Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[RobWilliams]

Type 26 is ok but alittle plain and you need a name that has some history, relevance and meaning behind it to complement the individual ship names.

We do have proper names, it's just in the development cycle they get their code like that (Type 23, Type 45, Type 26 stuff like that) long before they get named and it sticks. I still catch myself calling the Queen Elizabeth class CVF.

Type 23 - Duke class, Type 45 - Daring class.

Rest assured they will get a proper class name, plus if the export orders come through (bar Canada) then we're talking 27 ships in class, add on Canada and that becomes 42.

 

[Volkodav]

A bit of retrospective navel (naval) gazing, what if Australia had continued building AFP FFGs instead of kicking off the ANZAC Project? Could NZ have ended up with a pair of co-produced FFGs or would they have gone something different?

 

[RegR]

Agreed on final fitout as each country is going to have different goals and requirements dependant on region but with such a long lead time shouldn't be too hard to factor in and tweak, even propulsion needs are probably going to be different but again something that can be ticked on the options sheet hopefully. The bigger fleets can define their options even more but I take it we would go with the GP version as a baseline and go from there.

Yes if everyone does commit there are already decent hull numbers regardless of Canadas decision so hopefully financially beneficial for everyone. That is just my vote for class name anyway, has a ring to it and suits main users therefore fitting I feel. I guess build location would come down to factors such as costs, local input/offsets, supportability and build timeframes (would not be wanting to wait another 20-40 years if one per year rate).

I believe we would have taken the FFG option if presented as it would have supported our neighbours ship building industry and still provided a common frigate for the region, not sure of the other options around that ANZAC timeframe but suppose we could have also taken perry class direct from US. I was thinking we could have taken one or both of the Aus FFGs when they retired them to get the frigate fleet back to its hayday numbers whilst still retaining commonality but then realised they were probably well used and therefore probably not much use plus that would have meant the current ANZAC MLU would have been cut back or even deferred. Getting two on track and squared would be more preferential than underfunding/equipping 3-4 regardless of the obvious numerical dis-advantages.

Would be good to see our countries combine on common design as we do have a history of similar goals, training and overall requirements so makes sense.

 

[Volkodav]

I can't help but wonder how cheap and efficiently Williamstown would have been pumping out FFGs had the build been extended from two to twelve or fourteen hulls (depending how many NZ wanted) They could have actually ended up being cheaper than the ANZACs as well as more capable. They would also have been a very good lead in to an AWD build for the RAN.

 

[RobWilliams]

Yes if everyone does commit there are already decent hull numbers regardless of Canadas decision so hopefully financially beneficial for everyone. That is just my vote for class name anyway, has a ring to it and suits main users therefore fitting I feel. I guess build location would come down to factors such as costs, local input/offsets, supportability and build timeframes (would not be wanting to wait another 20-40 years if one per year rate).

It'd be pretty much built in the respective countries who buy them, the UK wants to build their own, so does Brazil, so - presumably - does Australia (Canada would too) so chances are RNZN would have to discuss their options with either the UK or Aus about what they want to do with their own.

 

[chis73]

Perry-class FFGs for the RNZN have been considered several times in the past - but usually dismissed fairly smartly. The main reasons I guess would have been:
a. high crewing requirements compared to european frigates
b. an expensive to operate propulsion system with a percieved lack of redundancy (2 gas turbines on a single shaft, versus cruise diesels on 2 shafts)
c. a requirement for naval gunfire support (for which the FFGs 76mm might be seen as somewhat anaemic)

I think the last time the FFG was seriously considered (probably one or two 2nd hand ex-USN vessels) was in the aftermath of the decision not to buy a third ANZAC - would have been I suppose 1997 through 1999. It would have meant a split fleet - so higher support costs.

Type 26 seems to be the front runner for the RNZN ANZAC replacement - but mainly because it appears (like the P8) to be the only game in town at present, now that the US has abandoned the field. I wouldn't be unhappy with another Meko - perhaps something based on the Type 123 hull though.

On another subject: what torpedo are the upcoming ex-RAN Seasprites expected to use? I'm curious. If I recall, our current Mk46s are on their last legs (due to expire this year?, no longer able to be reconditioned?). I don't know if the RAN Seasprites supported anything other than Mk46 (there was a plan for MU90s at one stage but I believe it fell through). I don't think a Mk46 replacement has been decided on yet by NZG. I suppose Mk54 or MU90 would be the most likely, but both would require integration work on the new Seasprites (perhaps this is why they have been delayed? -originally expected late 2014, now 2015).

Chis73

 

[RobWilliams]

Type 26 seems to be the front runner for the RNZN ANZAC replacement - but mainly because it appears (like the P8) to be the only game in town at present, now that the US has abandoned the field. I wouldn't be unhappy with another Meko - perhaps something based on the Type 123 hull though.

Wouldn't say the only game in town. FREMM (staple of future French/Italian navies) & F-100 (Spain and Aus AWD) have both been touted to Brazil as contenders for their frigate procurement.

If anything, one of the biggest benefits is that because it's still paper only then people who want in can still have input during the design process but that door is slowly closing.

 

[Lucasnz]

On another subject: what torpedo are the upcoming ex-RAN Seasprites expected to use? I'm curious. If I recall, our current Mk46s are on their last legs (due to expire this year?, no longer able to be reconditioned?). I don't know if the RAN Seasprites supported anything other than Mk46 (there was a plan for MU90s at one stage but I believe it fell through). I don't think a Mk46 replacement has been decided on yet by NZG. I suppose Mk54 or MU90 would be the most likely, but both would require integration work on the new Seasprites (perhaps this is why they have been delayed? -originally expected late 2014, now 2015).

Chis73

I read sometime ago that the RNZN was going to look at acquiring ex USN Mk 46 to extend the in service life because the RAN was no longer able to service them.

Someone can correct me but I thought the Australian's had some issues integrating the MU90 into some of its platforms, including the Sea Sprite. I think that would limit the RNZN and RNZAF options to the Mk54.

 

[Volkodav]

I read sometime ago that the RNZN was going to look at acquiring ex USN Mk 46 to extend the in service life because the RAN was no longer able to service them.

Someone can correct me but I thought the Australian's had some issues integrating the MU90 into some of its platforms, including the Sea Sprite. I think that would limit the RNZN and RNZAF options to the Mk54.

MU90 was another example of Primeminister and Cabinet selecting a well marketed developmental piece of kit in the mistaken belief it was a proven in service MOTS solution. Not a bad system, just not as mature as the ADF needed and by the time it was successfully integrated on the surface fleet the planned airborne platforms were nearing time for replacement making itegration in them a waste of money.

Cancellation of Seasprite and the selection of the MH-60R and P-8 has made he Mk-54 the obvious way forward. Teach politicians not to buy toys off powerpoint presentations and a lot of wasted time, duplication and money can be avoided.

 

[40 deg south]

Wouldn't say the only game in town. FREMM (staple of future French/Italian navies) & F-100 (Spain and Aus AWD) have both been touted to Brazil as contenders for their frigate procurement.

The ANZACs will run for at least another 10 years in NZ service, and possible much longer. South Korea already offers some handy-looking naval vessels at a very sharp price. With another decade of development, they might be hard to overlook.

By then, Japan could also be back in the military exports game, if their current government gets its way.

I don't think NZ will suffer from a lack of frigates to choose from. As always, the shortages will be public/political commitment and funding.

 

[kiwipatriot]

The ANZACs will run for at least another 10 years in NZ service, and possible much longer. South Korea already offers some handy-looking naval vessels at a very sharp price. With another decade of development, they might be hard to overlook.

By then, Japan could also be back in the military exports game, if their current government gets its way.

I don't think NZ will suffer from a lack of frigates to choose from. As always, the shortages will be public/political commitment and funding.

And the lack of personell issues the NZDF as whole has been suffering from, first the lav sell off in feb 2013 mentioned on 3 news, and in dec again on tv3 :the navy admits it has crew shortages that has limited the use of its opv wellington, leaving it unused for a large portion of 2013 ? Whats the point of buying more ships, apc,planes or helicopter's if we cant recruit enough numbers to run what little we have?

 

[ngatimozart]

And the lack of personell issues the NZDF as whole has been suffering from, first the lav sell off in feb 2013 mentioned on 3 news, and in dec again on tv3 :the navy admits it has crew shortages that has limited the use of its opv wellington, leaving it unused for a large portion of 2013 ? Whats the point of buying more ships, apc,planes or helicopter's if we cant recruit enough numbers to run what little we have?

The NZDF has funding for a certain amount of people. It is quite obvious that if assets are acquired that require extra personnel, then these personnel will be recruited. There are issues about trained personnel leaving that do have to be dealt with, but that is always an ongoing issue. The minister has stated that the services will be expanded to cope with new capabilities as they are acquired.

I've said before read through these threads because this has been covered before and you'll find answers to your questions. DON'T RELY ON MEDIA REPORTS about NZDF because the media very rarely get it right. They are highly biassed and inaccurate. I have said this before and I hate repeating myself. Read and learn from what people write in reply to your posts.

 

[40 deg south]

The NZDF has funding for a certain amount of people. It is quite obvious that if assets are acquired that require extra personnel, then these personnel will be recruited. There are issues about trained personnel leaving that do have to be dealt with, but that is always an ongoing issue. The minister has stated that the services will be expanded to cope with new capabilities as they are acquired.

I've said before read through these threads because this has been covered before and you'll find answers to your questions. DON'T RELY ON MEDIA REPORTS about NZDF because the media very rarely get it right. They are highly biassed and inaccurate. I have said this before and I hate repeating myself. Read and learn from what people write in reply to your posts.

I think KP makes a reasonable point. As you admit in your response, the NZ services face an issue retaining trained personnel. While it's relatively easy to recruit more junior staff, it takes years to train them. Then they bugger off to an Australian mining company that offers to triple their pay!

In these forums we tend to forget that wages and salaries take up largest portion of the defence budget - procurement is small change in comparison. Boosting salaries will lessen the amount available for new kit, and vice versa. Short of an increase in the percentage of GDP spent on defence, there isn't really a solution to this problem.

 

[ngatimozart]

I think KP makes a reasonable point. As you admit in your response, the NZ services face an issue retaining trained personnel. While it's relatively easy to recruit more junior staff, it takes years to train them. Then they bugger off to an Australian mining company that offers to triple their pay!

In these forums we tend to forget that wages and salaries take up largest portion of the defence budget - procurement is small change in comparison. Boosting salaries will lessen the amount available for new kit, and vice versa. Short of an increase in the percentage of GDP spent on defence, there isn't really a solution to this problem.

We don't forget about the costs of personnel they are just not specifically mentioned. When new equipment is costed for NZDF it is NZG practice to cost the equipment for its full term of life, so that's all costs related to that equipment including personnel. So whilst we might say that, for example the Endeavour replacement may cost NZ$250 million to procure the NZG will have budgeted maybe NZ$700 million in 2014 dollars, for it's total costs to the taxpayer for the total time of its service in the RNZN. In this example the extra $450 million will include the crewing and support costs. Important point here is that the numbers I've used are for illustrative purposes only. Well that's how I understand how it is done.

The ADF face similar problems of trained staff heading off to the mining industries because of the lure of big pay. The NZDF and NZG have to face that problem and provide some sensible solution. The episodic low morale that has occurred within NZDF and recent civilianisation has exacerbated the situation. At the end of the day the NZG is the root cause of these problems and since 1990 both major political parties have managed to politicise what was a previous apolitical entity; plus they continuously have created and exacerbated the low or lack of morale issues. I don't disagree with the position that the NZG determines defence policy; I just have large problems with how some is arrived at and enacted.

 

[Cadredave]

And the lack of personell issues the NZDF as whole has been suffering from, first the lav sell off in feb 2013 mentioned on 3 news, and in dec again on tv3 :the navy admits it has crew shortages that has limited the use of its opv wellington, leaving it unused for a large portion of 2013 ? Whats the point of buying more ships, apc,planes or helicopter's if we cant recruit enough numbers to run what little we have?

All three services are funded to 80% of wartime complements this is the peacetime requirement that all Units, Ships, Squadrons must meet & when you have a civilian organisation offering large amounts of cash knowing full well NZDF can not compete you are going to get large amounts of well trained personal leaving to take these opportunities.

Then you have a Government that try's to implement it ideology in how they think the NZDF must look and operate as a Crown Owned Entity:

"The Crown Entities Act is based on the corporate model where the governance of the organisation is split from the management of the organisation"

And they then wonder why so many leave the NZDF as it ceased being a way of life and became another job.

Cheers

 

[t68]

We don't forget about the costs of personnel they are just not specifically mentioned. When new equipment is costed for NZDF it is NZG practice to cost the equipment for its full term of life, so that's all costs related to that equipment including personnel. So whilst we might say that, for example the Endeavour replacement may cost NZ$250 million to procure the NZG will have budgeted maybe NZ$700 million in 2014 dollars, for it's total costs to the taxpayer for the total time of its service in the RNZN. In this example the extra $450 million will include the crewing and support costs. Important point here is that the numbers I've used are for illustrative purposes only. Well that's how I understand how it is done.

The ADF face similar problems of trained staff heading off to the mining industries because of the lure of big pay. The NZDF and NZG have to face that problem and provide some sensible solution. The episodic low morale that has occurred within NZDF and recent civilianisation has exacerbated the situation. At the end of the day the NZG is the root cause of these problems and since 1990 both major political parties have managed to politicise what was a previous apolitical entity; plus they continuously have created and exacerbated the low or lack of morale issues. I don't disagree with the position that the NZG determines defence policy; I just have large problems with how some is arrived at and enacted.

Well we should see an improvement in that area to a degree with the forecast that a lot of the smaller mines will close soonish if the economist crystal ball is right, whilst it will always be there the good times are well and truly over.

 

[Ocean1Curse]

Well we should see an improvement in that area to a degree with the forecast that a lot of the smaller mines will close soonish if the economist crystal ball is right, whilst it will always be there the good times are well and truly over.

Most if not all the mining fat has been trimmed all ready. The mines that are lift are either producing 4000 ounces of gold per month or have 10-20 year contracts to supply minerals. This trend is unlikely to change cause china and India can't stop hoarding the stuff. Both countries bought 1000 tons of gold last year when only about 35 tons where produced globally not to mention the other minerals there hoarding. Mining jobs have slumped but that competitive market is being filled by people who can pass drug tests and maintain a very high work ethic. Also ex military go easy on the gear and don't brake s**t and don't complain when plans A, B , C and D f**k out. Sorry to say but NZ defence force bean counters hit there talent wall two years ago. Aussie seems to be ok cause they still invest around $250 thousand per recruit but New Zealand is below $150 thousand accordion to statistics NZ and Australia's. I don't reckon there is any more cost savings or money magic that haven't been don already cause every NZ defence white paper has never been fully funded sense 1986 yet pollies are still saying the same stuff, well equipped, better travel, different life style, somethings got to give and at the moment it is recruiting numbers. All though my work mates would never say it I know that they joined the military for a stable wage, and they would have never had the opportunities they now have if not for there military back ground.

 

[40 deg south]

Ngati

I'm not meaning to suggest NZ doesn't factor in manning/running costs - the recent example of the T-6 purchase shows they do. But in online defence debates, it is a factor that often doesn't attract the attention it deserves (IMO).

By way of example, DCNS currently touts their FREMM frigates as needing a crew of 108. Manning estimates for the Type 26 vary, but are often around the 130+ mark. People seem willing to spend hours debating the significance of a knot or two in top speed, or variations in the weapons or radar fit-out. We tend to ignore the difference in running costs that an extra 20-25 bodies will add up to over 30 years. (I'm using FREMM vs.T26 as an example, not because I know enough to prefer one platform over the other).

Ocean1
Appreciate the shine has come off the Aussie mining boom, and that is likely to be contributing to improved retention right across NZDF.
Agree that NZ has cut everything that can be cut and more, and is now reaping the predictable consequences. My impression is that the current Defence Minister has realised this, and there will be modest improvements in pay announced in the coming May budget (it helps that DefMin is also Associate Min Finance). This may stabilise the situation, but I doubt it will be enough to turn things around unless there is agreement to a multi-year boost in defence spending. I'll expect that about the time Satan takes up ice-skating!

 

[Todjaeger]

Ngati

I'm not meaning to suggest NZ doesn't factor in manning/running costs - the recent example of the T-6 purchase shows they do. But in online defence debates, it is a factor that often doesn't attract the attention it deserves (IMO).

By way of example, DCNS currently touts their FREMM frigates as needing a crew of 108. Manning estimates for the Type 26 vary, but are often around the 130+ mark. People seem willing to spend hours debating the significance of a knot or two in top speed, or variations in the weapons or radar fit-out. We tend to ignore the difference in running costs that an extra 20-25 bodies will add up to over 30 years. (I'm using FREMM vs.T26 as an example, not because I know enough to prefer one platform over the other).

The manning/cost issue is a bit more muddled though. Partially because of changes in technology, but also because of crewing/doctrine. Take the RAN and USN for instance. Both navies operated the OHP class guided missile frigate (called the Adelaide-class in RAN service), but the RAN frigates had a crew of ~180, while a USN crew was ~230. It can come down to just how many functions a particular service wants a crew/crewman to perform.

A modern engine room can be managed/run by a handful of people in normal conditions. However, the automated functions of modern engines can fail, especially if the vessel has suffered battle damage. This leads into which is really less costly in the long run, a highly automated vessel with minimal crew, or the same or a similar vessel with extra crew to ensure functionality in the event of damage.

As a result of WWII experience, the USN likes to have extra crew dedicated for damage control. Other navies I know have a different approach, but at some point personnel making recommendations on which particular vessel is most suitable would also look at the crewing arrangement to determine what sort of numbers are actually reasonable and feasible. If the crew gets too small (a la LCS) then some of the crew maintenance functions need to be transferred to dock personnel, and/or require the vessel to spend more time alongside so that shore-based personnel can perform maintenance.

-Cheers

 

[StevoJH]

The other thing to consider is that come a shooting war that is expected to be protracted, those Adelaide class frigates could suddenly end up with crews of 230 or 240 rather then the crew of 180 or whatever.

Also, is the ships flight counted in the normal complement in the RAN? They don't always have helicopters embarked I believe?