The Iver Huitfelds cost the Danes around NZ$330 million per ship. The T26 costs are ball park and at moment vary between UK£350 - 500 million depending upon how the costs are calculated.
Last edited:
Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
shanes_world_05
Member
Sorry is that per tonne?
To be honest though whatever decisions made with the next whitepaper will be made on false assumptions once the ink is dried given the recent pace of events and the rapidly changing strategic environment. Defence need to grow a pair and start pulling back on that leash.
The Peacekeeper era we could afford to get away with slack funding but I reckon we won't be able to with whatever it is morphing into now following the GOT.
According to the latest Treasury govt projects report, the DWP was to be approved by Cabinet in November. Defence can push as much as it can, but no matter what it is still Cabinet who make the final decision.
I think he inadvertently missed three zeros off each price. The Iver Huitfeldt class cost someting like US$300 to $400 million depending on the source
oldsig
My bad
Thank you. I have corrected the results of a senior moment.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I suspect that by 2030, a Mk 15 Phalanx will only be useful vs. incoming artillery rounds and/or smallcraft.
As for Sea Ceptor, while I do think it should be kept in service due to some of the potential flexibility, I am not certain if it alone would be sufficient for an escort vessel.
As for retaining systems for reuse in a future design, I expect there would be some savings, but likely only a percentage of the total upfront costs. There might be reduced service life costs though, since a support chain already exists for retained systems. Keep in mind though, the electronics and sensor fitout of a modern naval vessel is a significant portion of vessel cost, something like 30% - 50% of the cost. This is also an area where NZ likely should not skimp, since a RNZN vessel should be able to slot into a RAN task force. If the electronics fitout is too limited, then a foreign naval task force might not be able to send or receive data from a RNZN vessel, making the vessel of limited use and potentially a liability during hostilities.
I suspect the Danish prices exclude quite a lot, e.g. all the StanFlex modules. Still cheap, though, but a lot of that would have been because they were put together in one of the most efficient W. European yards, from blocks built in cheaper E. European yards, with considerable care taken in the design to keep down costs (e.g. never use anything custom-built when OTS - preferably COTS - was available), & a build schedule designed to minimise cost.
Comparing with how things work here is sickening. Build efficiently? What is this concept - "efficiently"? Builds stretched out, postponed so we end up buying ships we don't really need just to keep yards open, etc.
By the time NZ gets around to buying an ANZAC replacement that Iver Huitfeld design will be nearly 30 years old, I don't know why you life them so much as an ANZAC replaceable, it will be very old by the time we buy.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The 300-400m US per ship cost can't be duplicated now as the Odense shipyard where the modules were built was closed. The Canadian Surface Combatant Ship may end up being some kind of modified Iver Huitfeld. Currently the budget calls for 15 ships with a total cost of 26 billion (CDN). Inflation will likely reduce the number to 11 depending on how long it takes to finalize the design (probably longer than the second coming JC based on other Canadian military procurements)!
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Were NZ to consider a Iver Huitfeld, it likely would be an updated version. After all, the original Burke class destroyer design is older by at least 10 years but has seen a couple of revisions (at least 2).
Odense Staalskibsvaerft is where final assembly took place (some modules were built in, e.g. Baltija shipyard in Lithuania), but I agree, its low-cost building system no longer exists in Europe. Its main business was commercial, & that's gone east, & the Danish government wouldn't or couldn't prop it up to keep it going just for naval ships, the way the UK is doing with BAE.The 300-400m US per ship cost can't be duplicated now as the Odense shipyard where the modules were built was closed. The Canadian Surface Combatant Ship may end up being some kind of modified Iver Huitfeld. Currently the budget calls for 15 ships with a total cost of 26 billion (CDN). Inflation will likely reduce the number to 11 depending on how long it takes to finalize the design (probably longer than the second coming JC based on other Canadian military procurements)!
We need to be a little careful on figures. The Danish ships were built between 2009 and 2011. If thye costs are based on beginning of project then it may have been 2008 or 2009 figures, The net present value of the build may be different (in other words more).
Add to that the use of Stan modules. If these are not factored into the hull and system costs then there is another cost (add a bit more). The cost of the Stan modules cannot be understated as there is only a limited number of them and they are not in series production. as such if another country were to piuck up the deisgn the cost of the modules (4 Mk41, 2 Mk58 and 2 harpoon modules for each ships at max outfit) will add not a small sum.
The cost of the T26 is based on expected production run and economies of scale. If the number is less than expected (and what is expected is variable) then thye may cost more, however, if you add an additional number of hulls for export there may be a cost reduction.
In summary ...... you cannot simply use figures unless they are moderated to the same net present value and all costs are captured.
Gracie1234
Well-Known Member
Will the upgraded kit being put on the ANZACs still be useful to warrant being pulled across to the new platform. That is 15 years away, won't it be obsolete by then?Just thinking how technology moves on. Perhaps some might be suitable for other platforms beside the frigate replacement....OPV(replacement) etc
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Depends on the kit I guess. The RCN salvaged the MK-41 launchers from the Iroquois Tribal class destroyers. The plan is to do the same with some of weapons on the Halifax frigates (CIWS, 57 mm guns, ESSM) for use with the future Canadian Surface Combatant Ships. The Halifax frigates will be replaced starting in 2030 (that's the plan but who knows) so that is sort of in the ANZAC replacement timeframe. The Halifax class is in the midst of a modernization upgrade which is close to completion.
That's true, but a lot of the equipment is COTS where possible and the practicalities of the design are worth it. It really is the philosophy of the design that I like. However if it was accepted by NZ then I do believe that it would still be quite an effective platform. I am strongly of the opinion that we do need a third frigate, sooner rather than later, and this could be built in a Korean yard.
kiwi in exile
Active Member
Ditto all this talk or reusing the ANZAC upgrades /systems on their replacements. Much of this may be obsolete by the time we make the switch. The naval gun and the Phalanxs come to mind.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
The naval gun I am not so concerned about. The 5"/127mm naval gun has been used by the USN (and others) for generations. I do not see that changing any time soon, especially with some rather interesting rounds available from Italy.
I do think it might be worth having some updates/refurbishment done (change from Mod 2 to Mod 4, lengthen the barrel, etc.) but overall I suspect the bulk of the system could and should be re-used. The Phalanx... could still have some use, but I would rather the RNZN start migrating to the 35mm Millennium Gun, which has a similar role but I believe is more effective at this point.
I do like the notion of the RNZN (and the RAN, and a few other navies) adopting some sort of modular or containerized system for at least part of the potential weapons loadout. Having something like this in place could allow a greater degree of customization of a vessel for a particular deployment or area of operations. At the same time, it can free up weapon systems for when a vessel is undergoing a major refit or repair work, which makes a particular vessel unavailable for prolonged periods.
I have some reservations about the LCS module system, partially due to how far behind they seem to be, and at what cost... but also because the USN had been planning on the LCS being 'forward deployed' but supported by other USN assets like the AB DDG's. A modular weapons system which might be appropriate for a corvette, IMO would hardly be appropriate for a blue water frigate or destroyer which could be operating on its own, or as the lead ship of a taskforce.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Sea changes continue for navy | Stuff.co.nz
Nice write-up of CN's retirement on NZ's major news website. The sort of low-key good news story that I don't think you would have seen a decade ago about NZDF.
Nice write-up of CN's retirement on NZ's major news website. The sort of low-key good news story that I don't think you would have seen a decade ago about NZDF.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Very true.
There was one interestng and positive point in the NZ Herald piece on the Major Prjects Report. This reflects well on Min Def and NZDF's progress on procurement in recent years.
Government releases reports on the progress of its major investments - National - NZ Herald News
Yes, Jack has done a lot of good in the last three years changing a lot within the RNZN for the better. He's taken it back to the basics and got it in touch with its history and created a far better culture bringing in old salts to talk to an encourage the young sailors. They used Vince McGlone, a WW2 vet who was on HMNZS Achilles at the Battle of the River Plate in 1939 to engage with the young sailors and to do a recruit advert. So he's left the navy in a really good condition compared to what it was before he took over.