Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[beegee]

Not T-26s but 3 x OMT Iver Huitfelds, built in South Korea, fitted with 1 x MT-30 GT, 2 x MTU diesels, 2 x Oerlikon Millennium 35 mm guns, 1 x Mk-45 Mod 2 Gun, 32 x Mk-41 tactical length VLS, Sea Ceptor, along with the same sensors, decoys, comms, ISR , data, computing, LM CMS etc., that are being installed on the ANZAC FFH in Canada. The first one after Aotearoa and then the second to be IOC by 2027 followed by the 3rd 3 years later.

Why tactical length VLS? That would limit you to ESSM, SM2 and ASROC only. No possible future VL ASM like NSM or LRASM. Since the IH was designed to take 32 strike length cells, you may as well go the whole hog, IMO.
Also the upgraded ANZAC sensors don't have the ability to guide ESSM or SM-2. You'd need to add at least one CWI FC radar like the CEROS 200 CW (which is currently being removed from the ANZACS as part of the upgrade). To really take advantage of US weapons you'd need a sensor setup like ceafar2, spy1 or smartL/apar. But the whole reason NZ selected Sea Ceptor over ESSM is so our frigares don't need to be equipped with big, heavy, expensive and high maintenance sensor systems. So the reality is I don't see us going back to the mk41 anytime soon. Which sucks.

 

[Todjaeger]

Why tactical length VLS? That would limit you to ESSM, SM2 and ASROC only. No possible future VL ASM like NSM or LRASM. Since the IH was designed to take 32 strike length cells, you may as well go the whole hog, IMO.
Also the upgraded ANZAC sensors don't have the ability to guide ESSM or SM-2. You'd need to add at least one CWI FC radar like the CEROS 200 CW (which is currently being removed from the ANZACS as part of the upgrade). To really take advantage of US weapons you'd need a sensor setup like ceafar2, spy1 or smartL/apar. But the whole reason NZ selected Sea Ceptor over ESSM is so our frigares don't need to be equipped with big, heavy, expensive and high maintenance sensor systems. So the reality is I don't see us going back to the mk41 anytime soon. Which sucks.

The Mk 41 VLS with tactical length cells can fit almost the entire range of weaponry that the strike length can, excepting for Tomahawk LACM's and some of the larger SM-2/3 variants which are intended for BMD. While NSM has not been cleared for use from the Mk 41 VLS, given that the missile is shorter than SM-2 by nearly a metre and weighs ~300 kg less, I suspect that a NSM could be fitted to a tactical length Mk 41 VLS canister.

Also the issue with the Sea Ceptor vs. ESSM fitout is not the sensors, but rather that the current ESSM requires an illuminator while Sea Ceptor does not. IIRC one of the existing radars on the RNZN's ANZAC-class frigates were to be replaced with a newer/different radar, though I cannot recall which radar was to be replaced, or what it was being replaced by. The illuminators used by the RIM-7 Sea Sparrow were of course also to be removed, as well as the Mk 41 Mod 5 VLS.

 

[beegee]

Also the issue with the Sea Ceptor vs. ESSM fitout is not the sensors, but rather that the current ESSM requires an illuminator while Sea Ceptor does not.

It's more complicated than that. You also need the missile datalink, or you're limited to a line of sight engagement with illumination all the way for ESSM or SM-2. The datalink is part of the sensors I listed: ceafar2 (datalink and illuminator), smartL/apar (datalink and illuminator) and spy1 (datalink with the MK 99 Fire Control System or AN/SPG-62 providing CW illumination). These sensors allow engagement of a large number targets with multiple missiles per target at the same time. A simple CW illuminator can't do that.

Since Sea Ceptor is sensor agnostic it needs a separate datalink. That's provided by the MBDA Platform Data Link Terminal. Two are needed to give 360 degree coverage: Here they are on the T23:

And here they are on the upgraded ANZAC, one on the bridge and one in front of the funnels:

 

[beegee]

IIRC one of the existing radars on the RNZN's ANZAC-class frigates were to be replaced with a newer/different radar, though I cannot recall which radar was to be replaced, or what it was being replaced by.

The SPS-49 is being replaced by a Thales SMART-S Mk 2.

They're actually replacing all the radars. The Sea Giraffe is going too.

 

[swerve]

I see that Todjaeger has included a significant word: "current ESSM". ESSM Block 2, now under test, has an active seeker. Given that testing of it is underway, I'd expect that any as-yet-unbuilt ships to be fitted with ESSM would be likely to get the active version.

The RNZN Anzacs are getting the Thales Smart-S Mk 2, same as fitted to the Canadian Halifax class when they were modernised a few years ago.

 

[beegee]

I see that Todjaeger has included a significant word: "current ESSM". ESSM Block 2, now under test, has an active seeker. Given that testing of it is underway, I'd expect that any as-yet-unbuilt ships to be fitted with ESSM would be likely to get the active version.

Yeah, I'm sure most countries who operate ESSM Blk 1 will upgrade to the Blk 2 once it's mature. Given that the missile body and rocket motor aren't changing, I wonder if an upgrade kit might be possible.

It's interesting that they're keeping the semi-active guidance mode even with the new active homing head. The idea being in high electromagnetic jamming conditions the ship's much more powerful illumination radar will have less chance of being swamped than the missile's own transmitter. Something that could potentially be a problem for Sea Ceptor.

 

[ngatimozart]

As OMT are now part of the Babcocks consortium any future Ivers will be built in the UK, you will not see them being built in Korea or anywhere else. This question was asked at the open day I went to, so if NZ decided to buy them they would come from the UK.

Bugger.

When the 1st new frigate's in service strip the 1st Anzac to retire of everything worth keeping for the 2nd new frigate, & repeat for the 2nd Anzac & 3rd new one. Can be updated later.

Yep, that's a good plan and would fit the previous govt's intention to pull through kit.

Why change the propulsion?

The original Ivers are primarily AAW FFGs and powered by four diesels and diesels are inherently noisy. In NZ service they would be a GP frigate operating in a region where submarines breed like rabbits. I know that for most ships the max speed is the hull speed and no matter how much power you pour into it, you will not exceed that speed. So in the Ivers case, do the 4 diesels generate enough power for hull speed to be attained and sustained or is more power required? Secondly, I think that from a standing start a GT is able to sprint quicker than 4 clutched in diesels. Thirdly, I think that a GT at speed is quieter than 4 diesels.

 

[spoz]

But the GT guzzles fuel; and from a silencing point of view the gear box (and indeed the complete shafting and the propellers) are, or at least can be, significant sources of noise. Depending on how the diesels are mounted they can be quietened; and driving through electric motors rather than gear boxes (a la T23 or T26) is the best solution - although the least noisy designs do have the diesels used for quiet state mounted above the water line. And of course GT ships driving through gear boxes need SSDGs (or dedicated GT driven alternators) to provide electrical power.

As for faster power availability, maybe - but there is a significant spool up time (partly because just fully opening the throttle from a lower power state without allowing the engine to catch up risks a flame out so that's normally automatically managed) and usually there is a need to bring an additional GT on line as, because of the inherent inefficiency of GTs low down in the power band, an all GT ship normally runs off the minimum number necessary to achieve the speed required.

However, even just changing out diesels for GTs would be a significant redesign with possibly knock on effects to stability etc, I'm not sure NZ would want to pay for that.

 

[ngatimozart]

Thanks Spoz, just throwing ideas around trying to see what works best. I believe with it's 4 diesels the Ivers can do 28 knots maybe a bit more which I think is about what the ANZACs can hit. I was thinking along the line of electric drive because power generation will become more important in the future and it's easier to build with that in mind rather than having to retrofit further down the line. I suppose pods are not viable at the moment

 

[John Fedup]

If done right, IEP is the way to go. The QE and Zumwalt classes will hopefully confirms this in actual real world conditions. The only negative is cost but this will come down with greater acceptance.

 

[MrConservative]

As OMT are now part of the Babcocks consortium any future Ivers will be built in the UK, you will not see them being built in Korea or anywhere else. This question was asked at the open day I went to, so if NZ decided to buy them they would come from the UK.

That relates to the Type 31e design under the conditions of the license granted to the Babcocks led consortium.

However, OMT who are a subsidiary of Valcon Group A/S retain proprietary rights to their originating Absalon and subsequent F370 designs. There is nothing to stop OMT replying to an RFI from the NZ Min Def for a frigate based on their originating intellectual property and offering a design built in a 3rd party shipyard.

 

[KiwiRob]

That relates to the Type 31e design under the conditions of the license granted to the Babcocks led consortium.

However, OMT who are a subsidiary of Valcon Group A/S retain proprietary rights to their originating Absalon and subsequent F370 designs. There is nothing to stop OMT replying to an RFI from the NZ Min Def for a frigate based on their originating intellectual property and offering a design built in a 3rd party shipyard.

From what I have learnt so far you wouldn't pick an Iver over an Arrowhead, the Arrowhead is a significantly improved and updated design. The Consortium put together by Babcocks for this project is all about exporting the product, 5 for the RN and many many more for other countries. I very much doubt OMT would screw this up by selling the design on to another country outside of this consortium; as I said this question was asked and answered at the Babcocks Type 31E open day in Rosyth.

 

[MrConservative]

From what I have learnt so far you wouldn't pick an Iver over an Arrowhead, the Arrowhead is a significantly improved and updated design. The Consortium put together by Babcocks for this project is all about exporting the product, 5 for the RN and many many more for other countries. I very much doubt OMT would screw this up by selling the design on to another country outside of this consortium; as I said this question was asked and answered at the Babcocks Type 31E open day in Rosyth.

A RNZN RFI for a future surface combatant in the 2030's may not chose either of those possibilities. The salient point is that it does not preclude OMT designing a new Frigate that may meet the RFI specifications of the RNZN further leveraging its institutional proprietary and intellectual knowledge as a naval design and consultancy firm. Nor does it preclude the RNZN engaging OMT's naval design consultancy services to work with a 3rd party shipyard.

In the meantime I watch with interest last years MOU in which they joined with fellow Danish firm Wärtsilä Lyngsø Marine A/S in signing with Garden Reach Shipbuilders & Engineering Ltd and ABG Shipyard Ltd as partners in the $80B Indian maritime industry strategy over the next decade in naval and commercial shipbuilding.

 

[ASSAIL]

In the meantime I watch with interest last years MOU in which they joined with fellow Danish firm Wärtsilä Lyngsø Marine A/S in signing with Garden Reach Shipbuilders & Engineering Ltd and ABG Shipyard Ltd as partners in the $80B Indian maritime industry strategy over the next decade in naval and commercial shipbuilding.

God help them! That’s like walking blindfolded into a minefield.

 

[MrConservative]

God help them! That’s like walking blindfolded into a minefield.

Boeing, SAAB, Airbus and LM have been beating a door there as well. They know what they are doing and the welcome mat has been placed. Over the last five years since Modi gained control huge progress has been made in IP protection, fast tracking of ventures, outreach for investment and governance. Generally, most on to it Corporates and Global Equity funds have been beating a pathway to Mumbai and Delhi enticed by the 6%pa + growth opportunities over the next decade out to 2030. In the Defence sector alone there is a US$170B slice of action over the next decade in direct sales and partnerships with domestic industrials for foreign defence sector firms as part of the $620B CapEx spend.

 

[John Fedup]

Lots of opportunity for sure but lots of frustration as well, just ask AW or Dassault. In the case of the latter, trying to deal with HAL was a show-stopper.

 

[beegee]

God help them! That’s like walking blindfolded into a minefield.

The lure of gold has sent many an adventurer to their doom. Lest we forget.

 

[ngatimozart]

God help them! That’s like walking blindfolded into a minefield.

Deaf as well as blind and unguided.

 

[MrConservative]

Lots of opportunity for sure but lots of frustration as well, just ask AW or Dassault.

India will be the 3rd largest economy in the world by 2030 (Some analysts actually say possibly by 2025 helped via the decline in Germany and the UK). You get frustration everywhere within commercial deals whatever the jurisdiction, and foreigners do strange things such as showing up with ones family all decked out in Dhoti-Kurta's and wonder why they get no where, no deal and no respect.

As for asking AW and Dassault? I would ask AW why 6 years ago some of their execs were slipping undisclosed "facilitation payments" to a small group of underpaid Indian officials (all connected with the Congress Party now out of power). A case of questioning the corporate governance of AW in my view just as much as the flaws on the Indian side. Some AW execs did time and Indian officials jailed or fired - good. As for Dassault well they are working with another Indian firm Reliance Aerospace for the 36 Rafale deal. HAL got the Shornet business and LM India the F-16V for the in country manufacturing dimension rather than the previous Rafale 126 joblot deal with HAL started under again the former Congress party regime. That is business and politics and both change. Dassault have responded to the request for a further 57 for the Indian Navy.

And to steer this back onto the RNZN thread I postulate this question which deliberately will challenge some preconceptions - could New Zealand and other western aligned nations possibly buy Indian built naval vessels in 15 years when it comes time to renew our fleet? In my view that possibly cannot be discounted and will likely become more obvious as we move towards that date.

 

[Todjaeger]

And to steer this back onto the RNZN thread I postulate this question which deliberately will challenge some preconceptions - could New Zealand and other western aligned nations possibly buy Indian built naval vessels in 15 years when it comes time to renew our fleet? In my view that possibly cannot be discounted and will likely become more obvious as we move towards that date.

Are you asking whether western-aligned nations with naval forces (and presumably without their own domestic naval shipbuilding capability) might purchase entire, completed warships built in India, or are you referring to the purchase of completed hulls which are then sent elsewhere for fitout? Similarly, are you also including the purchase of non-main fleet unit vessels like OPV's and/or patrol boats?