Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[76mmGuns]

May only need rafting/insulation on one set of engines. I think they will get reasonable capability out of it if it is selected.

You can do that? Does that mean that ship will be able to run silently on an electric engine, but won't have a spare that can run quietly, and can't move as quickly, while silently?

Whether or not NZ buys a Type 31 style or Type 26 depends on how far China expands, imho. If China has a couple of bases in the Pacific Islands by mid 2020's.........

 

[MrConservative]

A couple of points:

1. The RNZN is far more interested in the Type 26.

2. The future Port of Auckland wont be in Whangarei/Marsden because by the time a decision is made the political careers of Winston and Shane Jones will be over as will be their blatant pork-barrelling. For it to work a double track train line extension of 220 km with multiple new tunnels would have to be built costing billions. Where as the favoured by the experts Matingarahi Point and the Eco Port Plan requires just 35km of new track and just one 8km tunnel to connect it with the Esk Valley and onto the Inland Port at Wiri.

 

[alexsa]

May only need rafting/insulation on one set of engines. I think they will get reasonable capability out of it if it is selected.

Subs are likely to be a significant threat going into the future, but given the budget one I think NZ will handle with their cheaper frigates and dismounts and aircraft. Australia would appreciate any significant capability being sought by NZ. Australia clearly wanted the deluxe anti-submarine capability, it was one of the key design considerations for the Hunters. Its entirely possible it a type 31 would exceed AWD ASW capabilities. As an Australian I would be wrapped if NZ decided to acquire 3 x type 31's with surface and subsurface capability. I think most in the ADF and the AusGov would think the same. Australia's ship building plan does not depend on NZ buying or partnering on any program. Doesn't mean we won't put in an offer for a build.


Awww.. not even sometimes? I think the Anzac program leaves a bitter taste for many a Kiwi. But I do think its much more likely that the NZ replacement frigates will be operating in and around the south pacific region, while Australia's "frigates" are more likely to go into the South China Sea, the Gulf, and other heavily contested spaces, in the back yard of peer adversaries.

I still think the NZ gov will be put off by the size of the Type 31 and would prefer something much, much smaller, cheaper and more OPV like.

Even so, the UK will manage T26/T31 combined fleet, so I can't imagine Australia and NZ balancing their needs and wants with what they have will be too difficult.

From what I understand the DDG are bi-static with the ASW suite.... this is no small thing and is not cheap. Add to that the combat system integration means they will be integrated into a common picture with other RAN units. The combined engagement capability allows for an any unit response.

On the rafting .... it is not just the main engine you need to raft, it is the entire package as the auxiliary systems will also eradicate noise. A solution of sorts would be to fit batteries and electric motors into the drive train and raft the gensets. Still not cheap.

You get what you pay for.

 

[ASSAIL]

A couple of points:

1. The RNZN is far more interested in the Type 26.

2. The future Port of Auckland wont be in Whangarei/Marsden because by the time a decision is made the political careers of Winston and Shane Jones will be over as will be their blatant pork-barrelling. For it to work a double track train line extension of 220 km with multiple new tunnels would have to be built costing billions. Where as the favoured by the experts Matingarahi Point and the Eco Port Plan requires just 35km of new track and just one 8km tunnel to connect it with the Esk Valley and onto the Inland Port at Wiri.

I’m confused! I can find an Esk Valley in the middle of nowhere south of Timauru and a suburb of Wiri near Auckland airport.
Do you have further info on the Eco Port Plan?

 

[Gibbo]

A couple of points:

1. The RNZN is far more interested in the Type 26.

2. The future Port of Auckland wont be in Whangarei/Marsden because by the time a decision is made the political careers of Winston and Shane Jones will be over as will be their blatant pork-barrelling. For it to work a double track train line extension of 220 km with multiple new tunnels would have to be built costing billions. Where as the favoured by the experts Matingarahi Point and the Eco Port Plan requires just 35km of new track and just one 8km tunnel to connect it with the Esk Valley and onto the Inland Port at Wiri.

Yeah ah, nah... I know a fair bit about such things and I can tell you the North Auckland Line won't need to be 220km of double track. Tunnels need work but there are a significant number of crossing loops that could be re-opened & lengthened. The only significant pinch point will be the Akl suburban area but night running will suit port traffic on the whole. A lot of dosh yes, billions... no.

 

[KiwiRob]

A couple of points:

1. The RNZN is far more interested in the Type 26.

2. The future Port of Auckland wont be in Whangarei/Marsden because by the time a decision is made the political careers of Winston and Shane Jones will be over as will be their blatant pork-barrelling. For it to work a double track train line extension of 220 km with multiple new tunnels would have to be built costing billions. Where as the favoured by the experts Matingarahi Point and the Eco Port Plan requires just 35km of new track and just one 8km tunnel to connect it with the Esk Valley and onto the Inland Port at Wiri.

You can have the Port in one location and the new drydocking facility in another, I don't see a problem with that. The Devonport dock should also be kept, and used.

 

[Gibbo]

Good catch there 40 deg. A very chunky and nice looking design...clearly looks bigger than the new Manawanui but interestingly it suggests that if this is indicative of what most tenders were like then I'd say the RNZN has got 90% of what they wanted... albeit a 2nd hand vessel with a shorter life expectancy. If anyone has looked at the RNZN video of the new Manawanui you'll see it has brand new dive equipment. She has a moonpool (itself a big move forward) with a dive bell & sitting beside that another LARS with an equipment 'basket' that can lower tools etc for divers in the bell.

One question (concern) I do have though is surely extreme caution would have to be exercised to ensure that when both items are deployed underwater that currents don't push the equipment basket into the dive bell or more critically the SSBA umbilicals... is it standard practise to have 2 such items side by side on dive vessels?

Am unsure but @KiwiRob will know.

KiwiRob... Ngati tells me you;re the man to ask! ;-)

So Manawanui has a wet bell on a railed LARS & next to it a lever-arm LARS with an equipment basket / cage. Assuming both will be deployed underwater together, isn't there a risk currents could move the 2 together, risking damage to SSBA umbilicals? Is this poor design or tired & trusted design?

 

[KiwiRob]

KiwiRob... Ngati tells me you;re the man to ask! ;-)

So Manawanui has a wet bell on a railed LARS & next to it a lever-arm LARS with an equipment basket / cage. Assuming both will be deployed underwater together, isn't there a risk currents could move the 2 together, risking damage to SSBA umbilicals? Is this poor design or tired & trusted design?

I don't really know but I can ask my nephew who is a ROV operator onboard similar vessels.

 

[Gibbo]

I don't really know but I can ask my nephew who is a ROV operator onboard similar vessels.

Yep that'd be good... Curious to know.

 

[StingrayOZ]

From what I understand the DDG are bi-static with the ASW suite.... this is no small thing and is not cheap. Add to that the combat system integration means they will be integrated into a common picture with other RAN units. The combined engagement capability allows for an any unit response.

On the rafting .... it is not just the main engine you need to raft, it is the entire package as the auxiliary systems will also eradicate noise. A solution of sorts would be to fit batteries and electric motors into the drive train and raft the gensets. Still not cheap.

You get what you pay for.

This would seem to go against some of the design principles of the Iver/Type 31 and it wasn't really designed with this in mind. I would imagine in such situations, while it would have some capabilities, forces would rely on more specialist units or dismounts or aircraft to provide that capability. I believe the Iver Huitfeldt design was an offering modified for enhanced ASW capability, but wasn't shortlisted, so I assume there is some that can be done in this area to improve over a base line, but it would seem to be in a different class from a ship built from the ground up for that kind of top end capability.

1. The RNZN is far more interested in the Type 26.

Given the current situation not surprised. I would really love to NZ have that kind of capability from 2 or 3 Type 26.

 

[hauritz]

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.

 

[swerve]

Upgrading sensors & adding more weapons is intended to be easy. It's meant to be an exportable design, customisable to customer requirements.

 

[MrConservative]

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.

The RNZN exists in the same geo-strategic environment as the RCN (Pacific) and the RAN and well aware of it. Not some kind of alternate armchair admiral universe.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

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.

 

[MrConservative]

Yeah ah, nah... I know a fair bit about such things and I can tell you the North Auckland Line won't need to be 220km of double track. Tunnels need work but there are a significant number of crossing loops that could be re-opened & lengthened. The only significant pinch point will be the Akl suburban area but night running will suit port traffic on the whole. A lot of dosh yes, billions... no.

There is a difference in getting the basic single track line with tunnel modifications upgraded (Current quote $94m) and future proofing a major port infrastructure project and its connection through to the largest metro area accounting for projected freight movement growth out to 2060 which will be well beyond the 400000 container movements Shane Jones is basing his figures on, whilst also factoring in the passenger transport dimension of the line that Ms Genter is crystal balling.
They are talking $1.3B to do it, but like the CRL which once was $2.5B is now out to $4.2B, to do it properly and not half-arsed. The Upper North Island Supply Chain Working Group was due to report a couple of weeks ago other than one or two items such as the $94m tarting up of the North line. Hopefully it will get canned as the Firth of Thames option is clear daylight the better option.

 

[ngatimozart]

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.

 

[Massive]

A minimum of a three hull fully capable fleet has to occur, and I am totally in agreement with that.

Is there a risk of the frigates not being replaced?

There does seem to be a relentless decline in combat capability in the NZDF and with the capability plan suggesting no decision will be made on this until after 2030 it does feel as if the risk is extant.

Regards,

Massive

 

[ngatimozart]

Is there a risk of the frigates not being replaced?

There does seem to be a relentless decline in combat capability in the NZDF and with the capability plan suggesting no decision will be made on this until after 2030 it does feel as if the risk is extant.

Regards,

Massive

There is always that risk, especially with a left wing govt in power and Treasury most likely seeing no value in expensive warships that aren't used in anger. They won the battle with the ACF and undoubtedly at some stage will try the same strategy with the NCF, if they already haven't. Treasury like the army because it's relatively low tech, hence less expensive.

 

[Massive]

no value in expensive warships that aren't used in anger

The other concern is that the NZDF ends up with a level of capability embedded in platforms that doesn't match modern requirements.

For example, if an ACF is reconstituted, it needs to be with modern effective platforms - e.g. F-35 or Super Hornet. Same with the NCF - do you end up with a Type 26, a Type 31 or a 3000t light frigate (effectively a modern ANZAC) - or even a variant on the large OPV theme.

IMHO the NZ Army is suffering from this - it is a very light force and its main systems appear to be facing obsolescence.

Regards,

Massive

 

[Wombat000]

Is there a risk of the frigates not being replaced?

im guessing that if NZ had defence capability agreements with its inevitable allies, this concern would not be an issue?