Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[Volkodav]

Think they are pretty munted aren't they, so we'd be swapping one munted lot for another munted lot.


The NZG wouldn't go for the Hobart class destroyers because they wouldn't meet the needs of the NZDF. They are to specialised and expensive. The Spanish F100s are similar as they appear to be primarily designed for air defence. I think that the RNZN is after a more GP frigate that incorporates very good ASW and AsuW suites. Three would be far better than two. But the idea of replacing the two ANZACs early does have merit and a GP version of the F100 would be interesting. It would make sense as it's a relatively new and proven design plus it would tick the box of commonality of with Australia.

While I agree in the expensive bit you have to admit the F-100 is a general purpose design that happens to excel in air defence. It has a VDS and an ASW Helo in addition to the hull mounted sonar and ASW torpedo tubes, I don't know what else you could do to make it a better ASW platform, VLASROC, a second helo? Don't forget the Harpoon, 62 cal 5"gun and 20mm (F-100) 25mm Typhoon (Hobart) aft of the bridge wings. Its air defence capability doesn't limit its versatility, in increases it. I would suggest that the F-100 exceeds, rather than fails to meet the RNZDF.

It’s more a question of are there platforms that can do what is required for a lower cost; I would hazard the answer is yes. Would the RNZDF like the extra capability, probably; would the government pay for it, probably not.

 

[12BotG]

The RNZN doesn't always operate in an allied naval group. It is also required to operate unilaterally. The NZDF is realigning towards a Joint Amphibious Task Force which will operate as part of multinational group and unilaterally as required, therefore an ASuW as well as an ASW capbility plus an air self defence ability is required.

For ANZAC replacement a multirole frigate should be considered. But considering the A class have completed close to half of useful life, and considering NZ navy budget, it would be better value for money and allow greater frigate involvement within the US and NATO CBG's. I understand wanting the ability to operate independantly from the frigates, but the funds to fully upgrade the frigates should instead be used for future acquisitions (AOR, UAV etc.). Also going by the political response towards the navy, independant operations against overseas threats does not seem likely in the near future.

 

[ngatimozart]

For ANZAC replacement a multirole frigate should be considered. But considering the A class have completed close to half of useful life, and considering NZ navy budget, it would be better value for money and allow greater frigate involvement within the US and NATO CBG's. I understand wanting the ability to operate independantly from the frigates, but the funds to fully upgrade the frigates should instead be used for future acquisitions (AOR, UAV etc.). Also going by the political response towards the navy, independant operations against overseas threats does not seem likely in the near future.

You need to read back through the thread and the NZDF thread. Plus the 2010 NZ Defence White Paper sets out the framework for NZ defence policy. The next DWP is due in 2015 and will be written by the current govt (election due late 2014). It is a matter of sovereignity that the RNZN and NZDF be able to operate unilaterally.

 

[LRate]

The reasoning for purchasing only 4 MH60Rs is cost and the fact the RNZN only has two frigates. There is no point putting advanced weapon system helo on a civi spec ship such as CY or the Endeavour 3 which lack sensors ,C2 systems and most importantly a air weapons magazine. An embarked NH90 would better suit the logistical role of CY and END 3.
Training wise RNZN crews could be trained in Norwa as part of exchange , sort of similar to arrangement where RAN midshipmen train on CY.
Another problem with the SH2G(I) would be the integration of the AGM65D which would mean the NZDF would have to purchase the more expensive AGM119 penguin missile as part of the air delivered weapon system blowing out the initial 150 million budget.

 

[ngatimozart]

The reasoning for purchasing only 4 MH60Rs is cost and the fact the RNZN only has two frigates. There is no point putting advanced weapon system helo on a civi spec ship such as CY or the Endeavour 3 which lack sensors ,C2 systems and most importantly a air weapons magazine. An embarked NH90 would better suit the logistical role of CY and END 3.
Training wise RNZN crews could be trained in Norwa as part of exchange , sort of similar to arrangement where RAN midshipmen train on CY.
Another problem with the SH2G(I) would be the integration of the AGM65D which would mean the NZDF would have to purchase the more expensive AGM119 penguin missile as part of the air delivered weapon system blowing out the initial 150 million budget.

You seem to have a limited understanding of the role and taskings of the RNZN. RNZN helos operate off more than just frigates and they do far more than just ASW & ASuW taskings. Given the size of RNZN and funding it is a single helo type navy. If the SH2G(I) is bought by the NZG the Penguin missile will most definitely not be part of the system. It was the RANs decision to mount the Penguin on their Seasprites which created one of the major problems they had with it. Most, if not all, of the issues the RAN had with the Seasprites were of their own making.

 

[aussienscale]

You seem to have a limited understanding of the role and taskings of the RNZN. RNZN helos operate off more than just frigates and they do far more than just ASW & ASuW taskings. Given the size of RNZN and funding it is a single helo type navy. If the SH2G(I) is bought by the NZG the Penguin missile will most definitely not be part of the system. It was the RANs decision to mount the Penguin on their Seasprites which created one of the major problems they had with it. Most, if not all, of the issues the RAN had with the Seasprites were of their own making.

So what multi role helo do you see the RNZN needing as it only requires a single type ?

 

[ngatimozart]

So what multi role helo do you see the RNZN needing as it only requires a single type ?

The RNZN is a single type helo navy by necessity, not by choice. The NH90 NFH is too large, expensive and has late delivery issues, and most definitely to big for the OPV both in size and weight (~10 tonnes). That leaves either the AW159 Wildcat or the Romeo. The Wildcat has a similar MTOW to the SH2G(NZ) ~ 6 tonnes and the Romeo ~ 8 tonnes. Then theres the dollars and the current NZG is highly allergic to investing new money into NZDF.The Wildcat is shorter than the Seasprite by 0.5m and its main rotor diameter is 0.6m smaller than the Seasprite. The Romeo is just under 4m longer than the Seasprite and it's rotor diameter is just under 3m wider. It stands at 5.2m high, the Wildcat 3.73m high and the Seasprite 4.5m high. I got this data from Wikipedia and know its not as good a source as others, but it was all nicely tabulated. So the Wildcat is smaller shorter & of similar weight to the Seasprite but it's pommy and all that entails. If RNZN got it, it would need to be capable of operating Mavericks, Hellfires and other US weapons. It would fit on the OPV flight decks even better than the Seasprites. So the Wildcat would be my choice as long as it was capable of being integrated with US weapons and RAN and USN data transfer technologies, without any dramas.

 

[ADMk2]

You seem to have a limited understanding of the role and taskings of the RNZN. RNZN helos operate off more than just frigates and they do far more than just ASW & ASuW taskings. Given the size of RNZN and funding it is a single helo type navy. If the SH2G(I) is bought by the NZG the Penguin missile will most definitely not be part of the system. It was the RANs decision to mount the Penguin on their Seasprites which created one of the major problems they had with it. Most, if not all, of the issues the RAN had with the Seasprites were of their own making.

Including the most important one, that we never should have tried to buy the damn things in the first place.

Another 8 Seahawks would have served us brilliantly AND we could have easily put Penguin ASM's on them and met ALL of our requirements...

 

[KiwiRob]

But the idea of replacing the two ANZACs early does have merit and a GP version of the F100 would be interesting. It would make sense as it's a relatively new and proven design plus it would tick the box of commonality of with Australia.

The Norwegian Nansen class are basically a cut down frigate version of the F100, that would pretty much fit your suggestion.

 

[ngatimozart]

The Norwegian Nansen class are basically a cut down frigate version of the F100, that would pretty much fit your suggestion.

Thanks Reg, nice find; they do don't they. I went and had a look on Wiki then on Naval Technology. We'd have to replace the 76mm gun with a 127mm one but I see that it has been allowed for. I note it has a crew of 120 (ANZAC 163). It has an AEGIS system based on the SPY-1F, a scaled version of the AN/SPY-1D used by the USN so I wonder if that would work with the AEGIS being developed for the RAN AWD and the ANZAC replacements. Certainly worth far more than a casual look. Might have to drop a note to a certain ex journalist MP to stir the pot a bit.
Nansen Class Anti-Submarine Warfare Frigates - Naval Technology

 

[Volkodav]

Thanks Reg, nice find; they do don't they. I went and had a look on Wiki then on Naval Technology. We'd have to replace the 76mm gun with a 127mm one but I see that it has been allowed for. I note it has a crew of 120 (ANZAC 163). It has an AEGIS system based on the SPY-1F, a scaled version of the AN/SPY-1D used by the USN so I wonder if that would work with the AEGIS being developed for the RAN AWD and the ANZAC replacements. Certainly worth far more than a casual look. Might have to drop a note to a certain ex journalist MP to stir the pot a bit.
Nansen Class Anti-Submarine Warfare Frigates - Naval Technology

Wiki doesn't mention that the reduction gearing they use for their CODAG propulsion system is about as quiet as a volcanic eruption. Still I don’t mind them and if you went for a simpler propulsion set up they would likely be quieter and more efficient, probably need to fork out for an extra GT though. At the end of the day I don’t think they were that cheap and there were compromises associated with the SPY-1F set up, it may work out cheaper or at least better to use an expanded CEASCAN/CEAMOUNT set up on the AEGIS combat system.

Then again, steel is cheap and air is free so why not just go the larger hull of the F-100?

 

[Todjaeger]

While the notion of replacing the ANZAC-class FFH's early in lieu of a mid-life update is interesting, there are a few key questions which would need to be answered before one could even attempt to decide on a platform.

Firstly, and this is a general question, what specific roles does the RNZN/NZDF, need filled, wants filled, and Gov't will allow to be filled?

Secondly, and this is perhaps more important than the first question, where is the funding for this occur going to come from? As I understand it, some of the concern regarding the scope (or lack thereof) of the current FFH upgrades is that the level of funding would be insufficient to allow significant modernization (i.e. upgrade to ESSM, addition illuminator(s), towed sonar array) nevermind sensor upgrades like has been done with the RAN ANZAC-class ASMD programme. If there are problems funding the modernization of what is already in the Fleet, then new spending to purchase a suitably up to date class of frigate is even less likely.

If/when the RNZN does get new frigates, I do agree that they should be GP frigates, able operate independently and as part of a national or multi-national task force. Similarly, they need to be able to fill ASW, ASuW, Air Defence and NGS roles.

To that end, it would seem likely that such a frigate should mount a 5" naval cannon, LWT launchers, and full length Mk 41 VLS cells (at least some) and a large helicopter hangar. Additional smaller VLS for smaller/shorter-ranged SAM's would be fine, but there should be at least a few VLS cells which would be large enough to accomodate AShM, LACM, SM-3/SM-6 sized SAM's, or VLASROC. And of course the appropriate sensors and comms to utilize this loadout.

This is of course assuming that Gov't would be willing to have any RNZN frigate kitted out so offensively.

-Cheers

 

[KiwiRob]

At the end of the day I don’t think they were that cheap and there were compromises associated with the SPY-1F set up, it may work out cheaper or at least better to use an expanded CEASCAN/CEAMOUNT set up on the AEGIS combat system.

Then again, steel is cheap and air is free so why not just go the larger hull of the F-100?

The Nansen's cost the Norwegian taxpayer approx 10 billion NOK, industrial offsets were about 50%. So all up for 5 frigates about 2.2 billion NZD, not to bad if you ask me, and not a price that is to expensive for NZ. One of the main reasons why they look different from the F100 was due to requirements to operate in Arctic waters, I think this would be a selling point for the RNZN as they also operate in similar conditions.

 

[swerve]

10 billion kroner? I'd like a source for that. Wikipedia & every other source I've found says 21 billion projected including helicopters (1 per frigate plus 1 spare), citing an official Norwegian document - but the link is broken, diverting to the Norwegian armed forces home page.

Divide 21000 by 4.6 = 4565. Divide that by 5 & you get a total cost, including 6 helicopters, of NZD4.565 billion, or NZD913 mn per frigate & 1.2 helicopters.


Found it!
http://www.regjeringen.no/pages/14137473/Vedlegg_9.pdf
As of 23-05-2005, the official estimate of project cost was indeed 21 billion kroner. I don't know what the final figure was, but I doubt it was less than half that estimate.

 

[KiwiRob]

10 billion kroner? I'd like a source for that. Wikipedia & every other source I've found says 21 billion projected including helicopters (1 per frigate plus 1 spare), citing an official Norwegian document - but the link is broken, diverting to the Norwegian armed forces home page.

This is what I found, 1,63 billion USD in June 2000.

AMI International

The unit cost is listed as 326 million USD, I guess this price is without helicopters. I think your price is the complete program with the 14 NH90's included.

 

[Todjaeger]

This is what I found, 1,63 billion USD in June 2000.

AMI International

The unit cost is listed as 326 million USD, I guess this price is without helicopters. I think your price is the complete program with the 14 NH90's included.

The above figure is a close match to a figure from Navantia about the initial Nansen-class contract back in 2000 that I found here.

the five frigates have been delivered well within the approved cost limit of some NOK19 billion ($3.25 billion)

What that sounds like, is the ~NOK10 bil. cost would be for the hulls, machinery, controls and nav systems. The rest of the costs would likely have come from fitting out with the electronics, weapons systems, etc. That makes sense really, since something like half the cost of a modern warship comes from the electronics fitout and weapons package.

In rough numbers though, it does make it look more like cost would be ~NZD$800 mil. not including adjustments for inflation, per frigate. About what should be expected for a modern frigate.

-Cheers

 

[MrConservative]

Whilst people are having Christmas fun speculating on Wildcats and Norwegian frigates.

http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyr...VI_00DBSCH_EST_11306_1_A242304_StandardEs.pdf

This document was tabled in the house earlier this year - I think I may have whacked it up on here sometime ago. Few would ever read it. It bluntly points out no new money until 2016. Also, no idea given of further money for what we need let alone what we want until after the Output Class Review post the 2014 SOI.

Pages 12 and 13 are basically the DefMin pointing out to Parliament (and indirectly to the Treasury Goons on Hansard no less - so they can also comeback and say I told you so when the defence policy fails) that even on the stripped down funding pathway out to 2035 that they will fall significantly short of meeting capability and policy needs.

Last week in the House the FinMin congratulated the NZDF in their top of the class efforts at saving taxpayers money. Must be the 25 years of constant practice eh.

 

[ngatimozart]

So what multi role helo do you see the RNZN needing as it only requires a single type ?

The RNZN is a single type helo navy by necessity, not by choice. The NH90 NFH is too large, expensive and has late delivery issues, and most definitely to big for the OPV both in size and weight (~10 tonnes). That leaves either the AW159 Wildcat or the Romeo. The Wildcat has a similar MTOW to the SH2G(NZ) ~ 6 tonnes and the Romeo ~ 8 tonnes. Then theres the dollars and the current NZG is highly allergic to investing new money into NZDF.The Wildcat is shorter than the Seasprite by 0.5m and its main rotor diameter is 0.6m smaller than the Seasprite. The Romeo is just under 4m longer than the Seasprite and it's rotor diameter is just under 3m wider. It stands at 5.2m high, the Wildcat 3.73m high and the Seasprite 4.5m high. I got this data from Wikipedia and know its not as good a source as others, but it was all nicely tabulated. So the Wildcat is smaller shorter & of similar weight to the Seasprite but it's pommy and all that entails. If RNZN got it, it would need to be capable of operating Mavericks, Hellfires and other US weapons. It would fit on the OPV flight decks even better than the Seasprites. So the Wildcat would be my choice as long as it was capable of being integrated with US weapons and RAN and USN data transfer technologies, without any dramas.

I've been having a think and after reading that the Phillipine Navy is getting three A109 Powers (Makos in NZ Service) I am of the view that, excluding pollies, there is no reason why the RNZN could not operate marinised armoured Makos alongside the Seasprites or the Seasprite replacement. My reasoning for this is that the Mako will fit on the Protector OPV flight decks easily and as Reg has noted 3 Sqn will be flying the Makos, so having three or so airfames on 6 Sqn is no extra issues regarding number of rotary wing types in NZDF as it will still remain at three. Therefore my argument of the Seasprite replacement needing to fit the OPVs is withdrawn.

Whilst people are having Christmas fun speculating on Wildcats and Norwegian frigates.

http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyr...VI_00DBSCH_EST_11306_1_A242304_StandardEs.pdf

This document was tabled in the house earlier this year - I think I may have whacked it up on here sometime ago. Few would ever read it. It bluntly points out no new money until 2016. Also, no idea given of further money for what we need let alone what we want until after the Output Class Review post the 2014 SOI.

Pages 12 and 13 are basically the DefMin pointing out to Parliament (and indirectly to the Treasury Goons on Hansard no less - so they can also comeback and say I told you so when the defence policy fails) that even on the stripped down funding pathway out to 2035 that they will fall significantly short of meeting capability and policy needs.

Last week in the House the FinMin congratulated the NZDF in their top of the class efforts at saving taxpayers money. Must be the 25 years of constant practice eh.

I noted in the document that Mr C kindly supplied the link for, that the RNZN have taken the Multibeam Echo Sounders out of Resolution and fitted them to the OPVs. From that report I presume they had more than one and I would also presume that they would have fitted the ships motion sensors at the same time. This equipment is used for hydrographic surveying work so I am wondering if the decision has been made to expand the role of the OPVs to include Littoral Warfare. Manawanui must be close to being withdrawn from service due to old age, so if this is the case, I would then presume that the dive team functions will also transfer to the OPVs. I know it has been discussed here and on the RAN thread about using OPV / OCVs of around Protector Class OPV size for Littoral Warfare amongst other things. So is this move a vision of the future and a good one? Does it mean that the OPVs are the Resolution replacement and another vessel will not be sourced? Is it going to create undue stress and hardship upon the OPVs and their crews?

One final remark. The current NZG has a finite life along with the neoliberalist political, social and economic philosophies and policies it and all NZGs have espoused, clung to and. followed since 1984. The NZ version of neoliberalism is a particularly radical variant. My own view is that given the significant international failures of neoliberal policy in recent years, a seachange will occur in the political landscape of NZ in the future, maybe not in 2014 but by for arguments sake say around 2020. A govt that will take on more responsibilities may happen as the pendulum swings back. How that will affect NZDF is unknown but we can always hope for the best.

 

[ngatimozart]

How about some of these as OPV replacements in the future, or as extra OPVs if needed sooner. It's been suggested on the RAN thread as possible candidate for the SEA1180 OCV's. They are the Meteoro class OPV from Navantia and are of modular design. http://www.naval-technology.com/contractors/warship/navantia/pressnavantia-opv-spanish-navy.html

 

[John Newman]

How about some of these as OPV replacements in the future, or as extra OPVs if needed sooner. It's been suggested on the RAN thread as possible candidate for the SEA1180 OCV's. They are the Meteoro class OPV from Navantia and are of modular design. Navantia Commissions OPV for the Spanish Navy - Naval Technology

Here's a couple more links on the Meteoro Class:

Buques de Acción Marítima (BAM) Class Patrol Vessels - Naval Technology

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buque_de_Acci%C3%B3n_Mar%C3%ADtima"]Buque de Acción Marítima - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Looks a very interesting ship, cost approx $US160m each (according to Wiki).

Wonder what the cost per ship would be with a bulk buy of, say 25 ships, for the RAN and the RNZN too?

Cheers,

John