Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[alexsa]

Thanks Black Jack Shelac. Using those figures the average of CAN$3.55 billion turns into NZ$4.15 Billion at todays premium of NZ$1.17 per CAN$1.

Incomprehensibly huge numbers that citizen tax payers cannot appreciate.

Stobiewan I in no way would want to see any sailor, soldier or airman die as a result of low balling on the cost of platforms but where do you draw the line with this thinking. Phalanx is a CIWS but Goalkeeper is better. 30 mm single mount is good but Millenium is better. NFH is good but Merlin and Cyclone are better. I could go on. Unfortunately when you sign on the doted line you know that your Government may send you in harms way. Those in positions to make the call to send our young men and women off to battle know that some will make the ultimate sacrifice.

There will always be sacrifices when purchasing equipment regarding this or that capability and its risk vs reward.

Purchasing an Absalon type vessel, as Denmark has, built to commercial standards wasnt done with no regard to those who sail on her. A very well designed vessel that is overly well armed yet it is built to less of a standard than UK or US vessels. The Danes have accepted the risks associated and feel that its managable.

If the NZ GOTD decide to go with a vessel built to a lessor level than the gold standard but still meets the requirements of the specification then we all live with it. But if the GOTD decides to strap a 40 mm Boffin to the deck of an inter island ferry and send it off to transit the Strait of Hormuz then that would be criminal.

At this point of the process the primary decision that needs to be made is what is the desire of the government with regard to capability of its surface fleet. As noted previous reports about the surface fleets size has recommended a four frigate navy for very obvious reasons. So now lets look at how to get there since this is a doubling of the current medium to lower end ANZACs.

Four hulls means two deployed, one home and one in longterm refit under normal conditions. In a small fleet like Denmarks the ability to move weapons amongst hulls makes great sense.

Can the Stanflex system be incorporated into this small NZ fleet? What benefits would be had. Is ASW the primary desire? A report on the Save the Royal Navy site recently extolled the virtue of dumping the 5" gun in favour of a second CIWS. The primary rational was to free up space below deck for whatever purpose desired. Has value to me.

Twenty years ago who would have thought about putting up to a dozen ISO containers on a Frigate such as the T26. Flexibility most needed from my point of view. So many options to commanders.

So going back to my original point of cost being an issue lets compare $12 billlion vs $4 billion. Which figure has more of a chance. I know where I think it will be.

Really .... look at the UK figures for the first three if you want numbers to compare as well. The Canadian figures include other costs the reflect the Canadian project and shares costs across the production run of their vessels. The UK project in ordering the first batch of three is similar appears to include project costs but the cost per unit is much lower. It comes down to what you include in your calculation.

The Hunter project is set at 35 billion AUD for nine vessels but this includes the build, the buidling infrastructure, support infrastructure as well as support and maintenance for the life of the vessel (4.3billion). NZ would not be expected to cover sunk cost assocaited with building infrastructure. Cherry picking a figure without consideration of the costing process is nonsense.

On the Absalom and Stanflex .... this is an Danish concept built in Denmark by a yard that nolonged exists. Stanflex was designed to cut costs in fit out but there are only a limited number of modules and I doubt Denamrk will release them. If you were to adopt this process then new Moduels will have to be constructed.

If this is the sort of ship desired by NZ then the T31 is a better options as it 'should be' in construction by the time it is needed and there would be no set up costs. If the is an ernest desire of NZ to use south Korea then using one of their designs would be better as .... again ... you avoid set up costs.

But the issue here is your myopic reliance on some figures to try and prove a point, without considering context, all to promote yor faviourite platform. At the end of the day NZ will have to decide what it is willing to pay for. The T31 (or Absalom clone) will not be as good as the T26, or the CSC or the Hunter ... but if that is what they choose then that will be it.

But as you said you are done with this .... well I certainly am done with this conversation because you are adding noting except a churlish and childish attitude. Don't bother responding.

 

[OPSSG]

We have received feedback from members on concerns with this thread. There will be no longer further tolerance of any Off-topic discussion on imaginary Canadian CSC costs in a NZ Navy thread, as there is no indication (or Government news release) that states the Government of NZ is down selecting a Canadian yard for consideration.

 

[ngatimozart]

@Novascotiaboy
You have been the subject of complaints to the moderating team, about your posting behaviour and attititude. Therefore you are issued this warning that if there is not a significant improvement in your posting behaviour and attitude, your future on here will be the subject of Moderator discussions.

 

[Black Jack Shellac]

@OPSSG, I think my post is being miss read. It gives an estimate of a Type 26 in today's dollars in USD at 1.24B (not 3.55B CAD - that is govt of Canada slight of hand and a premium because it includes inflation and a plethora of additional costs). Admittedly it is not what NZ would necessarily pay, nor what Canadians are paying.

My point is that there are lots of values for a T26 depending on what is included, and to do an apples to apples comparison I think it is fair to strip out all the sundries when doing the comparison. That is what that number is, 1.24B USD for a bare bones T26. Compared to a T31 at around 1B USD each I don't see much savings or value in the savings.

I also believe that it is not an outrageous price, but reasonable for what you get. And I also believe that NZ could afford this if they chose to; but that is up to NZ, not my business.

Apologies if I upset anyone - I will refrain from posting on this thread in the future.

Regards

 

[OPSSG]

@OPSSG, I think my post is being miss read. It gives an estimate of a Type 26 in today's dollars in USD at 1.24B (not 3.55B CAD - that is govt of Canada slight of hand and a premium because it includes inflation and a plethora of additional costs). Admittedly it is not what NZ would necessarily pay, nor what Canadians are paying.

My point is that there are lots of values for a T26 depending on what is included, and to do an apples to apples comparison I think it is fair to strip out all the sundries when doing the comparison. That is what that number is, 1.24B USD for a bare bones T26. Compared to a T31 at around 1B USD each I don't see much savings or value in the savings.

I also believe that it is not an outrageous price, but reasonable for what you get. And I also believe that NZ could afford this if they chose to; but that is up to NZ, not my business.

Apologies if I upset anyone - I will refrain from posting on this thread in the future.

Regards

No apology needed, as your post is objective and provides a data point for further NZ consideration. Having said that, this is a NZ Navy discussion and not a NZ Navy Type 31 fantasy discussion. In fact, you have my thanks for grounding the discussion on the T26 variants and their costs, in published numbers — instead of plucking figures from thin air, as another member has consistently done — to protect his hobby horse (who was just warned by another Moderator), instead of learning from others. The goal is to ground the discussions, where possible, as you have done.

Hence the Green text — general guidance that is not directed at a specific post (but designed to steer the discussion).

 

[Nighthawk.NZ]

Not sure what else I missed... while at work... was going to reply to a post... zap gone... oh well

Anywho... my point was going to be at the end of the day (it is night time ) whether NZ goes for the T-26 or the T-31 or any other hull, it all depends what gets fitted out, ie what sensors, CMS, weapons and what gets pinched off the ANZACs and what is new etc... and that is where the main cost comes in to play... Building the hull is the cheap easy bit... we could go for a T-26 hull and fit it out totally different from the RAN, RN and or RCN different sensors, different CMS, different weapons, different paint, different configuration...and be a totally different vessel and that would change the whole dynamics and costing of the vessel.

But since that post is gone I won't say that... just saying... and on that note since it is flooding around the SI at the moment I better go have a bourbon.... cheers. just saying.

 

[Todjaeger]

Given the posting over the last few days, both here in and in the RAN thread about costs for vessels and programmes, as well as which ones will or will not make it, I feel that people need to be reminded of a few key things and then likely impacts from that.

The first is that per the DCP 2019, the RNZN's ANZAC-class FFH's are expected to be replaced in/by the mid-2030's. From that piece of information, I infer that the start of the frigate replacement programme has not yet started, but should be getting initiated within the next two to four years or so. I make that estimate based off the time it would take to set the capability requirements, then go through the proposal and tendering process, get the required contracts signed, then actually have construction started and then completed. Using the joint RAN/RNZN frigate project which produced the ANZAC-class FFH as an example, it got started some time before 1985, with the first vessel not being laid down until late 1993. In other words, these projects require years of pre-planning.

With that in mind, that years of pre-planning are involved, one of the first things which needs to happen IMO is for the RNZN, NZDF and NZG to define what the capability requirements are or would be for the Future Frigates. These requirements would in turn be determined by threat assessments as well as likely and potential security vignettes NZ and NZ interests would or could face in circa 2035+, potentially even out to 2070 or beyond. I have my own opinions on what the potential security situation could be, as well as how optimistic/rose-tinted some of those doing such assessments in NZ will be.

Having said that though, it is IMO very rich for people to have formed an opinion on what NZ will select based upon cost, particularly when modern warfare now is really not about individual platforms, but how platforms/systems fit and work together in an overall warfighting system, and NZ capability requirements should give an idea on where/how the Future Frigates would fit into the NZDF's overall capabilities.

 

[ngatimozart]

Not sure what else I missed... while at work... was going to reply to a post... zap gone... oh well

Anywho... my point was going to be at the end of the day (it is night time ) whether NZ goes for the T-26 or the T-31 or any other hull, it all depends what gets fitted out, ie what sensors, CMS, weapons and what gets pinched off the ANZACs and what is new etc... and that is where the main cost comes in to play... Building the hull is the cheap easy bit... we could go for a T-26 hull and fit it out totally different from the RAN, RN and or RCN different sensors, different CMS, different weapons, different paint, different configuration...and be a totally different vessel and that would change the whole dynamics and costing of the vessel.

But since that post is gone I won't say that... just saying... and on that note since it is flooding around the SI at the moment I better go have a bourbon.... cheers. just saying.

See, you miss all the excitement. I thought you'd be down at the Forsyth Barr rocking along to the Rocket Man on his farewell concert. Yep, she's a tad soggy around the bottom half with 1 metre of rain recorded in Milford Sound in 3 days. No wonder the only access road is buggered.

IF we go with the T-26 hull and machinery, we would be silly not to go with the Lockheed CMS330 2.0 as supplied to the RCN. It's the upgraded CMS330 that we're having installed in the ANZAC frigates at the moment, so it makes sense to go with the updated AEGIS compliant variant. IMHO it would also make sense to go with the same radar, the AN/SPY 7 (V) 1 as well, because both are already integrated etc., plus most likely we would have a similar missile loadout to the RCN CSC. However as has been pointed out by Todjaegar, no requirements for the FFXNZ have yet been made public, and I doubt that they've even been given one iota of thought at the political level, apart from delaying the ANZAC FFH retirement by about 6 years.

 

[Nighthawk.NZ]

See, you miss all the excitement. I thought you'd be down at the Forsyth Barr rocking along to the Rocket Man on his farewell concert. Yep, she's a tad soggy around the bottom half with 1 metre of rain recorded in Milford Sound in 3 days. No wonder the only access road is buggered.

It's just a tad damp...

IF we go with the T-26 hull and machinery, we would be silly not to go with the Lockheed CMS330 2.0 as supplied to the RCN. It's the upgraded CMS330 that we're having installed in the ANZAC frigates at the moment, so it makes sense to go with the updated AEGIS compliant variant. IMHO it would also make sense to go with the same radar, the AN/SPY 7 (V) 1 as well, because both are already integrated etc., plus most likely we would have a similar missile loadout to the RCN CSC.

It would be silly not to upgrade to version two point zero of the CMS from Lockheed. Its simply makes training easier which in turn cheaper.

However as has been pointed out by Todjaegar, no requirements for the FFXNZ have yet been made public, and I doubt that they've even been given one iota of thought at the political level, apart from delaying the ANZAC FFH retirement by about 6 years.

I actually agree with you and Todjaegar... and I was also going to say that the requirements haven't even been released and industry engagement probably 4 or 5 years away...

 

[Redlands18]

Given the posting over the last few days, both here in and in the RAN thread about costs for vessels and programmes, as well as which ones will or will not make it, I feel that people need to be reminded of a few key things and then likely impacts from that.

The first is that per the DCP 2019, the RNZN's ANZAC-class FFH's are expected to be replaced in/by the mid-2030's. From that piece of information, I infer that the start of the frigate replacement programme has not yet started, but should be getting initiated within the next two to four years or so. I make that estimate based off the time it would take to set the capability requirements, then go through the proposal and tendering process, get the required contracts signed, then actually have construction started and then completed. Using the joint RAN/RNZN frigate project which produced the ANZAC-class FFH as an example, it got started some time before 1985, with the first vessel not being laid down until late 1993. In other words, these projects require years of pre-planning.

With that in mind, that years of pre-planning are involved, one of the first things which needs to happen IMO is for the RNZN, NZDF and NZG to define what the capability requirements are or would be for the Future Frigates. These requirements would in turn be determined by threat assessments as well as likely and potential security vignettes NZ and NZ interests would or could face in circa 2035+, potentially even out to 2070 or beyond. I have my own opinions on what the potential security situation could be, as well as how optimistic/rose-tinted some of those doing such assessments in NZ will be.

Having said that though, it is IMO very rich for people to have formed an opinion on what NZ will select based upon cost, particularly when modern warfare now is really not about individual platforms, but how platforms/systems fit and work together in an overall warfighting system, and NZ capability requirements should give an idea on where/how the Future Frigates would fit into the NZDF's overall capabilities.

The Anzacs come out of the 1986 Dibb report into Defence calling for a mix of new Destroyers and a class of Light Patrol Frigates from the mid 90s, unfortunately we did not get new Destroyers but upgraded FFGs and Anzacs instead.

 

[John Newman]

Yes I think the discussion of which ship type (plus budget allowance) that will eventually be selected as the NZ Future Frigate is a tad premature.

But I do have a bit of a 'what if' question, well a couple of 'what if' questions.

If some future NZ Govt does select T26 as the basis for the NZ Future Frigate, which current variant (UK, Aus, Can) would it choose (or create a fourth variant?), and which existing production line would likely be chosen.

I don't think it will be as simple as choosing a variant and then working out the details of the build, it may also be complicated as to which of the current three production lines can also include two (or three?) additional third party customer ships and at the same time meet the production/delivery schedules of their primary customers.

As it stands as at today, it would appear that both the UK and Australian production schedules (and drumbeat) are designed to match producing X number of ships of class over X period of time, then moved onto another class of ship (replacement DDGs), eg, continuous naval shipbuilding.

As for Canada, I don't know enough about their plans (beyond CSC) to know if they are planning to have a 'follow on' class of something to keep the yard busy (I suspect not at this stage?), and possibly end up in a Valley of Death situation.

I'm sure that UK, Australian and Canadian shipyards (and Governments) will all put their hands up to accommodate their Kiwi cousins.

Not knowing about potential excess capacity in UK or Canadian shipyards (I won't address that because I don't know), but I do remember at the time of the Oz Governments selection of T26 as the Hunter class, the BAE head of the T26 program stated that the new facility being built in SA has both the ability to contract the 'drumbeat' (which I'm sure all yards are capable of doing), but he also said the new facility was also capable of building ships concurrently. and that the ASC/BAE management structure would allow for ASC to bid for work outside of the Hunter program.

Anyway, lots of questions, not a lot of answers, It will be interesting to see what will happen if a future NZ Govt does pick T26.

Cheers,

 

[Novascotiaboy]

The ANZAC upgrade at Seaspan was supposed to have been a 10 month program per ship. There must be some serious problems as its now almost 24 months since initial arrival in Victoria. Is there an open source information available as to delivery of first frigate back to NZ ?

On the same vein Manawanui must soon be ready to join the fleet as her upgrades and final military fit up should soon be complete at Devonport.

 

[Todjaeger]

The Anzacs come out of the 1986 Dibb report into Defence calling for a mix of new Destroyers and a class of Light Patrol Frigates from the mid 90s, unfortunately we did not get new Destroyers but upgraded FFGs and Anzacs instead.

The Dibbs Report certainly had some influence in the MEKO 200ANZ being selected and therefore becoming the ANZAC-class FFH, but the Dibb Report itself was initiated in early 1985. Also, as I understand it, the RAN's New Surface Combatant project, which was either SEA 1348 or led to project SEA 1348 and the ANZAC-class frigates was initiated in the mid-1980's, and by 1985 the RAN was or had considered briefs on vessels designed with displacements ranging from 1,200 to 5,000 tonnes with the RAN emphasizing AShM defence, damage control, and ship survivability based off the RN experiences from the Falklands War. This I got from the Australia Navy Handbook Vol. 1 Strategic Information and Weapons Systems, page 91 of the 2011 reprint.

From my POV a defence acquisition programme should start long before a specific piece of kit is selected, preferably when a capability need or shortfall is being determined, so that the requirements to fulfill that need or shortfall can also be determined.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

Answer to my question found.

NZ confirms redelivery schedule for updated ANZAC frigates | Jane's 360

A full two years and then some.

 

[Nighthawk.NZ]

Answer to my question found.

NZ confirms redelivery schedule for updated ANZAC frigates | Jane's 360

A full two years and then some.

I best not say anything because I would probably get a warning or banned, or both all on the same post... due to bad language

 

[old faithful]

I best not say anything because I would probably get a warning or banned, or both all on the same post... due to bad language

End of 2020?! That can't be right?

 

[Nighthawk.NZ]

End of 2020?! That can't be right?

I can understand a few delays... here and there, as it is not 100% the same as the Halifax upgrades (did I spell that right) ... but that is a big delay... and they better not ask for more money, because of it whatever issue they have come across...

 

[ASSAIL]

This APDR link ANZAC Midlife Capability Assurance Program | APDR nicely summarises the upgrades to the RAN Anzac Class.
BAE could have easily slotted the Kiwi ships into a hot production line and the time the 2 ships have been out of service could have been drastically shortened.
Couda, woulda, shouda, just saying

 

[Lucasnz]

I can understand a few delays... here and there, as it is not 100% the same as the Halifax upgrades (did I spell that right) ... but that is a big delay... and they better not ask for more money, because of it whatever issue they have come across...

Over two years to be precise. MOD are saying that as at Sept last year exterior work was complete but interior work was still been undertaken. Canterbury went into refit in 1987 till Nov 1990 and got RCA 76, LW08 and new Sonar and that took a slightly longer period of time. I think there will be additional working up time in Canada due to the need to regenerate the skill set, but setting aside the weight / stability issues we probably should have followed Australia (in hindsight), and loss the CIWS. Still I do like Sea Ceptor.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Couda, woulda, shouda, just saying

Yes, but this way the next project, it hoped lessons are learned and perhaps different options explored.

Is there any NZ audit type link to the upgrade like what we got with:
https://www.anao.gov.au/sites/default/files/Auditor-General_Report_2018-2019_30.pdf

Would really love more info to compare the two programs. Would be interested to see why NZ didn't go that route. The whole point of operating a same class is sharing upgrades. As the ANAO report states, we wear costs/risks being parent navy for the class, and running that across the entire Anzac fleet. With just two ships, how does NZ reconcile that?