Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[MrConservative]

I believe that any ESV (Enhanced Sealift Vessel) that the RNZN acquires should have a self protection capability consisting of sensors, Sea Ceptor, CIWS and decoys. My esteemed fellow Kiwi Moderator, Mr C would argue otherwise stating that is what the escorts are for, but IMHO escorts can be otherwise engaged, disabled, sunk etc., and both the ESV and Aotearoa are high value assets therefore targets.

I don't have a problem with any future ESV them being fitted with Sea Ceptor, decoys and CIWS for self protection. I just don't think that they should be turned into some kind of thru deck asw surface combatant like a Hyūga, besides their is no budget to do so anyway.

 

[MrConservative]

Also wondering if the maritime realm may be better served with a greater balance of aviation assets.
P8's and maybe MQ-9 styled aircraft to provide surveillance and deterrence.

It is being done.

The Enhanced Maritime Awareness Capability project is underway to supplement the P-8A. The MQ-9 Sea Guardian is being looked at as one of the options. The FAMC project also has a maritime dimension relating to a supplementary SAR capacity as well the MEPT project will likely add capacity in the maritime domain albeit at a more supplementary and constabulary level.

 

[MrConservative]

While I agree in general, but playing "devil's advocate" Canterbury was never intended to do go into a hotspot... she was purely sold to the public as for HADR, and to move equipment from port to port. And to be fair she has been a good learning tool for amphibious operations... but yes I do agree with you.

But in the early days when the project was being scoped pre 2005 and the 3rd Frigate of the day her namesake was being given its last rites, Burton was going around selling the idea that the MRV will be able to cover the loss of the long range patrol capability that the old CY provided.

Only after when they selected a ferry dressed up to look butch, that wobbled around a bit too much that they took the spin into hyper drive about HADR etc.

 

[John Newman]

Let me rephrase that for you.

“Minister, as you can see, with the budget of $4.5b that the Government has allocated, we can procure 2 x Type 26 from the UK which I gather the opposition are quite keen on, or 3 x Constellation class from the Americans which Mr Trump was keen on, or 3 x Type 35 "purpose built for Kiwi conditions" that we would be able to have increased input and oversight of during the construction phase including the potential to run them on bio diesel, along with a training centre which will provide for lots of "high tech" and "construction" jobs, possibly in your electorate. Would your wife be available to cut the ribbon, and would you mind if we named it after you Minister?

Ha Ha, Very good Mr C, We’ll just have to wait and see which version ends up closer to reality! I do like asking the Minister if his wife (or significant other?) be available to cut the ribbon.

I do have one more version to consider:

“Minister we strongly recommend two Type 26, specifically the Hunter class, being built across the ditch by our Aussie cousins.

“We have many reasons for this recommendation, but two that stand out are that our Aussie cousins spend large amounts of defence dollars (that we don’t spend), significantly adding to our safety and security.

“And secondly, job creation, we have concluded that of the 600,000+ Kiwis living in Australia, many will either be directly or indirectly employed during the build process, and with some ‘creative’ accounting we can add those figures to the local employment figures in a very positive way.

“You will be seen as a living legend Minister, guaranteed to be re-elected for life!”).

Cheers,

 

[Nighthawk.NZ]

But in the early days when the project was being scoped pre 2005 and the 3rd Frigate of the day her namesake was being given its last rites, Burton was going around selling the idea that the MRV will be able to cover the loss of the long range patrol capability that the old CY provided.

Only after when they selected a ferry dressed up to look butch, that wobbled around a bit too much that they took the spin into hyper drive about HADR etc.

I never believed that right from the get go... even if she was a proper LPD and had better sea keeping or seaworthiness, I never saw her doing any of the so called long range patrols when you could just send a OPV... unless equipment needed to be sent... always thought what utter rot he was talking that she would do standard patrols...

That like saying send HMNZS Aotearoa on Fishery patrols... lol

 

[ngatimozart]

I don't have a problem with any future ESV them being fitted with Sea Ceptor, decoys and CIWS for self protection. I just don't think that they should be turned into some kind of thru deck asw surface combatant like a Hyūga, besides their is no budget to do so anyway.

I don't particularly want them being used as an ASW asset either because that's what they will not be designed for. We cannot afford for them to go roaring around the oggy chasing steel ghosts

So basically an ANZAC class frigate... similar tonnage and armament... lol

Again to be fair and playing "devil's advocate" both the current OPV's and IPV's were designed around fishery patrols and the odd patrol up around the pacific nothing more. However they learnt that they are a handy size of vessel to send when you don't need to send a Frigate.

You should know that the NZ gooberment and public don't like things that go ... whoosh and bang, I man heck we not even allow skyrockets for Guy Fawkes any more... ;-)

No not an ANZAC Class frigate. No it would be a corvette more than a frigate. If I was setting the specs:

• 57 mm auto cannon
• 8 VLS
• Sea Ceptor in ExLS VLS
• 8 NSM in deck cannisters
• 30 mm cannon
• Hanger for helo and UAV
• Flight deck.
• Mission bay

So it's capable of looking after itself, but definitely not going to take on the PLAN fleet all at once.

 

[ngatimozart]

Ha Ha, Very good Mr C, We’ll just have to wait and see which version ends up closer to reality! I do like asking the Minister if his wife (or significant other?) be available to cut the ribbon.

I do have one more version to consider:

“Minister we strongly recommend two Type 26, specifically the Hunter class, being built across the ditch by our Aussie cousins.

“We have many reasons for this recommendation, but two that stand out are that our Aussie cousins spend large amounts of defence dollars (that we don’t spend), significantly adding to our safety and security.

“And secondly, job creation, we have concluded that of the 600,000+ Kiwis living in Australia, many will either be directly or indirectly employed during the build process, and with some ‘creative’ accounting we can add those figures to the local employment figures in a very positive way.

“You will be seen as a living legend Minister, guaranteed to be re-elected for life!”).

Cheers,

Tell you what John. We'll do you a deal. You sell us 4 fully equipped Hunter class frigates for the price of 2, and we will have a proclamation issued that acknowledges the currently untrue Australian claim that Phar Lap is an Australian horse. That'd be a pretty good deal

 

[Nighthawk.NZ]

Tell you what John. We'll do you a deal. You sell us 4 fully equipped Hunter class frigates for the price of 2, and we will have a proclamation issued that acknowledges the currently untrue Australian claim that Phar Lap is an Australian horse. That'd be a pretty good deal

And they can keep Russell Crowe... ...Pav on the other hand...

 

[MrConservative]

And they can keep Russell Crowe... ...Pav on the other hand...

Poor old Russell. When he won the Oscar we Kiwi's claimed him, when he does something stupid we say he is an Aussie. At least he landed one on Eric Watson.

 

[ngatimozart]

Poor old Russell. When he won the Oscar we Kiwi's claimed him, when he does something stupid we say he is an Aussie. At least he landed one on Eric Watson.

Russell should have been given an honour for that as thanks from a grateful nation. A QSO or something. Nothing to ostentatious.

 

[Todjaeger]

No not an ANZAC Class frigate. No it would be a corvette more than a frigate. If I was setting the specs:

• 57 mm auto cannon
• 8 VLS
• Sea Ceptor in ExLS VLS
• 8 NSM in deck cannisters
• 30 mm cannon
• Hanger for helo and UAV
• Flight deck.
• Mission bay

So it's capable of looking after itself, but definitely not going to take on the PLAN fleet all at once.

Me being me, I would go either bigger or smaller for the naval gun. Increase the calibre and capability up to 76mm/62 which could permit some ASuW and NGFS, or drop it down to 40mm or smaller for more smallcraft and CIWS coverage. Of course an important consideration IMO would be to attempt to standardize across the RNZN (and possibly even to match the RAN to a degree) on a small calibre naval gun for CIWS and anti-FAC ops.

I also have to wonder what the 8 VLS cells are to be, and what would be loaded in them? With the RNZN having adopted the Sea Ceptor, NZ no longer has a missile which will be in service which requires a hot-launch capable VLS, or of such size as a Mk 41 VLS. Unless the RNZN were to decide to adopt and start fielding larger missiles like ESSM Block II, or members of the Standard or Aster families of missiles, I do not see a use for 8 VLS cells given the ExLS VLS.

In place of a suggested 30mm gun, I would have the RNZN really look at the small calibre naval guns available, as well as those in use by allies, and then settle on small calibre gun selection to replace the capabilities of the by-now rather long in the tooth 20mm Mk 15 Phalanx CIWS and well as the Typhoons.

An area which seems overlooked which I would expect to be an issue would be the capabilities for ASW and a likely need for sonar and some sort of LWT capability.

Likely even more important than the specific armament though would be the sensors, comms and combat data systems which would enable a vessel to participate a TF network, both receiving contact data, but also allowing the vessel to be a node detecting it's own contacts and send that to other TF vessels/aircraft.

 

[Nighthawk.NZ]

I also have to wonder what the 8 VLS cells are to be, and what would be loaded in them? With the RNZN having adopted the Sea Ceptor, NZ no longer has a missile which will be in service which requires a hot-launch capable VLS, or of such size as a Mk 41 VLS. Unless the RNZN were to decide to adopt and start fielding larger missiles like ESSM Block II, or members of the Standard or Aster families of missiles, I do not see a use for 8 VLS cells given the ExLS VLS.

CAMM or Sea Ceptor can be launched from Mk 41 VLS and can be quad packed
CAMM completes qualification trials from 3-cell ExLS launcher - MBDA

 

[swerve]

Can be, but it seems a waste of a big, heavy, expensive hot-launch capable launcher to put CAMM in it.

 

[Lucasnz]

I don't particularly want them being used as an ASW asset either because that's what they will not be designed for. We cannot afford for them to go roaring around the oggy chasing steel ghosts

No not an ANZAC Class frigate. No it would be a corvette more than a frigate. If I was setting the specs:

• 57 mm auto cannon
• 8 VLS
• Sea Ceptor in ExLS VLS
• 8 NSM in deck cannisters
• 30 mm cannon
• Hanger for helo and UAV
• Flight deck.
• Mission bay

So it's capable of looking after itself, but definitely not going to take on the PLAN fleet all at once.

You're almost starting to look like an LCS (Cringe), with the exception that NZ would trade speed for range and endurance and an all steel hull.

I tend to agree with Nighthawk.NZ about caliber size for NGFS (with the 76mm being marginal), but in the context of CIWS capability , constabulary operations and wider support and development via the US the 57mm would be suitable. In terms of ASW I would be looking for a wider surveillance capability (.i.e. towed array) vs HMS with the ships helicopter providing localized surveillance.

One issue is crew size. With that sort of capability you need a crew of at least 70 as the LCS discovered in order to provide for sustained operations.

 

[Nighthawk.NZ]

Can be, but it seems a waste of a big, heavy, expensive hot-launch capable launcher to put CAMM in it.

For a new build maybe and if that is the only missile you tend of using... but if you have more silo's and a mix of missiles it is still probably the better option. Or if you only plan of changing missiles to CAMM on an upgrade then it can still be a cheaper option to use the MK41 than ripping it out installing the mushroom launchers etc...

In NZ's case the upgrades involved so much more and CAMM is the only missile we will use from the launchers and from my understanding the CAMM Mushroom launchers are cheaper and easier to maintain, lighter on the top weight and free's up more space below (though I can not confirm that last part)...

 

[JohnWolf]

Me being me, I would go either bigger or smaller for the naval gun. Increase the calibre and capability up to 76mm/62 which could permit some ASuW and NGFS, or drop it down to 40mm or smaller for more smallcraft and CIWS coverage. Of course an important consideration IMO would be to attempt to standardize across the RNZN (and possibly even to match the RAN to a degree) on a small calibre naval gun for CIWS and anti-FAC ops.

I hear what you are saying, but the 57mm became more interesting to me when I found out they had developed Proximity fuzes small enough for them.

With the suggestion below in mind, and limitations of space and recoil, I have an oddball suggestion.

The Belgan firm of Mecar produces a "light" 90mm cannon based on the Hi-Lo pressure system that is still in use today-

Mecar 90 mm MK8

Mecar has built a world-wide reputation for weapon systems and for a comprehensive range of ammunition

www.mecar.be

Despite the low velocity I wonder if a "navalized" system of this sort would be helpful. The He. rounds would be more powerful than the 76mm and I think they even made Canister rounds for it at some point. It could be worth looking into.

In place of a suggested 30mm gun, I would have the RNZN really look at the small calibre naval guns available, as well as those in use by allies, and then settle on small calibre gun selection to replace the capabilities of the by-now rather long in the tooth 20mm Mk 15 Phalanx CIWS and well as the Typhoons.

Yes, the Phalanx had it's day, and it was never accurate enough to make me happy even in the best of times.
How about the Rheinmetall MLG 27? It is a bit over-engineered and over-priced (German) but it does seem to be a good system with many years of relevance ahead of it.

An area which seems overlooked which I would expect to be an issue would be the capabilities for ASW and a likely need for sonar and some sort of LWT capability.

Might want to keep those VLS cells then, eh?

 

[ngatimozart]

WRT the Mk-41 VLS, I am looking at the future not the present. The presumption is that the RNZN would acquire the SM-2 and not Euro missiles because of commonality with RAN and USN. I believe that Sea Ceptor was acquired because it was available and ESSM Blk 2 wasn't and wouldn't be for a while. Sea Ceptor is now in service with 2 FVEY navies and the RCN will be the 3rd with it being on the CSC.

I chose the 57 mm cannon because of the new one going on the USN FFG 62 class. I would prefer not to have Phalanx on the ships because IMHO it's becoming obsolete due to the calibre. I am agnostic about the ASW capabilities and if LWT was integrated, a couple of twin tube mounts would suffice. However, remember that we only have 3,000 - 3,500 tonnes displacement to work with and we are not building a frigate.

Crew wise , the USN has a different crewing philosophy to Commonwealth navies and with automation we could have it a bit lower, even if it was 60, which is about half of the Iver's.

 

[Todjaeger]

WRT the Mk-41 VLS, I am looking at the future not the present. The presumption is that the RNZN would acquire the SM-2 and not Euro missiles because of commonality with RAN and USN. I believe that Sea Ceptor was acquired because it was available and ESSM Blk 2 wasn't and wouldn't be for a while. Sea Ceptor is now in service with 2 FVEY navies and the RCN will be the 3rd with it being on the CSC.

I chose the 57 mm cannon because of the new one going on the USN FFG 62 class. I would prefer not to have Phalanx on the ships because IMHO it's becoming obsolete due to the calibre. I am agnostic about the ASW capabilities and if LWT was integrated, a couple of twin tube mounts would suffice. However, remember that we only have 3,000 - 3,500 tonnes displacement to work with and we are not building a frigate.

Crew wise , the USN has a different crewing philosophy to Commonwealth navies and with automation we could have it a bit lower, even if it was 60, which is about half of the Iver's.

I will be honest in stating that I would think the RNZN would value an increased ASW capability more than an increased air defence capability, assuming that one is really going for a corvette-sized and scoped vessel and not an all-around capable GP frigate. Including some air defence capability via Sea Ceptor and then in the future presumably a Sea Ceptor-variant of CAMM-ER would make sense, and likely without requiring major additions to a ship's size, displacement and topweight. I would want some ASW capabilities included in large part due to the importance of having a number of platforms involved and working together to protect a convoy, or sanitize an area where a hostile sub is suspected. Given the long distances that Kiwiland is from, well, everything... then I would want more protection from subsurface vs. aerial threats.

Might want to keep those VLS cells then, eh?

Not really. 8 Mk 41 VLS cells could carry more air defence missiles, or if strike length a small number of LACM's. Yes, they could potentially be fitted with 8 VL-ASROC, they only add ~10 km additional reach to a ship's potential ASW capability. IMO that potential advantage fitted aboard a rather small combatant like a corvette is quite literally outweighed by the space, clearance requirements, and mass/displacement required to fit such a VLS and it's missile loadout. One of the standard LWT launchers is the Mk 32, which means that a Mk 41 is not required to deploy LWT's from a corvette.

 

[swerve]

For a new build maybe and if that is the only missile you tend of using... but if you have more silo's and a mix of missiles it is still probably the better option. Or if you only plan of changing missiles to CAMM on an upgrade then it can still be a cheaper option to use the MK41 than ripping it out installing the mushroom launchers etc...

In NZ's case the upgrades involved so much more and CAMM is the only missile we will use from the launchers and from my understanding the CAMM Mushroom launchers are cheaper and easier to maintain, lighter on the top weight and free's up more space below (though I can not confirm that last part)...

One point to bear in mind is that if you expect to have at least a certain number of CAMM (or any other missile that doesn't need all that Mk 41 or Sylver can provide) the optimum configuration could be enough missile-specific launchers for that minimum number, plus Mk 41 or Sylver for anything else you may or may not carry. It doesn't make much sense to have a block of versatile launchers if x number of them will always hold something which only needs a smaller, lighter & cheaper launcher. Flexibility is only valuable if it's used.

This seems to be what the RN is going for on Type 26, BTW. A battery of Mk 41, plus a set of CAMM launchers.

I think you're right about the cost & ease of maintenance. No efflux control needed, & the missile comes in a canister complete with its own cold-launch boost thingy.

 

[Gibbo]

Not sure I can quite picture what is required here... the FC530 RHIB is 5.3m long so if this is intended as some sort of 'mother' craft I can't see it being much larger... interesting nonetheless!....or am I just reading too much inti it...is it just a trio of FC530 with cradles & trailers!?!

https://www.gets.govt.nz/ExternalIndex.htm

This RFT is an invitation to Tenderers to submit a Tender to Defence for the Littoral Warfare Systems Littoral Manoeuvre Craft contract opportunity.

Background:
The LMC is one of a series of systems being procured as part of the Littoral Warfare Systems Project which seeks to provide the Royal New Zealand Navy deployable maritime capabilities, known as HMNZS MATATAUA with an improved ability to detect and respond to underwater threats through the provision of new and updated systems.

Littoral Warfare missions are supported by a number of boats, which are primarily controlled by MAT. Boats are a key enabler for the LW Force, with the majority of operations taking place either on or from them.

The LMC will be delivered as part of the LWS project. Its primary purpose is to tactically project Expeditionary Reconnaissance and Mine Counter Measures teams, complete with FC530 RHIB, from HMNZS MANAWANUI or a coalition platform over the horizon to the objective area. Once there, it will host the tactical commander, and act as a Control Point and communications relay.

The scope of this tender is to include:
1. Three boats;
2. Support System;
3. An initial set of spare parts;
4. Two trailers (non-road);
5. Two cradles suitable for transit on ships; and
6. Weather resistant covers for each of the LMC.

Defence acknowledges that the Tender preparation period will encompass the traditional New Zealand and Australia Christmas holiday period, when many companies have a shutdown period. As a result, Defence has extended the Tender Closing Time by three weeks from Defence’s originally intended RFT period to allow potential Tenderers sufficient time to prepare a strong Tender while still permitting staff to take holiday leave.