball-park figure or target figure for a Kiwi derived muscled up evolved Type 31 viz "Type 33/34/35" based on a GFE + Baseline hull could be USD$820m or circa NZD$1150m in current FX/2020 dollars.
The UK Type 26 build cost per unit is estimated (2017) at USD$1600m or NZD$2250m and one gathers that both the CSC and Hunter Class will not be any cheaper. I understand that the RNZN has been basing their projected Frigate replacement costs on the Type 26 and in previous Cabinet papers circa DWP10 and DWP15 that two vessels would be acquired, with the eventual replacements of the two Protector OPV's to be larger more capable vessels. As the Type 26 has risen in build price so has the cost estimate. The Navy has long held the view that two Frigates are not sufficient and disruptive to training and the sustainability of generating OLOC crews. Furthermore, even with the 3rd OPV being introduced, my view long term is that 2 Frigates and 3 OPV's is no longer justifiable, that at least one more of each type is required.
Last UK estimates saw two UK Type 26's costing NZD$4500m. In comparison the DoD/USN estimates that the Constellation Class will be $950m (NZD$1335m) once the drumbeat is in play (FFG-62 the first hull budgeted at USD$1250m), thus three Constellation hulls would cost a tick over NZD $4000m, though some reports say that the figures are a tad undercooked and those three Constellation hulls will more likely cost $4500m. However three "Type 35's" if kept to a targeted cost with a comparable or near peer fit-out to the Constellation and arguably the UK Type 26, would be circa NZD $3450-3500m, but closer to $4000m once a training facility and baseline weapon stocks are acquired. Theoretically four Type 35's could be acquired for just two Type 26's, however I believe that would be at the eventual detriment of Protector Replacements and the Enhanced Sealift Project, which currently have a combined budget approaching $3000m. From that $3000m for those projects we need to turn four planned vessels into five. Per DCP19 two amphibious ships at up to a billion each and two larger OPV's at $500m each, the only way we would be able to afford the 4th larger OPV is taking $500m off the planned or proposed $4500 million for two Type 26's. Nevertheless the money would be there in this case as three "Type 35's" and a 4th stone frigate would be in that $4000m ballpark. It is doable on the existing funding pathways if they are stuck too!
Back in the later part of the Cold War 1.0, of the four Frigates assign to 11 Frigate Squadron, three were assigned to the traditional Frigate role with the fourth often used as a long range EEZ fisheries protection and sea training vessel, in lieu of having no suitable OPV. For fleet planning purposes my view is that four very capable Frigates will be pushing it (in the context of 2021 - though a fourth could be added if the strategic situation builds even more over the following decade), and that three "Type 35's" as outlined plus a 4th "stone frigate" training system on shore that harnesses augmented reality and virtual verisimilitude tools, would be the way to plan across this next decade.
Not trying to be provocative but I think its a fair question to ask.
What is deemed the total combined minimum number of Frigates / OPV's required for New Zealand going forward?
Deterrence is 27 / 7 / 365 / years of commitment.
Is it 4 or 5 or 6 or something else?
Regards S
t68
Well-Known Member
Rule of threes is one available at all times, four gives a surge capability for short duration
From my POV, a minimum of 3 frigates and given the taskings of the OPV, & IPV fleet, 2 SOPV and 4 OPV.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Mr C,
As is usual from your good self, another high quality informative post.
But....
I can just imagine this sensible option being put in front of a politician:
Navy - “Minister, as you can see, with the budget of $4.5b that the Government has allocated, we can procure 2 x Type 26, or 3 x Constellation class, or 4 x Type 35, what do you think Minister?”
Minister - “So what you are telling me is that we can procure two Type 35s for half the price?”
Navy - “Well yes Minister, but that’s not what .....”
Minister - “Well that’s settled now, two Type 35s it is and the rest of the money we can put into various basket weaving courses for our green/leftie voters! Now where is my pork barrel?”
Cheers,
Nighthawk.NZ
Well-Known Member
Southern Ocean Patrol Vessel
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Close, but not quite. Rule of threes provides one vessel to be either available for or already deployed on operations, a second vessel which could be in one state of maintenance/upgrade or another, and a third engaged in a training or pre/post-deployment cycle. This can also enable a second vessel to become available if a surge was required, depending on what/where one of the vessels in a training/deployment/maintenance cycle was. If it was a minor and/or planned routine training or maintenance cycle, then it might be able to be rushed to completion, or postponed and carried out after a deployment was finished. One of the potential issues with a force built upon the rule of threes is it an incident could occur which really needed the RNZN to send a warship (as opposed to a noncombatant patrol vessel like an OPV) but none were available to be sent when & where needed. If the RNZN needed to provide a frigate presence somewhere like in the SCS with a total frigate force of three, while one was in a deep maintenance or upgrade cycle, another was engaged in a major training cycle, and the third was doing show-the-flag port visits to Europe & the Med...
The rule of fours works similarly, but provides a greater potential chance for a navy to have a deployable vessel when and where needed, as well potentially having a larger number of vessels which could be surged.
hello all
Given that we are moving to or looking at advanced amphibious ship or ships, if they where to be LHD type would they not need an escort or two for that matter when a hostile environment.? Again if we are moving in that direction what kind of force protection would we need to front?
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Realistically if the NZDF were to deploy a sealift vessel of any sort to a potentially threatened area, an escort of some sort would be required. The current situation now is that Canterbury would not really require escort, because the combat capabilities of Canterbury are such that it would be unsafe to deploy her to any area where hostile forces larger and more capable than smallcraft operated. Even with a properly kitted out escort, the risk to Canterbury would really be too great due to the very limited self-defence capabilities, and also the FC and sensors/SA.
I would expect (really, more like hope...) that a future, purpose-built RNZN amphib, regardless of whether it was an LPD, LHD, etc. would have a more comprehensive sensor, comms, combat data system, and self-defence suites. If that were to be accomplished, then a deployment into potentially hostile or contested waters would likely require at a minimum, a frigate able to provide an area air defence and ASuW/ASW capability. Having two such escorts would of course be better. At the same time though, if the RNZN were to embark on such a deployment, IMO it would be quite likely that the RAN was also involved, in which case it would be a joint RAN/RNZN task force and include amphibs and escorts from both navies. Such a situation would likely provide both more, and more overall capable vessels and enable greater area and close-in air defence, as well as improvements to SA.
I heartedly agree about Canterbury because it was never fit for purpose.
I believe that any ESV (Enhanced Sealift Vessel) that the RNZN acquires should have a self protection capability consisting of sensors, Sea Ceptor, CIWS and decoys. My esteemed fellow Kiwi Moderator, Mr C would argue otherwise stating that is what the escorts are for, but IMHO escorts can be otherwise engaged, disabled, sunk etc., and both the ESV and Aotearoa are high value assets therefore targets. According to Yoshihara & Holmes (2010)*, PLAN doctrine is to destroy the escorts first and then go after the high value targets which by then are usually defenceless, given the current tendency to woefully underarm them. Lessons that were harshly shown in WW2 when shipping was subject to air attack. As a navy, defence force, and a country, we cannot afford to lose these ships due to our own stupidity.
Another option is how you build your OPVs. They could in fact be an OCV (Offshore Combat Vessel), OPC (Offshore Patrol Corvette) or a just a straight corvette masquerading as an OPV. Something in the 3,000 - 3,500 tonne range. A ship that size can undertake the constabulary role, and most other roles that our current OPVs undertake, yet pack a punch if and when required. It could be built to warship standards with appropriate sensors and weapons, not rubbish like the Protector class OPV & IPV. It can also under take other roles such as working with SF etc.
* Yoshihara Toshi & Holmes James R: 2010, Red Star Over The Pacific - China's Rise and the Challenge to U.S. Maritime Strategy, Naval Institute Press, Annapolis MD, USA.
Of course what is also changing the thinking around rules of three is the emerging use of technology including AI and Augmented Reality which will enable greater sophistication in the onshore simulation space, increasing the fleet and their crews capacity to spend time at sea in their prime role as a surface combatant. The JMSDF are one navy really getting into this space as part of their next generation 30FFM programme. The "stone frigate" in this sense will be a significant enabler to any fleet.
Last edited:
Nighthawk.NZ
Well-Known Member
While I agree in general, but playing "devil's advocate" Canterbury was never intended to do go into a hotspot... she was purely sold to the public as for HADR, and to move equipment from port to port. And to be fair she has been a good learning tool for amphibious operations... but yes I do agree with you.
I can just about guarantee that the ESV ... (I have been calling it that since DCP2019 came out lol) it will "be fitted for but not with" and maybe have a few mini typhoons. Look at HMNZS Aotearoa with CIWS they said the same thing that she will have the self-defence weapons... and "buzzzzz" wrong, it is mostly FFBNW... I have never agreed with the FFBNW ...
So basically an ANZAC class frigate... similar tonnage and armament... lol
Again to be fair and playing "devil's advocate" both the current OPV's and IPV's were designed around fishery patrols and the odd patrol up around the pacific nothing more. However they learnt that they are a handy size of vessel to send when you don't need to send a Frigate.
You should know that the NZ gooberment and public don't like things that go ... whoosh and bang, I man heck we not even allow skyrockets for Guy Fawkes any more... ;-)
Don't necessarily disagree with both NZ's need or ability to acquire such a fleet, but again suggest it will be a big ask to sell such a proposition.
Doubling the current fleet of four such ships to the numbers suggested will take some long term bi partisan political support.
Is the "vibe" in New Zealand receptive for such Fleet.
Also wondering if the maritime realm may be better served with a greater balance of aviation assets.
P8's and maybe MQ-9 styled aircraft to provide surveillance and deterrence.
They will not cover every scenario, but envisage an adversary would take extra note of such a force and keep that extra distance from the NZ coast if in the region with questionable intent..
Regards S
Let me rephrase that for you.
“Minister, as you can see, with the budget of $4.5b that the Government has allocated, we can procure 2 x Type 26 from the UK which I gather the opposition are quite keen on, or 3 x Constellation class from the Americans which Mr Trump was keen on, or 3 x Type 35 "purpose built for Kiwi conditions" that we would be able to have increased input and oversight of during the construction phase including the potential to run them on bio diesel, along with a training centre which will provide for lots of "high tech" and "construction" jobs, possibly in your electorate. Would your wife be available to cut the ribbon, and would you mind if we named it after you Minister?