Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[RetirementIsGood]

From what I've read, mostly RN stuff, a GP frigate (eg. ANZAC) spends most of its time operating at 15-18kts, whereas a specialist ASW frigate (eg. Type 23) operates on a more sprint-and-drift approach (to use the towed array sonar it drifts at give-or-take 5 kts, then has to kick into high gear at > 20kts to get back into position in the task group). For the RNZN, we tend to see more of the GP frigate profile (more than most other navies given the long transits we tend to do). Whether to design our next frigate for the GP profile is debatable, given the increase in submarines in the Pacific. Even an ASW frigate like the Type 23 spends most of it's time (in peacetime) operating as a GP frigate. The Type 23 gets by tolerably well as a GP frigate, certainly better than the Leander ever did (it's short range was due to the fact that they removed the cruise turbines the Type 12 design originally had, the connecting gearbox didn't work if I recall. In the Leander, the cruise turbine spaces were taken by the fin stabilizers to allow the helo to operate at higher sea states).

One possible model I've considered for a future RNZN frigate would be to adopt the Type 23's CODLAG propulsion system (the Diesel Electric would give excellent ASW slow-speed performance and an excellent range at a modest, maybe a little slow, cruise speed (<15kts). If you replaced the twin Speys with a single gas turbine, that might give you more internal space, for extra fuel, or to up the armament a little (say a pair of twin 40mm Dardo CIWS mounts in place of the 30mm cannons amidships). Going to a single GT would need a more complicated/heavier gearbox though (but no different than that on the ANZAC). If you could get the WR-21 gas turbine to work then that engine (in terms of power & efficiency) would just about be perfect. Unlike most gas turbines it could offer good efficiency on GT at low power levels. You could then run efficiently at 5kts & 15kts on diesel electric, >28kts on gas turbine at full speed, and perhaps also at a >20kt canter for high speed trans-tasman transits.

Why not go for an all electric drive, with two diesel generators and one gas turbine generator?
Two shafts, each with an electric motor drive, and three power sources which can be mixed and matched as needed. No complex connecting gearbox.

 

[spoz]

Read it and yes it's an interesting concept. He suggests rolling a FFG / LHD / LOSC into one platform and acquiring three of them. Technically feasible but is it worth the effort? You can multi-role to much and lose specific necessary capabilities and skills. The other point is a 24 - knot speed fast enough WRT to ASW? However it's worth investigating nevertheless.

The hull form will dictate the speed through the water. We know that flat decks can achieve 30+ knots with the right hull form and the rest is just the application of power. More power So we will have to choose a really efficient propulsion system that is quiet and efficiently transfers the power from the engines to the propellers. In my mind a CODEG would be the option reducing the need for long prop shafts.

Then the sensors and weapons would have to be FFG capable. In the paper the 76mm gun was suggested but I would argue that the Oto Melera 127mm gun would be a better capability and mounted forward of the island. An Oto Melera 76mm Super Rapid gun should be mounted abaft the island. 32 Mk-41 VLS cells and 16 AShM canister launchers. Two triple Mk-32 launchers and LIG-N1 30mm CIWS II on each corner of the flight deck. The sensors would have to be something along the lines of the RCN CSC fitout.

Whether this is a viable option or not I don't know.

Certainly interesting, and much of what he proposes is sensible, although in practice so far modularity hasn’t been exactly an overwhelming success; even the Danish are starting to use the Absoloms more in a single role, and to optimise for that. The jack of all trades, master of none is an important issue. But even if it is a good idea, for NZ to go it alone with a bespoke design would be hugely expensive and there would probably be a more effective use of the available funds.

 

[chis73]

Why not go for an all electric drive, with two diesel generators and one gas turbine generator?
Two shafts, each with an electric motor drive, and three power sources which can be mixed and matched as needed. No complex connecting gearbox.

Simply, I didn't want to change the Type 23 design too much (for issues of supportability). As Spoz says, NZ going it alone on a new design is probably one of the worse possible scenarios. I don't think we have a big enough design team, logistics base, or enough experience to try that.

My thinking goes something like this:
1. NZ will probably only buy a new frigate from a Five Eyes nation (for 'interoperability')
2. NZ can't afford a big destroyer sized frigate like the Type 26 or Constellation class
3. Who of the Five Eyes will have an affordable frigate design into the 2040s (for supportability) - Answer: UK
4. Type 31 is utterly underwhelming (even the propulsion system is poor for ASW).
5. So, how about updating the Type 23 design (which will probably serve until the late 2030s, early 2040s). It seems to work, and has recently been modernized.

Other things that might be worth changing on the Type 23 are the main gun (to 5 inch), and if you carried a smaller helo than the Merlin, it may free up some topside space for something like CAMM-ER (by repurposing some of the hangar space). It's all fantasy fleet stuff though. It is a pity that the UK are not going to build an improved Type 23 ASW design instead of the hopeless Type 31. Then they may get some export customers.

I take your point about all electric drive though, and don't have much of an issue with it. The only thing that might be a worry would be size of the electric motors (which would have to be sized to handle full power). On the Type 23 design they only have to provide cruise power. As you probably are aware the speed vs power curve isn't linear.

 

[John Fedup]

IEP with diesel/GT for electrical generators with electric motors for propulsion is great if done right (QE class, Zumwalt), not so much if done wrong (Type 45). Cost would be an issue up front but long term costs might be better.

 

[ngatimozart]

Simply, I didn't want to change the Type 23 design too much (for issues of supportability). As Spoz says, NZ going it alone on a new design is probably one of the worse possible scenarios. I don't think we have a big enough design team, logistics base, or enough experience to try that.

My thinking goes something like this:
1. NZ will probably only buy a new frigate from a Five Eyes nation (for 'interoperability')
2. NZ can't afford a big destroyer sized frigate like the Type 26 or Constellation class
3. Who of the Five Eyes will have an affordable frigate design into the 2040s (for supportability) - Answer: UK
4. Type 31 is utterly underwhelming (even the propulsion system is poor for ASW).
5. So, how about updating the Type 23 design (which will probably serve until the late 2030s, early 2040s). It seems to work, and has recently been modernized.

Other things that might be worth changing on the Type 23 are the main gun (to 5 inch), and if you carried a smaller helo than the Merlin, it may free up some topside space for something like CAMM-ER (by repurposing some of the hangar space). It's all fantasy fleet stuff though. It is a pity that the UK are not going to build an improved Type 23 ASW design instead of the hopeless Type 31. Then they may get some export customers.

I take your point about all electric drive though, and don't have much of an issue with it. The only thing that might be a worry would be size of the electric motors (which would have to be sized to handle full power). On the Type 23 design they only have to provide cruise power. As you probably are aware the speed vs power curve isn't linear.

Steel is cheap and air is free. A large component of the cost of a FVEY frigate build in a FVEY yard is the labour cost. North American, UK, Western European and Australian yards are very expensive to build in. We would be far better off looking elsewhere. Secondly Andrew Watts suggested in his article that sticking with one yard will provide savings because we would have commonality across platforms, and we would most likely get the equivalent of a bulk buyer discount.

The problem with the Type 23 design is that it is 40 years old and is to small. There is no room for future growth and the growth is going to involve power generation requirements. So we would be starting with what would really be unacceptable unacceptable compromises right from the initial design stage. Do you substantially increase the hull length, breadth and draught? That is one option but the question still remains is the hull shape fully optimised for modern naval warfare. Then because you have redesigned the hull, then there are the increased risks and costs that go with such a redesign.

WRT to the Type 31 I agree that it's a waste, but unlike you it is my view that it is a waste of of a perfectly good hull. There is nothing wrong with the OMT F-370 design WRT ASW capabilities. There is an option within the design for rafting of machinery to reduce the transmission of sound and other vibration through the water.

There are other non FVEY hull designs that are quite capable of meeting NZ requirements. Some would require lengthening etc., but whilst that is risky the risk would have to be assessed. The machinery and fitout could and should be determined by NZ. My own view is that we form a partnership with HHI and build in their shipyard. If that happens then the hull is built with machinery installed by them, and the fitout done here. It's time to repatriate some of that work.

 

[Rob c]

WRT to the Type 31 I agree that it's a waste, but unlike you it is my view that it is a waste of of a perfectly good hull. There is nothing wrong with the OMT F-370 design WRT ASW capabilities. There is an option within the design for rafting of machinery to reduce the transmission of sound and other vibration through the water.

Rafting the machinery would certainly improve matters, but there would still be significant transmission and engine noise transmitted down the shafts to the propellers and any bearing blocks along the way so they will never be in the same noise level as a type 23 or 26 . However I do agree that the OMT F-370 design has a lot of potential to be upgraded with better weapons systems to make a more than satisfactory GP frigate.

 

[StingrayOZ]

The advantage of the Type 26 is that there will be three different builds in production. No need to start a risky and expensive new program, you can just latch off any of the existing builds. Its entirely realistic to get three fixed priced contracts.

Integration and design work is already done. You just pick the one you want with the systems, weapons and features you want. Supported by three allies, all with fairly sizeable programs and high levels of commonality. Cost for operation of this type of ship will probably be similar or lower to the existing ANZAC class. These are modern, low manning, high efficiency designs.

The Constellation class is another good option, however, IMO that has been driven and evolved by the USN into something that is probably less off the shelf ideal for NZ. But it would be an entirely do able design.

I would say beyond FEVY, Japan and South Korea and Spain have ships that would be in the mix that could be considered. UK, AU have both purchased/developed ships from/with Spain and Korea. If there was something that absolutely proved irresistible it could be considered.

The F110 and the Italian PPG, the Japanese Mogami would be worthwhile to take a look at. But these would be a huge gulf in capability between something like that and a Type 26.

 

[MrConservative]

HHI have the FFX-IV now in development stage here is a little about it from Naval News.

South Korea Green Lights FFX Batch IV Frigate Program for ROK Navy - Naval News

South Korea's Defense Project Commission Committee (DPCC) has approved the Future Frigate eXperimental (FFX) Batch-IV program. The Korean government will invest KRW 3.51 trillion from 2023 to 2032 for the delivery of six ships.

www.navalnews.com

According to the Ministry of National Defense, the FFX Batch-IV will introduce a domestically designed and produced engineering control system. This is expected to make the ships more suitable for export by reducing the administrative burden of getting approval from foreign governments for use of non-domestically designed technologies.

The six ships of the FFX Batch-IV will have the following hull numbers; FFG 836, FFG 837, FFG 838, FFG 839, FFG 841, and FFG 842. It is likely that their displacement will be between 4,500 t and 5,000 t. Some have pointed to conceptual designs proposed by HHI, as being an indicator of what the FFX Batch-IV will look like. However, the exact specifications of the class are not yet known.

What is interesting is that some speculation, that obviously has not been confirmed by official sources, has been made on Korean and Japanese language websites, is that the FFX-IV will be a design evolution of the current KDX-II hull, which is HHI's HDD-5000 design (5500t full load) and that its design profile will look like an enlarged version of the 4000 tonne FFX-III now under construction. This makes a lot of sense with respect to the way that Hyundai approach things in a product developmental and economics sense. The heavy influence of Toyota's Kaizen continuance improvement (evolution) approach permutates deeply across Japanese and Korean industry.

Note above the line "expected to make the ships more suitable for export by reducing the administrative burden of getting approval from foreign governments for use of non-domestically designed technologies."

This could mean that HHI are preparing ready to work with foreign Navies and possibly that Navies prime sub-contractors of selected GFE to build a ship tailored to their requirements. For example MK41 VLS and Seaceptor, a CMS like 330CMS or CombatSS-21, AN/SPY-6(V)3 or AN/SPY-7(V)1?

 

[StingrayOZ]

Yes the FFXIV would be another consideration. Yes, I don't imagine it would be hard to find an arrangement for lockmark to partner with a CMS330 or similar. A variety of radar and weapon systems. There really wouldn't be any significant issues with that. The integration is also unlikely to be a huge issue, as the weapons are already integrated and the modular approach to development these days should make it much easier to intergrate into a ship as long as there is resources available for it.

Really I don't see any reason for NZ to have to brave itself with an entirely new design.

If you wanted a combatant with some amphibious capability, the Type 26 can do that. It can land a chinook, deploy large rhibs, hangar several airframes, embark amphibious forces, move shipping containers or HDAR resources etc.

Its one of the advantages of the larger frigate while some of the smaller ones are more focused combatants. But all of the newer generation would be much more flexible than Anzac in this regard. However, given that NZ has ships that can do that role, I wouldn't see it as a huge priority.

I think the larger question is does NZ want to operate two combatants, or three (or four) smaller less capable combatants. How much manning? How much money? How much capability and what missions does it want as the main focus and what are more able to be done elsewhere.

If you were wanting four ships, for example. The Mogami would give you 4 x 5,500t 130m long ships, 1 MT30, with two cruising diesels, 16 vls, 5" gun, searam, 1 helicopter, torpedo's, 2 x8 anti ship missiles, AESA radar. With pretty much the same crewing as 2 x Anzacs.

Some of the lower crewed ships, you would be able to squeeze 3 into what it takes to crew 2 Anzacs. The PPA Light and Full fit in here, around 6000t.

The larger ships would be a 1 for 1 basis. Type 26 and other large ships, which could be 8000-10000+t .

That is probably the most challenging question for NZ. Going to a 3 or 4 combatant navy would also have massive advantages. Continuous deployments, more coverage, more resilient crewing, surge capability, etc.

 

[ngatimozart]

If we were to go with any variant of the Type 26 we are looking at approximately NZ$2.2 billion per ship and realistically we would be looking at $4.4 billion for two ships. Three ships for $6.6 billion is a huge ask.

However going with a ship along the lines that @MrConservative suggests it is quite feasible that for NZ$4.4 billion we could acquire three or four ships which is far better than two. The point is that we are going to have to be somewhat creative with our frigate replacement project in order to get VfM and the best capability.

Andrew Watts made the point in his article about the benefits of going with one yard for our full shipbuilding program and that is something that we should seriously consider because it would give systems commonality across various platforms. However as @Lucasnz says we cannot afford to multi-role broadly because a Jack of all trades and a master of none will create more problems than it solves. So our Anzac frigate replacements have to be FFGs not a well armed ESV. Having said that our amphibs and logistics ships have to armed well enough to vigorously defend themselves. A CIWS and single 25mm gun simply doesn't cut the mustard these days. They will require missile defence at the least. Relying upon escort ships for air defence is no longer an option either, because once escort ships are sunk or disabled then the amphibs and / or logistics ships are basically undefended and will be sunk.

The claim will be made that we will only operate as part of a coalition or allied force, but that's beside the point. Doesn't matter who the escorts are, they are still capable of being sunk or disabled. Secondly there is no guarantee that we will always be operating within a coalition allied task force environment. Circumstances can and will change very quickly during a conflict. To assume that we will always operate within a coalition or allied force and that we will always operate under friendly air cover is a mistake. We prepare for the worse and hope for the best, because if we don't we will lose our fleet and many Kiwi lives pure and simple.

 

[ngatimozart]

I also came across an interesting Youtube presentation relating to the Southern Ocean Patrol Vessel project, from one of the scientists at the NZ Defence Technology Agency. It is a bit maths/stats heavy (it is a presentation on the Southern Ocean sea states given to an Australian branch of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects). Link here. It certainly shows why a new vessel (preferably much larger) is needed. The OPVs seem unsafe to conduct that mission (it seems they pitch too much, and may run into minibus-sized chunks of ice above their ice belt).

On the same channel there are some more interesting videos on the Australian new Antarctic icebreaker (Nuyina) and the Hunter class frigates.

I have just watched Sandy Garrett's presentation. The real problem with the Otago Class OPVs and the Aotearoa is that they have been built to Baltic and North Atlantic Ice Class specifications because the only record of wave climate data has been the North Atlantic. The presumption has always been that what is valid for there will be valid for the Southern Ocean, but that's not correct. Anecdotal evidence and now some empirical evidence is showing that assumption to be wrong with significant wave heights in the Southern Ocean being 1.5 - 2.0 times larger than the North Atlantic in some cases. However in general the significance wave height in the Southern Ocean is higher than that of the North Atlantic. It also shows that wave periods and hence wave lengths are also longer. They lost 3 moored wave buoys because of the wave energy, over a 10 day period the significant wave height was 10m or greater, and one day a wave with a height of 23.4m was recorded. That's the height of a 7 story building.

WRT the Otago Class OPVs the ice strengthening is a thin belt around the hull and because of the pitching of the ships due to the wave length a significant part of the hull above the ice belt is in the water during the pitching motion. Because there are chunks of ice the size of minivans floating in the sea and these not being picked up by radar and being hard to see, if one hits the ship outside of the icebelt, it has great potential to puncture the hull. So that's why the RNZN is no longer sailing them down into the deep Southern Ocean.

Sandy Garrett also said that the SOPV will be a light ice breaker but she didn't say much else on it. WRT the ice classification she said that the RNZN has used the DTA research to forward a proposal to the classification authorities that a formal Southern Ocean Ice Classification be formulated, for both construction and insurance requirements.

 

[chis73]

I dug through my references and found a couple of diagrams of typical ASW & GP frigate speed profiles, and the power requirements vs speed for a frigate-sized (4000-5000t full load displacement I assume) vessel. As you can see, the power requirements for 30 kts are nearly 10 times those for 15 kts. From Blackman, Journal of Naval Engineering Vol 28 book1 (Dec 1983)

 

[ASSAIL]

I dug through my references and found a couple of diagrams of typical ASW & GP frigate speed profiles, and the power requirements vs speed for a frigate-sized (4000-5000t full load displacement I assume) vessel. As you can see, the power requirements for 30 kts are nearly 10 times those for 15 kts. From Blackman, Journal of Naval Engineering Vol 28 book1 (Dec 1983)

View attachment 48471

A typical example of power can be seen in the Charles F Adams destroyers.
With 2 x boilers connected (half the available power) the ship could achieve 27 kts.
Double the power by connecting the other 2 boilers and you only get another 6kts.

 

[MrConservative]

If we were to go with any variant of the Type 26 we are looking at approximately NZ$2.2 billion per ship and realistically we would be looking at $4.4 billion for two ships. Three ships for $6.6 billion is a huge ask.

Though NG the Type 26 is likely to be somewhat more than NZD$2.2m per ship. Once weapons stocks/systems, a Zero-Ship training centre, and the myriad of other costs to get the capability into commission it will likely be around NZD$7-8B for two vessels. The Constellation Class might be able to get in under that price point.

The Type 26 works for the UK, Canada and Australia as the programme is not just about the vessel, it is about rebuilding an independent shipbuild capability and they are prepared to pay a high premium for that, which is why on a price point basis for a 3rd party export buyer like New Zealand - they will be quite some way of being near what the industrial giants like MHI's and HHI's of this world with their massive economy of scale advantage and 40 year constant build drumbeat can do ship building and significantly their technological R&D reach throughout their wider parent Keiretsu that they tap into as well as having a constant stream of government backed orders systematically planned years ahead.

 

[alexsa]

Though NG the Type 26 is likely to be somewhat more than NZD$2.2m per ship. Once weapons stocks/systems, a Zero-Ship training centre, and the myriad of other costs to get the capability into commission it will likely be around NZD$7-8B for two vessels. The Constellation Class might be able to get in under that price point.

The Type 26 works for the UK, Canada and Australia as the programme is not just about the vessel, it is about rebuilding an independent shipbuild capability and they are prepared to pay a high premium for that, which is why on a price point basis for a 3rd party export buyer like New Zealand - they will be quite some way of being near what the industrial giants like MHI's and HHI's of this world with their massive economy of scale advantage and 40 year constant build drumbeat can do ship building and significantly their technological R&D reach throughout their wider parent Keiretsu that they tap into as well as having a constant stream of government backed orders systematically planned years ahead.

The entire project is costed at 35 billion but (and I am happy to be corrected) that is for the through life cost of the vessels (weapons, support, training etc etc) and the development of the building yard (half a billion just for the buildings and basic infrastructure) and test and trial arrangements (including shore based test facilities). Actual ship costs should decrease over time as efficiency increases. It is possible that a block II version may be a bit cheaper than you predict (at net present value). If common systems are used then there may be saving in a combined training and support infrastructure as well.

The Constellation Class is supposed to be just under 1 billion USD per ship (about 1.4 billion NZD) .... but is that just the hull fitted out without through life costs? The first of class is predicted to be over 1.3 billion USD (1.82 Billion NZD) with the second about 1.1 billion USD.

That being said we have not started building just yet.

 

[StingrayOZ]

If we were to go with any variant of the Type 26 we are looking at approximately NZ$2.2 billion per ship and realistically we would be looking at $4.4 billion for two ships. Three ships for $6.6 billion is a huge ask.

I would probably assume 3 Type 26 is probably a extremely stretch stretch goal, probably not realistic. Crewing, operational and purchase cost is probably outsized. Even if you had the money, finding another 160-180 crew is going to be, interesting, even in a wartime situation. Unless you basically intend to not fully crew the third and underutilize the hull. While two ships would be very capable, you have the many of the same issues you have with the Anzac class currently. A sustained deployment is hard with just two ships, any upgrades means half your fleet is out of action. However, IMO two ships I think would be at least possible/affordable from a crew/budget. But in a conflict, or post conflict situation it may come into favor, particularly if NZ and AU had a closer relationship. While the ship is expensive, sharing Australian logistics, upgrades and maintenance and training facilities would result in significant savings. Not cheap, but possibly enough to make it manageable. I don't think a two ship build should be ruled out of hand.

While the Type 26 builds include significant local investments in the yards making them with all three having various yard and infrastructure refreshes, I am sure UK, Canada and Aus would could offer a fixed price hull only cost, that would be very attractive. NZ wouldn't be paying for yard expansion etc. NZ would be paying market rates or lower. By increasing build volume of the same type of ship, the yard can find more efficiencies, there a bulk supply efficiencies, continuous work etc.

The US builds crazy numbers. Again, could quote an attractive price. But would be unlikely to be interested in incorporating euro weapons etc. Or any significant customization. That isn't what they do. Its more of an off the peg build. If it was offered.

Probably a more affordable fit would be able to squeeze three or four smaller ships. While smaller than the Type 26, still much larger than the Anzac. But this would loose any Australia/UK/CA training, upgrades and logistics support. NZ would again, be paying market rates from South Korea, Spain, Japan, Italy, or the UK. Again, all would be hungry for the work, not really to make a huge profit, but to keep their workforces busy and to find more efficiencies in production and lower overall fleet costs in build and sustainment.

Lets explore what could be on offer, while specs aren't everything, these are all very different ships.

Japan - Mogami class - 130m, 5,500t, 90 crew, 5" 16x mk41 vls, torpedos, 1 x searam, 8 x antiship, 1 Sh60 helicopter
South Korea - Daegu Class - 122m, 3,593t 140 crew 5" 16 cell K-VLS, 2x3 torpedos, 1 x 20mm Phalanx, 8 x antiship, 1 Helicopter
Italy - Thaon di Revel-Class - 5880t 120/90 crew, 5"/76mm, 16 camm-er, 2x3 torpedo, 4x antiship, 2 x SH90 or 1 AW101
Uk - Type 31 - 5700t - 80-100 crew, 1x57mm, 24 Seaceptor, 2 40mm, 1 helo
Spain - F110 - 6100t - 150, 5", 16xvls, 2x30mm, 8 x harpoon, 2x3 torpedos, 1x SH60/NH90

All very different ships. The Thaondi Revel can be an OPV to a light frigate. The Daegu class is about the same size as an Anzac, while the other ships are much larger getting to Hobart class size. The Mogami offers a lot. The italian ship is the only one that can handle two helos reasonably. Main guns vary from 57mm to 5".

I suppose my point is there is a lot there in that space that NZ could choose from. It really depends what type of ship they are after. There are even options for things like two different flavors of ships, like the Italians have a OPV and Frigate based off the same design, with low and high man options. They have different focus, some are ASW ships some are more GP, some are

Endurance is also all over the shop. From about 4000NM to ~9000NMi. As would be prices. Manning goes from 80 up to ~150+, and there is huge variation of what is counted in manning.

 

[ngatimozart]

@alexsa and @StingrayOZ The costs that I use are the turnkey sail away cost. Every country counts their WOLC differently and that's why I prefer the sail away / driveaway / flyaway costing model. I know that the NZ MoD have found from experience how much the required extras generally cost for an aviation acquisition as a % of the flyaway cost, so when I do a guesstimate for a capability I add that in as a separate variable. I use that % across the board as a general assumption based on the logic that such costs would be similar as a % across domains. It's just a generalisation because each contract is different, but I would suggest can be used as a general approximate indication of overall costs, which is good enough for our purposes.

 

[MrConservative]

Looking at the ADF's 2020 Force Structure Plan - Maritime Fact Sheet, the Hunter Class project will cost $45.6b which includes $11b allocated for non-acquisition costs such as infrastructure, facilities and contingency through its build drumbeat out to 2044. The Hunter Class Assurance project from 2032/33 is another $4.9b - $7.4b as a separate funding line. The A$34.6b figure in 2020 out-turned dollars is for the production and equipping of nine Hunter ships. This all up figure is essentially NZD$4B per vessel in 2020 turned out Kiwi dollars - however into that equation is the Zero ship - the training centre - thus it is difficult to get an exact read. The Australian Senate Economics Reference Committee, Answer to Question of Notice, Question reference number 17, on 21 September 2020, replied to the committee that the current estimate for a built ship would be A$257,000 per tonne or NZD$267000 per tonne.

 

[MrConservative]

StingrayOZ makes some very good points regarding the crewing. A difficult situation for any Navy to generate and with NZ to have a population still under 6 million in the later half of next decade - finding capable crew will not be easy.

That said I do think that 3 crewed intermediate sized frigates between 4500 - 6000 tonnes with 120-130ish crew is achievable and indeed necessary for all the obvious reasons. We can wish for more crews and frigates, but that is like wishing your horse makes the birdcage for the 3rd race at Ellerslie.

That is why I believe the bigger frigates around the 8000+ tonne 180-200+ crew category need to be parked. It is a societal things these days - you don't join to see the world anymore. Kids today have so many more career options than in the 50's-80's. In my view there will still only ever be a few hundred a year wanting to commit to a navy career in 10 years time. It might even be harder.

Over the last few years the RNZN has worked with Lockheed Martin as prime systems integrator and GFE supplier on the Anzac upgrade phases and Hyundai Heavy Industries on the design and construction of the HMNZS Aotearoa.

The capability nexus between those three entities is there to deliver what I would paraphrase as "the construction of three credible intermediate sized-mission frigates capable of conducting anti-submarine warfare, anti-air warfare, anti-surface warfare and electromagnetic warfare, operating in both blue water and littoral areas, and either independently or as part of larger task-force in a post 2030 Indo-Pacific geo-strategic environment."

 

[ngatimozart]

Not a fan of Ellersie, Alexandra Park (harness racing for the non Kiwis) was more my fancy, but totally agree about the birdcage analogy.

Automation is becoming more the norm these days and whether the ship is 6,000 tonnes or 8,000 tonnes displacement is becoming less relevant WRT crew size. It's more to do with what the taskings are and the addons you include for those taskings. For example the RDN use Marine SF for boardings during deployments to the Arabian Gulf whereas the RAN & RNZN use ships company. In the case of the RNZN the only addons are usually the helo aircrew and RNZAF helo techies. So the tendency is to add spare accommodation for extras.

The only problem that I have with automation would be damage control in wartime. That's manpower intensive especially when you're fighting the ship at the same time. If the DC parties have to go into action, it's dangerous, quite physical and can be quite tiring. If it goes on for a reasonable period of time you have to think about spelling and rotating DC crews.