Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[StingrayOZ]

I would forget about harpoon, I would go NSM. But NZ hasn't really worried about that type of missile. NSM is lighter, might be able to go onto the ANZACs. But this wouldn't be a required purchase.

CIWS, again NZ hasn't worried about that either. Not that they are expensive either, perhaps a combined ANZ pool could be considered.

ESSM - There is a large pool of these, I think something could be arranged.Plus the older ones that are in the NZ anzacs currently that will be replaced by CAMMs.

TT and torpedos - again, what ever NZ wants, mk 54? Mu90? Again, I think there are going to be spares around given some of the odd procurement in OZ.

We are really talking about individual munitions and bolt on equipment. SM-2 we are likely to be able to sell a small number to NZ, as we have a huge order for the latest SM-2. Even say 8 x SM-2 would still make the FFG's very credible, more missiles could be procured in the future.

Certainly I think NZ and AU could come to some sort of arrangement. I am sure the US would find it agreeable as well.

The last two FFG's aren't ancient either and were built to a high standard. If NZ was interested in these type of ships it would be an ideal way to gain that sort of capability. Plenty of credible navies operate and are upgrading these type of ships. Taiwan is getting another 2 from old US stocks. Spain and Turkey are upgrading theirs.

If NZ wants that type of capability.

 

[MrConservative]

The last two FFG's aren't ancient either and were built to a high standard. If NZ was interested in these type of ships it would be an ideal way to gain that sort of capability. Plenty of credible navies operate and are upgrading these type of ships. Taiwan is getting another 2 from old US stocks. Spain and Turkey are upgrading theirs.

If NZ wants that type of capability.

I can appreciate the reservations that Lucas has with his experiences with the Southland which laid down as the Hastings as a Rothesay Class in 1959 and was converted into a Batch 1 Leander and commissioned as Dido. It was 'bogged' with concrete to get it into service when we got it. The Wellington though, a later batch 3 Leander was in better condition. But the FFG-7's were designed for a lot longer lifecycle than those early Leanders. It is difficult to really compare FFG05 and FFG06 with them.

I can tell what is a lot worse than having a frigate with some limitations when you really need it is not having it. We are already one frigate down on the absolute minimum at it is and I do not see peace and love breaking out anytime soon. Nor can I see a sudden move to push forward the whole frigate replacement program a decade with three let alone four frigates at $1B a pop going to happen. It may soon get to Hail Mary time and dead rats about perfect solutions may have to be swallowed.

 

[ngatimozart]

While I would support the replacement of the IPV with ex RN OPV (due to there age) and the purchase of a common class of vessel, as suggested, going forward; the acquisitions of additional second hand frigates (especially OHP) is a different matter.

The RNZN has an excellent track record and maintaining its ships but having served on Southland for a short stint of time and been part of the recommissioning crew of Wellington I would not recommend the acquisition of second hand frigates. Southland was so full of rust by the time I got to her (in the last 5 years of active service) that a civilian surveyor would have in all likehood condemned the ship on the spot. The Aussies had similar issues with the LST's they acquired from the USN.

The RNZN has got the best use out of a ship when they have acquired them second hand relatively young at around 10 years of age.

As an afterthought it seems to me that 4 Frigates are no longer required. Rather 3 frigates and an improved capabilities in terms of the OPV and Canterbury replacement are required long term.

I remember being moored not far from Southland in IIRC Napier during the RNZN 50th in 1991. Was either there or Nelson. Apparently a young OD (ordinary rate still wet behind the ears) was wire brushing the rust off the hull and put his wire brush through the side, resulting in a call to the local concrete delivery firm.

The River class OPV would be a good acquisition for the reasons already outlined, so I wonder what the poms want for them. Wonder if they'd be agreeable to parting with a Bay class LSD too?? :devil

With regard to the frigates, normally I would agree regarding the Adelaide class FFG. They are long in the tooth so if we went down that road, maybe two or three Adelaide class FFGs: one as the operational ship, the second as the training ship and the third for spares. If needs be, we could strip the 2nd and 3rd ships to keep the 1st one operational. These, we could replace with a couple of ex RAN ANZAC class FFG when they become available in the early - mid 2020s, or with a new build FFG built in Korea. We definitely do need a minimum of three frigates and this could be a good way of obtaining the third frigate.

I would forget about harpoon, I would go NSM. But NZ hasn't really worried about that type of missile. NSM is lighter, might be able to go onto the ANZACs. But this wouldn't be a required purchase.

The NSM definitely because what's the point of going to harpoon when it's an old system near its use by date.

CIWS, again NZ hasn't worried about that either. Not that they are expensive either, perhaps a combined ANZ pool could be considered.

ESSM - There is a large pool of these, I think something could be arranged.Plus the older ones that are in the NZ anzacs currently that will be replaced by CAMMs.

We do have a CIWS which is the Phalanx CIWS and it was upgraded during the recent Platform Systems Upgrade. Sea Ceptor (CAMM) fits into the Mk-41 VLS and it doesn't need any hardware changes to the ship. We have / had the RIM-7 Sea Sparrow SAM so ESSM is the next iteration of it.

TT and torpedos - again, what ever NZ wants, mk 54? Mu90? Again, I think there are going to be spares around given some of the odd procurement in OZ.

We use the Mk-46 Mod 5 torpedo at the moment for both shipborne and airborne ASW so would be better if we went Mk-54 ASW torpedo, rather than the MU-90.

We are really talking about individual munitions and bolt on equipment. SM-2 we are likely to be able to sell a small number to NZ, as we have a huge order for the latest SM-2. Even say 8 x SM-2 would still make the FFG's very credible, more missiles could be procured in the future.

8 x SM-2 would be good and with 32 x Sea Ceptor would make for a good air defence capability.

Certainly I think NZ and AU could come to some sort of arrangement. I am sure the US would find it agreeable as well.

The last two FFG's aren't ancient either and were built to a high standard. If NZ was interested in these type of ships it would be an ideal way to gain that sort of capability. Plenty of credible navies operate and are upgrading these type of ships. Taiwan is getting another 2 from old US stocks. Spain and Turkey are upgrading theirs.

I too am sure some agreement could be reached between NZ, AU & USA without any major dramas.

If NZ wants that type of capability.

That's the problem; the pollies don't see it as a necessity regarding it almost as a luxury.

The other thing from the CoA perspective, such an arrangement could entice NZ to participate in the SEA 5000 Future FFG program. The ANZAC FFG program was a success and the third ANZAC FFG would have been reasonably cheap compared to the first one.

 

[rjtjrt]

...........
Sea Ceptor (CAMM) fits into the Mk-41 VLS and it doesn't need any hardware changes to the ship......

Does CAMM quad pack into each Mk41 cell?
The CAMM " Mushroom Farm" on Type 23 Frigate doesn't look very compact or densely packed.

 

[ngatimozart]

Does CAMM quad pack into each Mk41 cell?
The CAMM " Mushroom Farm" on Type 23 Frigate doesn't look very compact or densely packed.

Yes it does.

The weapon system can be easily retrofitted into a wide range of platforms, ranging from 50m OPVs to frigates and destroyers. Two main features provide this flexibility.

Firstly, the use of “soft-launch” weapon technology for a highly scaleable and compact launch system that can easily be installed in a number of locations. Secondly, Sea Ceptor can be targeted from the ship’s existing surveillance radar sensors and therefore does not require dedicated fire control radars.

Sea Ceptor will operate from the SYLVER and Mk41 launchers using a quad-pack configuration, various flexible canister configurations are also available. The Soft Vertical Launch technology reduces system mass and eases installation.
SEA CEPTOR - MBDA

Edit: Video: Lockheed Martin ExLS Launching System & MBDA CAMM at DSEI 2015

 

[CJR]

Yes it does.


Edit: Video: Lockheed Martin ExLS Launching System & MBDA CAMM at DSEI 2015

May be more accurate to say MBDA intend to make CAMM compatible with Mk 41, but thus far all near-term deployments of the system (British Type-23 upgrade, NZ Anzac upgrade and Chilean Type 23 upgrade) seem to be using a setup with individual launch canisters instead of more general-purpose VLS silos, even when the ships involved already have Mk41s aboard... Suggesting the integration work hasn't yet been done.

So, I wouldn't be suprized if in the event of NZ borrowing an Adelaide and asking MBDA to fit it with CAMM you Kiwis cop an additional bill for integrating it into the Mk41 VLS.

 

[alexsa]

May be more accurate to say MBDA intend to make CAMM compatible with Mk 41, but thus far all near-term deployments of the system (British Type-23 upgrade, NZ Anzac upgrade and Chilean Type 23 upgrade) seem to be using a setup with individual launch canisters instead of more general-purpose VLS silos, even when the ships involved already have Mk41s aboard... Suggesting the integration work hasn't yet been done.

So, I wouldn't be suprized if in the event of NZ borrowing an Adelaide and asking MBDA to fit it with CAMM you Kiwis cop an additional bill for integrating it into the Mk41 VLS.

Don't forget you still have to integrate it into the combat system, it is not a simple case of getting it into the Mk41 cells. Certainly doable but not free

 

[MrConservative]

Don't forget you still have to integrate it into the combat system, it is not a simple case of getting it into the Mk41 cells. Certainly doable but not free

Precisely and that is the calculation that would have to be made as part of a business case.

To use the accounting analogy it just might be easier to take the "business" over as a "going concern" as essentially the overarching concept here is to get one or two extra hulls in the water and be a cost effective interim solution until the next generation of surface combatants arrive in the early 2030's.

 

[hauritz]

The other thing from the CoA perspective, such an arrangement could entice NZ to participate in the SEA 5000 Future FFG program. The ANZAC FFG program was a success and the third ANZAC FFG would have been reasonably cheap compared to the first one.

Another option might be participating in the SEA 1180.

NZ has indicated that they wish to replace their IPVs with something more substantial plus they haven't committed to much more than investigating the replacement of its Anzac frigates at this stage.

Indications are that all options are still on the table as far as replacing its frigates are concerned so I wouldn't rule out upgunned OPVs or corvettes.

 

[Redlands18]

Te-Kaha replaces USS Fitzgerald

http://navaltoday.com/2017/06/27new...us-operations-after-uss-fitzgerald-collision/
The Te-Kaha is heading north to replace the USS Fitzgerald.

Sorry the Link didn't go to the correct page but if you go to home the story is on the home page.

 

[StingrayOZ]

The other thing from the CoA perspective, such an arrangement could entice NZ to participate in the SEA 5000 Future FFG program. The ANZAC FFG program was a success and the third ANZAC FFG would have been reasonably cheap compared to the first one.

I would love to see NZ participate in the SEA5000 program. However, those are big, capable, expensive ships. Even taking many full strength Waikato Draught, I and skeptical of NZ committing to that.

I'm skeptical of NZ operating four frigates again.

 

[MrConservative]

Another option might be participating in the SEA 1180.

NZ has indicated that they wish to replace their IPVs with something more substantial plus they haven't committed to much more than investigating the replacement of its Anzac frigates at this stage.

Indications are that all options are still on the table as far as replacing its frigates are concerned so I wouldn't rule out upgunned OPVs or corvettes.

The DWP16 has ruled that out. Frigates are one of three core capabilities they are seeking.

 

[Gibbo]

The DWP16 has ruled that out. Frigates are one of three core capabilities they are seeking.

Yes agreed DWP & DCP in no way indicate anything more than a desire to continue with the Frigate upgrade project - their replacement is not under any serious consideration at this stage and there's no suggestions from those documents that additional Frigates are under consideration. I very much doubt the latter would even be considered until the ANZAC replacement project kicks off, which could of course lead us down alternative paths...!

So very interesting discussion about options for additional Frigates here, much of it over my head from a technical perspective, to be honest. I think however it's important to re-visit the CN's comments that kicked off this little burst...

"...All this work could not go on if it weren’t for the training delivered by MANAWANUI and our IPVs. The efforts of these ships is central to how we work as a Navy. With two ships in refit – we just may need more ships if we are going to keep this up in the future!"

What stuck out here to me was not the inference for more Frigates, which TBH I don't read into this, but the inference that the IPV's are more valued, now at least, that it seems we have been led to believe by some of the blurb in official channels. I've always been a firm believer in retaining 2 of the IPVs so we may see that yet, along with the 1 x SOPV that is effectively being touted as their replacement.

 

[40 deg south]

Very interesting discussion about how NZ could rapidly boost naval strength. I just think non of it is likely to happen. The DWP and associated Capability Plan have laid out a fairly detailed path:
- tanker under contract
- bids closed on an enlarged littoral support vessel, decision presumably soon
- tender due out for an ice-hardened OPV
- frigates to undergo mid-life upgrade in Canada
- Canterbury to get upgrade in mid-20s
etc.

Unless there is a significant geopolitical change, I don't think we will see major deviation from this carefully-costed plan. I'm not saying it wouldn't be a good idea to look at fleet expansion, just that there is no sign of it being considered.

 

[40 deg south]

I would love to see NZ participate in the SEA5000 program. However, those are big, capable, expensive ships. Even taking many full strength Waikato Draught, I and skeptical of NZ committing to that.

To me it isn't so much the size and cost (although they are major factors), it is how price-competitive they will be with other vessels offering similar capabilities. The Australian public (or, at least, their elected representatives) seem prepared to pay a significant premium to keep production in Australia.

NZ has no particular sentimental attachment to keeping the welders of South Australia gainfully employed, so I would expect value-for-money would be closely scrutinised. It will come down to an assessment of whether the benefits of commonality and the closeness of the political relationship justify a price premium of x percent. What the answer is will depend on the % price premium and on the priorities of the party in power at the time.

In my view, failure to select a common tanker design with Australia suggests NZ is prepared to go it alone where it appears better value.

 

[MrConservative]

Very interesting discussion about how NZ could rapidly boost naval strength. I just think non of it is likely to happen. The DWP and associated Capability Plan have laid out a fairly detailed path:
- tanker under contract
- bids closed on an enlarged littoral support vessel, decision presumably soon
- tender due out for an ice-hardened OPV
- frigates to undergo mid-life upgrade in Canada
- Canterbury to get upgrade in mid-20s
etc.

Unless there is a significant geopolitical change, I don't think we will see major deviation from this carefully-costed plan. I'm not saying it wouldn't be a good idea to look at fleet expansion, just that there is no sign of it being considered.

Let me place a caveat there.

It is not unless significant geo-political changes are going to happen - they are already happening. The fundamental geo-political changes between the two DWP's of 2010 and 2016 and in fact in the 12 months since the DCP and SWP came out are astonishing. That temperature is certainly not coming down. The challenge for this government is how it will constructively engage with the political and economic realism to react to it.

I do not see the snap shot that is the DCP16 and DWP16 in substance with respect to the capital acquisition planning remaining in play much past the next DMRR and DWP. I also expect a lot more coercive pressure been engaged on New Zealand from its traditional partners the US and Australia being part of the quantum that will force this change - it will be significant and that pressure will be exerted in the two places where by New Zealand and the National Govt in particular has its myopia - trade relationships and economic management.

What I am saying is that the leverage of geo-political change in the defence posture of New Zealand is going to come from both sides over the next few years - the foes whose threats are out there and growing and the friends who will always reserve the right at the loss of their patience to exert a form of penalty or sanction.

 

[swerve]

May be more accurate to say MBDA intend to make CAMM compatible with Mk 41, but thus far all near-term deployments of the system (British Type-23 upgrade, NZ Anzac upgrade and Chilean Type 23 upgrade) seem to be using a setup with individual launch canisters instead of more general-purpose VLS silos, even when the ships involved already have Mk41s aboard... Suggesting the integration work hasn't yet been done.

So, I wouldn't be suprized if in the event of NZ borrowing an Adelaide and asking MBDA to fit it with CAMM you Kiwis cop an additional bill for integrating it into the Mk41 VLS.

Could be weight & maintenance issues, as well. If you have self-defence Mk 41s, with efflux management, & you don't have anything else that'll fit in 'em, why not sell them (I've read that there's a second-hand market) & fit simpler & probably lighter CAMM-specific launchers?

BTW, CAMM was successfully fired from Mk 41 in September 2013, using the host version (the one which fits into Mk 41) of ExLS. As of September 2015, LM & MBDA said it would be available in 2016, following qualification firings.

 

[40 deg south]

Let me place a caveat there.

It is not unless significant geo-political changes are going to happen - they are already happening. The fundamental geo-political changes between the two DWP's of 2010 and 2016 and in fact in the 12 months since the DCP and SWP came out are astonishing. That temperature is certainly not coming down. The challenge for this government is how it will constructively engage with the political and economic realism to react to it...

No dispute about the changing environment, but is it really changing in ways that weren't foreseen? I looked through the 2014 Defence Assessment (which laid the ground for DWP 2016) a month or two back and thought it held up reasonably well. China's economy continues to grow, and there is continuing tension in the South China Sea. But this isn't exactly anything new - they are simply continuations of well-established trends.

The change in US political leadership wasn't predicted, but this adds uncertainty rather than changes any strategic calculations. The outbreak of Islamic radicalism in the southern Philippines is worrying, but not exactly a total surprise. I think it would take more than the current developments to spark a crash expansion of the NZ Navy.

I don't dispute that the next DWP may see a different environment, and mid-point review may send some signals about that.

 

[MrConservative]

I don't dispute that the next DWP may see a different environment, and mid-point review may send some signals about that.

I also recognise that. One thing also is that this National government under Key then English are incrementalists in both policy and management and I would say that the next DMRR will seek more nuanced revisions and more half steps forward.

The real weakness within the maritime domain is as the CN said - lack of hulls. In particular the hulls required to do the fundamental role of the Navy - that is patrolling the Seas whether that is regional-global as per a Frigate or within the EEZ as per an OPV. The CN in my view only mentioned the IPV and Manawanui in the context that if it was not for them training would virtually cease. What the CN did not say is that OPV and Anzac training is a massive ordeal with just two ships of each type.

The rationale of two Frigates and two OPV's were minimalist almost austerity measures from 15 years ago as we cried poverty and use the excuse that we could not afford a third frigate and an ACF.

NZ Inc in 2017 is not poor!! It is a rapidly growing quarter trillion economy soon to hit 5 million in population, 100 billion a year export-import receipts, billion + dollar surpluses, 3.5%+ annual average growth, govt gdp debt levels circa 20% and trending down, unemployment rates under 5%, 10000 new jobs a month being created.

As you know New Zealand looked at a 3rd Frigate and this Treasury document from the time references that ship and its fiscal impact.

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/economy/overview/archive/pdfs/nzefo-00.pdf

A key feature of New Zealand’s current account deficit is a large deficit on investment income reflecting New Zealand’s large net foreign liability position. In the last 5 years the current account deficit has fluctuated in a range of around 5% to 8% of GDP. The current account deficit widened from 4.7% of GDP in March 1995 to a peak of 7.1% of GDP in June 1997 before shrinking to 4.9% in June 1998 and then increasing again to 8% (7.4% if the one off purchase of a Navy frigate is excluded) in December 1999.

We are not the country we were in 2000 with the GDP under $100B, GDP debt level ratio of 37%, unemployment at 7%, just 3.75m population and leaving in droves, - nor did we at the time with then three frigates (by 2005 just two) were in the far more complex, contestable and unpredictable geo-political future we are in now.

 

[swerve]

GDP under $100 mn? I think you mean billion.