Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[jeffb]

A article from 2011 quotes "The total project cost is in excess of $650 million, including the funds already spent upgrading HMAS Perth." for the ASMD project, with work to be completed on the last ship by 2017. Thats what $85-90 mil per ship? Cant really be that simple though.

Defence Ministers » Minister for Defence and Minister for Defence Materiel

 

[cdxbow]

The article quotes 'C$180M over four years', which is for 2 ships, which isn't too much different to the Anzac upgrade, assuming $85-90 m per ship.

So why would RNZN not pick the Anzac upgrade? It's has cutting edge radar, it's already been tested and really works, and on the very same ships the RNZN use. So risk is minimal. Seaceptor is still a bit of vapourware isn't it? Untested. So it's a risky choice. And as for cost per missile, it's pretty hard to say until they are actually in production. Been a few suckered over the years by a price on paper.

And the Anzac upgrade, all of it done by your nearest & dearest ally, which would mean great commonality in training, support and supply etc. It may be better too.

So to my mind, assuming costs are similar then it should be a no brainer. Is there something particularly special about the seaceptor missile that seem to have made RNZN make a decision that would seem to defy all logic?

 

[Volkodav]

ASMD works but there are questions on it effect on the platform as a whole, i.e stability, sea worthiness, reduction in speed due to ballast required to offset the increase in top weight. The RNZN upgrades to the ANZAC platform seem to have been well thought out and well executed in comparison, improving performance, seaworthiness cruising speed, range etc. some very clever solutions to issues with the platform. ASMD with have 32 missiles limited by top weight, i.e. although there is space for a second 8 cell Mk-41 there is not enough margin left. Sea Ceptor is much lighter, while also being a quantum leap in capability over NATO Sea Sparrow. Its launch options include its own bespoke soft launch VLS, Mk-41 and ExLS, i.e. it can actually be installed in far greater numbers than the RAN ESSM option either using the existing Mk-41 and / or other options. The existing Mk-41 could be used for Sea Ceptor, removed to save top weight or retained for other missile options.

Gut feeling NZ will end up with a perfectly good enough GP frigate that has improved performance in most areas including reduced cost of ownership while the RAN will have a compromised platform very strong in a couple of areas but seriously lagging in others. ASMD actually deserves a better platform than the RAN ANZACs to be deployed on

 

[kiwi in exile]

A article from 2011 quotes "The total project cost is in excess of $650 million, including the funds already spent upgrading HMAS Perth." for the ASMD project, with work to be completed on the last ship by 2017. Thats what $85-90 mil per ship? Cant really be that simple though.

From APDR:
"As at 7 February 2013, $654.143million has been expended on the whole ASMD program, which equates to approximately 62 per cent of the total budget."
Anti-Ship Missile Defence impressive progress | Australian Defence News & Articles | Asia Pacific Defence Reporter
SEA 1448

Given these figures across 8 Aust ANZACs , I cant help thinking that with some foresight, it would have been better maybe for RNZN/NZG to buy into the ASMD program. At least in terms of sensor and systems upgrades, and forget the ESSM.

Part of the NZ deal involves a combat management system trainer installation at Devonport naval base. Both the upgraded Canadian Halifax frigates and the Aust/NZ ANZACs use variants of the Saab 9LV combat management system. The Au ones were upgraded as part of SEA 1448. Would be nice if we were getting CEAFAR, especially as looks like the US is interested in the system.

Part of my wishlist for the NZ ANZACs although highly unlikely:
Silent Watch EO/DAS
Based on the AN/AAQ-37 electro-optical Distributed Aperture System (DAS) on the F35

 

[cdxbow]

ASMD works but there are questions on it effect on the platform as a whole, i.e stability, sea worthiness, reduction in speed due to ballast required to offset the increase in top weight. The RNZN upgrades to the ANZAC platform seem to have been well thought out and well executed in comparison, improving performance, seaworthiness cruising speed, range etc. some very clever solutions to issues with the platform. ASMD with have 32 missiles limited by top weight, i.e. although there is space for a second 8 cell Mk-41 there is not enough margin left.

Is the sea keeping that much compromised much by the added weight? What sort of extra weight does the upgrade add?

Gut feeling NZ will end up with a perfectly good enough GP frigate that has improved performance in most areas including reduced cost of ownership while the RAN will have a compromised platform very strong in a couple of areas but seriously lagging in others. ASMD actually deserves a better platform than the RAN ANZACs to be deployed on

So size does matters. They were always a bit on the small side. Perhaps a good lesson of false economy, hopefully well learned before the future frigate acquisition.

 

[40 deg south]

The different numbers in front of us don't make sense. NZ DefMin is talking about NZD$446 million. That translates to CAN$421 at current rates. Yet the LockMart statements refers to only CAN$180 million. It could be that this lower figure is the amount of revenue Lockheed Martin itself expects to receive from the project, and doesn't include payments to other contractors such as SAAB. Just speculating here.

NZ$446 = NZ$223 mil per ship, or about AUD$207 mil. That is far higher that the price per ship quoted above for the Aussie upgrades.

The difference probably lies in what is covered by each project. The Perth-style upgrades seem to be primarily about ASMD system.

The NZ DefMin says

The frigate combat systems upgrade includes new radars, electronic detection and other above water systems, the self-defence missile system, decoys against missiles and torpedoes, and an upgrade to the hull-mounted sonar.

So it seems likely that the Kiwis are paying more, for a wider scope of works.

He also refers to an international tendering process. I'd be astonished if Australia didn't submit a strong bid, and it was presumably rejected on value-for-money grounds. Alternatively, the topweight issues referred to above may also have been the deciding factor. The kiwi ANZACs have an eight-tonne Phalanx bolted way up above the centre of gravity, which can't do stability issues any good.

 

[40 deg south]

Gut feeling NZ will end up with a perfectly good enough GP frigate that has improved performance in most areas including reduced cost of ownership...

Forgot to mention that Navy types I've encountered seem very very pleased with themselves over the first two stages of the ANZAC mid-life upgrade (propulsion, platform stabiity, aircon and accom). As one bloke said in a dodgy Pacific waterfront bar
'This is the first time we've had a decent speed advantage over the Aussies since Phar Lap kicked the bucket'.

Fingers crossed that they don't stuff up the final stage.

 

[MrConservative]

I am positive about this project so far and I think it keeps our medium to long term options open. My initial thoughts are (without much due diligence or delving) much of this upgrade kit can possibly crossdeck over to the Type 26 as what the RN will do with the Type 23 and I get the gut feeling that is where the NZ Govt might jump (the last 3 years has seen a ramping up of the NZ-UK defence relationship at the dialouge level) that this may be a consideration. Or on the other hand it is a reasonable comprise over the medium timeframe giving us a credible GP frigate capability until we decide where to jump come ANZAC replacement time and to what level we want to go for. For example, if the Type 26 gets the SEA 5000 nod we have the choice of either cross decking Sea Ceptor et al over to the new ships or going for exactly the same systems outfit as the RAN (Ceafar/CEC et al) and subsequently crossdecking the recent/forthcoming Anzac upgrades over to an affordable future Thetis/Baby Absalon like vessel to replace the current OPV's due to go out the door shortly after the current Zacs.

The same rationale can be applied possibly to another platform option chosen for the SEA 5000 solution. Mirror the RAN vessels with a full new build and cross deck over Sea Ceptor, radar, mini-typhoon/toplite et al to the future OPV replacements (Therefore making 2 high end surface combatants and 2 lower end surface combatants post 2030 - 4 IPV's replaced by Knud Rassmussen like vessels with C1A ice) or just directly cross deck over the then current ANZAC kit to the new Anzac replacement ship.

Id be quite interested to see if any legacy Anzac kit that is servicable/useful (AN/SPS49 ??) gets binned or indeed crossdecked onto the coming LWSV and Endeavour to save money.

 

[Gibbo]

Forgot to mention that Navy types I've encountered seem very very pleased with themselves over the first two stages of the ANZAC mid-life upgrade (propulsion, platform stabiity, aircon and accom). As one bloke said in a dodgy Pacific waterfront bar
'This is the first time we've had a decent speed advantage over the Aussies since Phar Lap kicked the bucket'.

Fingers crossed that they don't stuff up the final stage.

There's just one thing missing with the news of Frigate upgrade contract being awarded.... the public whining about the unnecessary expense and how many hip replacements could otherwise be bought!

Where's all the normal shallow media discussion with opposition party beat-ups about the cost? Are we perhaps starting to see a real change in thinking about defence spending in NZ...or am I just being naively optimistic!?!

We have not only announcements of this contract at $400M but also the additional $500M funding to be allocated over the next few years - and there appears to be little if any comment in the media, or online - am I living in a bubble!?!

Compare this to when the ANZACs were ordered! And amazingly enough this is an election year where one could realistically expect the opposition parties to be grand-standing about the cost! The Greens seemed to have been very quiet about it!

Are the media not bothered? This radio announcer tried the old 'defensive vs offensive' weapons argument started by David Lange, but she didn't get far with it.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player/2594545

I'd like to think all the high profile work the NZDF has been doing since 1999 (East Timor) has finally made us kiwis (well the nay-sayers anyway) realise the value of a defence force.

On another note I see one of the OPV's tied-up at DNB with it's 25mm removed - the Rafael Typhoon obviously soon to be fitted.

 

[recce.k1]

There's just one thing missing with the news of Frigate upgrade contract being awarded.... the public whining about the unnecessary expense and how many hip replacements could otherwise be bought!

Where's all the normal shallow media discussion with opposition party beat-ups about the cost? Are we perhaps starting to see a real change in thinking about defence spending in NZ...or am I just being naively optimistic!?!

We have not only announcements of this contract at $400M but also the additional $500M funding to be allocated over the next few years - and there appears to be little if any comment in the media, or online - am I living in a bubble!?!

Well the Labour Opposition can't whine now because they played their cards badly in the first place when their defence spokesman Phil Goff, a couple of years ago, in an attempt to beat up the Govt over the proposed ANZAC upgrades, exaggerated the cost at being up to 1 Billion dollars! Search NZH or Fairfax online and you'll see his statements from that time etc.

Also considering the now Opposition when last in Govt spent several hundred million on helicopters and again the same on LAV's, I would say generally speaking that the public seemed to have accepted these sorts of figures as being the new norm nowadays. (Heh maybe the Govt could slip in a restored ACF and no one would really care)!

As for the 1980s ANZAC Frigate debates a lot of those post-war baby boomer activist anti-authority types are nearing retirement age or have done so (or have passed away) and are no longer prominent. A new generation has replaced that "old guard" and in this interconnected world we live in, are more understanding of NZ's place in this wider world context, and with the information explosion (and ironically the effects of terrorism) no longer see NZ as an isolated outpost (well apart from the usual Greens and activist types, but they don't sway more than a minority of the population. Yes to be fair there is still some dissent simmering under the surface (as evidenced by last years beat up on the GCSB and those paranoid that they think the NSA know what they eat for breakfast) but their views can be easily challenged by informed citizens in the blogs and online MSM comments, coupled with the traditional media being highly fragmented now people are no longer spoon fed dissent supported by the old guard MSM which used to dominate and control people's access to (biased) information.

However to be fair at least former PM Clark, whilst on the one hand cut defence, she also slowly followed National's 1990's example and slowly restored ties with the US - mind you it certainly paid off in terms of gaining US support for her UN job, hmmm it's amazing what self-interest can achieve for the greater good)

But seriously, as you say ET (Bougainville before) and everything else that followed to stabilise parts of the Asia-Pacific region gave people a better appreciation of the NZDF's work in a post-Cold War environment plus the fact that having other like minded allied Nations around and NZ supporting them was the key to success as NZ can't do much on its own. And we can thank both major political parties for that. Just a pity the momentum (for NZDF) was lost from the mid 80's for about 15-20 years and now NZDF is having to play catch up. And look at the crowds now at ANZAC Day commemorations - the interest also started climbing some 10 or so years ago (under Labour and their "nationalism". Kind of bizarre unintended consequences really)!

 

[40 deg south]

There's just one thing missing with the news of Frigate upgrade contract being awarded.... the public whining about the unnecessary expense and how many hip replacements could otherwise be bought!

Where's all the normal shallow media discussion with opposition party beat-ups about the cost? Are we perhaps starting to see a real change in thinking about defence spending in NZ...or am I just being naively optimistic!?!

Gibbo and recce

I've been puzzling over exactly the same thing, and believe there are multiple causes.
I think part of it is a generational change. The baby boomer types are too worried about their investment properties and paying their kids student loans to get excited about anything that isn't a matter of direct self-interest.

The world has turned out to be a more complex and dangerous place than many of the political left believed. And with Russian troops massing on a European land border and religious fanatics kidnapping children in Nigeria, it is increasingly hard to paint the USA as the source of all evil.

The NZDF has had some relatively high-profile operations in the past decade, and the public is proud of their achievements in Timor Leste and the Solomons. Afghanistan was much less popular, but was regarded as more of a nuisance than a great moral cause by the public. Attempts to turn it into a Vietnam-style issue failed dismally.

The improving economy, whether it turns out to be real or a flash in the pan, also probably makes people less nervous about govt spending.

Finally, the recent equipment orders have sounded fairly non-aggressive. Training planes - meh. Trucks - nah, they're just trucks. Frigate upgrades -' well, we already have the frigates so better keep them working' seems to be the public response. Fortunately, the next two navy vessels on the shopping list have a similar profile.

If the Nats wanted to take a tactical gamble, they could announce a replacement tanker purchase very loudly around the start of the election campaign. The Greens would almost certainly oppose it reflexively, and Labour might follow suit. National could then have a lot of fun asking why they wanted NZ to put the environment at risk by using a single-skinned vessel to transport oil, and why they were opposed to an asset that will largely be used for disaster relief in the Pacific? Now that would be fun to watch!

 

[Gibbo]

Gibbo and recce

I've been puzzling over exactly the same thing, and believe there are multiple causes.
I think part of it is a generational change. The baby boomer types are too worried about their investment properties and paying their kids student loans to get excited about anything that isn't a matter of direct self-interest.

The world has turned out to be a more complex and dangerous place than many of the political left believed. And with Russian troops massing on a European land border and religious fanatics kidnapping children in Nigeria, it is increasingly hard to paint the USA as the source of all evil.

The NZDF has had some relatively high-profile operations in the past decade, and the public is proud of their achievements in Timor Leste and the Solomons. Afghanistan was much less popular, but was regarded as more of a nuisance than a great moral cause by the public. Attempts to turn it into a Vietnam-style issue failed dismally.

The improving economy, whether it turns out to be real or a flash in the pan, also probably makes people less nervous about govt spending.

Finally, the recent equipment orders have sounded fairly non-aggressive. Training planes - meh. Trucks - nah, they're just trucks. Frigate upgrades -' well, we already have the frigates so better keep them working' seems to be the public response. Fortunately, the next two navy vessels on the shopping list have a similar profile.

If the Nats wanted to take a tactical gamble, they could announce a replacement tanker purchase very loudly around the start of the election campaign. The Greens would almost certainly oppose it reflexively, and Labour might follow suit. National could then have a lot of fun asking why they wanted NZ to put the environment at risk by using a single-skinned vessel to transport oil, and why they were opposed to an asset that will largely be used for disaster relief in the Pacific? Now that would be fun to watch!

40 Deg & Recce... yep the world really is a different place; media is different; and yes perhaps people haven't got the time any more. A number of reasons no doubt, let's hope it really is a growing maturity on our part as a nation.

We'll be seeing ongoing significant purchases over the next 15-20 years and that will to some degree 'condition' Kiwis to the fact that an effective NZDF doesn't come without some $$$ spent, so there should be an increasing acceptance.

On top of the NZDF showing over the last 15+ years that it does indeed have a role to play on the international stage, I think the whole JATF plan also helps. It creates a realistic & coherent plan for all 3 services to work closer together (always a good thing!) and with a clearly defined path charted forward I think that brings a relevance to the spending being announced. Anyone (joe-public & pollies esp.) that bother to look at the JATF plan can't help but see it's relevance & the benefits it brings - especially with it's regional focus. If pollies get that, then the NZDF will get $$$

 

[RegR]

Would the 25mm off the OPVs once re-fitted be able to be re-used on the new tanker and littoral to somewhat bring down costs on any armament(if anything other than .50cal that is) or if they did go this big would it be more cost effective in the long run to keep commonality with the OPVs new mount?

I guess a common family vs multiple types would have its advantages however the fact we already have these systems on the books can also be a plus.

 

[ngatimozart]

Would the 25mm off the OPVs once re-fitted be able to be re-used on the new tanker and littoral to somewhat bring down costs on any armament(if anything other than .50cal that is) or if they did go this big would it be more cost effective in the long run to keep commonality with the OPVs new mount?

I guess a common family vs multiple types would have its advantages however the fact we already have these systems on the books can also be a plus.

Interesting question. I guess it would make sense, if they are only buying two of the new mounts.

 

[RegR]

Interesting question. I guess it would make sense, if they are only buying two of the new mounts.

Guess cost will be the decider, either less upfront from re-using current 2 or money saved from commonality but requiring 4 sets.

The tanker and littoral "shouldn't" need the added advantages of the new systems however the legacy systems would still provide a good detterant factor (over a 50 anyway).

 

[Gibbo]

Interesting question. I guess it would make sense, if they are only buying two of the new mounts.

Refer post #3344 (pg 223) for discussion about this - I understand Canterbury is also getting same so 3 mounts s/be available. Seen no talk about what happens to old mounts + the optical gear, but surely re-using would be warranted. Guess it depends on why RNZN feels they're not up to the job on current 'Protector' vessels but I'm sure 2 of them would be ideal in Endeavour.

What beats me is RNZN stating Endeavours replacement is likely to have something like .5 cal MG's for use against small craft etc, - so why doesn't Endeavour have them now!?! Surely both old & new are intended to do same role in same theatres...!?!

Crikey even Manawanui has a couple of HMG mounts forward of the bridge.

 

[Lucasnz]

Refer post #3344 (pg 223) for discussion about this - I understand Canterbury is also getting same so 3 mounts s/be available. Seen no talk about what happens to old mounts + the optical gear, but surely re-using would be warranted. Guess it depends on why RNZN feels they're not up to the job on current 'Protector' vessels but I'm sure 2 of them would be ideal in Endeavour.

What beats me is RNZN stating Endeavours replacement is likely to have something like .5 cal MG's for use against small craft etc, - so why doesn't Endeavour have them now!?! Surely both old & new are intended to do same role in same theatres...!?!

Crikey even Manawanui has a couple of HMG mounts forward of the bridge.

Endeavour was originally suppose to mount 2 x 20mm guns when commissioned from surplus stock (Monawai was still using them). They were never fitted and I never heard the reason why, but cost wouldn't be an issue given the RNZN had the stock and ammunition so I'm assuming safely was a key driver.

Realistically I think the navy would rather stick with one system (i.e. Typhoon) and the BMT proposal was for a Typhoon mount based on the PDF posted earlier. Correct me if I'm wrong but the issue with the current system was around the long term support for the optical Fire Control not the weapon itself? Assuming I'm correct; if they could integrate the typhoon optics or use the mount in local mode then they're more likely to be reused.

 

[kiwi in exile]

Guess cost will be the decider, either less upfront from re-using current 2 or money saved from commonality but requiring 4 sets.

The tanker and littoral "shouldn't" need the added advantages of the new systems however the legacy systems would still provide a good detterant factor (over a 50 anyway).

I would go for commonality across the fleet, rather than trying to reuse equipment with identified problems, especially when said issues and commonality were the initial justification for the initial Cant/OPV upgrades.
Especially also given that it's been stated that the IPVs are also going to get the Toplite sensor package upgrade too. Regardless of whether the new littoral boat and the Endev replacement get the gun mounts, they should at least have the same sensors (common training, maintainance, cost etc).

 

[Gibbo]

I would go for commonality across the fleet, rather than trying to reuse equipment with identified problems, especially when said issues and commonality were the initial justification for the initial Cant/OPV upgrades.
Especially also given that it's been stated that the IPVs are also going to get the Toplite sensor package upgrade too. Regardless of whether the new littoral boat and the Endev replacement get the gun mounts, they should at least have the same sensors (common training, maintainance, cost etc).

Whilst commonality of mounts is definitely preferable, it's not critical. However I'd expect there's a stronger argument that the whole fleet should have common sensors - TopLite defintely pushes my buttons on that score!

Not that I have experience in these systems but my reasoning is that the person firing the gun is reading the sensors and needs to make quick decisions based on what those sensors are telling them. I can imagine different sensors types have different interfaces & operate (subtlety) differently, so by standardising sensors you remove any potential for confusion under pressure on the part of the operator.

The different mount types perhaps count as less of an issue here as the gun party loading / servicing the mount are doing a different role & don't interact with sensors during firing.

However given RNZN is removing the current mounts & not trying to integrate with TopLite would suggest that either they can't be integrated, or there's something more fundamental with the mounts themselves that's an issue for RNZN!?! If that's the case I'd be curious to hear what that is!

These mounts can be provided in a purely manual firing mode - whether that's an option!?!...

 

[ngatimozart]

Whilst commonality of mounts is definitely preferable, it's not critical. However I'd expect there's a stronger argument that the whole fleet should have common sensors - TopLite defintely pushes my buttons on that score!

Not that I have experience in these systems but my reasoning is that the person firing the gun is reading the sensors and needs to make quick decisions based on what those sensors are telling them. I can imagine different sensors types have different interfaces & operate (subtlety) differently, so by standardising sensors you remove any potential for confusion under pressure on the part of the operator.

The different mount types perhaps count as less of an issue here as the gun party loading / servicing the mount are doing a different role & don't interact with sensors during firing.

However given RNZN is removing the current mounts & not trying to integrate with TopLite would suggest that either they can't be integrated, or there's something more fundamental with the mounts themselves that's an issue for RNZN!?! If that's the case I'd be curious to hear what that is!

These mounts can be provided in a purely manual firing mode - whether that's an option!?!...

Given what CJohn has posted here I would presume that it wouldn't be feasible nor practical to try and reuse the old mounts on the MPSC and LWSC. I'd forgotton about CJs post.