NZDF General discussion thread

[kiwi in exile]

Yes it's 2023 not 1978 - 80, however whilst things change over time they also can remain the same. Real simple, how will subs replace the capabilities that the current surface fleet offers? Bit hard to undertake EEZ and other patrol work with subs. There is little difference between the broad maritime / naval policy objectives of govt now than there was during Muldoon's time 45 years ago. Then there's the cost of subs and that is far more than what our surface fleet costs. WRT to VfM or bang for buck, given our broad defence policy requirements subs do not meet them at all.

WRT the ACF that was a huge policy mistake and the culmination of Treasury's 40+ year effort to get rid of the ACF. If you think how much Treasury opposed the ACF, imagine their opposition to subs. They would go ballistic. My line of reasoning is based on how govt works, VfM, actual deliverables for govt policy objectives, and strategy.

I didn't say that the MQ-9B SeaGuardian is to expensive for NZDF. If you read back through what I have posted over the last few years you will note that I have advocated for the SeaGuardian

Respectfully, I think you missed the point of my comments. Which maybe could have been communicated better. The made up acf quote was written in response to your earlier comment as an attempt to illustrate the folly of applying decades old govt analyses to current geo-pol situation. Didn,t intend for it to be read literally. Mea culpa.

I clearly stated I wasn't arguing we need to acquire subs.

Re sea guardian: you are right, the system is expensive and you have previously argued for it. I will try and read your comments more carefully ; ). just find on this forum ppl will say we need to acquire X y & z expensive capabilities (no mention of cost), IE ACF, and then use cost as a reason not to acquire a,b,c

 

[kiwi in exile]

I am highly critical of the RN Type 31 because it is an oversized OPV and nothing more.

How do you know? SOURCE REQUIRED.

I have advocated for the VARD 7-100-ICE AOPV for the last 5 years because I believe that it's the best suited vessel for operating in and around Antarctica. The VARD 7-100-ICE AOPV however isn't what the govt was looking at post the 2020 election. Word has it that they were / are keen on the VARD 9-203 ICE which is what the Chilean Navy have just built. It's more of a research ship.

Out of interest, dou you have any more info about govt interest in the vard 9 203.

I'm a fan of this vessell. May have more whole of govt utility than a Harry de Wolf type. Antarctic resupply and HADR. My understanding is that vard ships are all built to commercial standards including the opv types. The HdW is minimilly armed. You could easily add EO/IR and a non deck penetrating medium cal gun mount to the Chillean vessel.

Arrowhead 140/Type 31 is designed to accommodate a 32 cell strike length Mk41 vls. That's <128 camms, or a mix of 8 ASMs and 4x24 CAMM/CAMM-ER. That's more than an opv. The RN have opted for a lighter fit out.

 

[swerve]

Easily enough done. If you read back over what I have posted in recent years you will find that I am highly critical of the RN Type 31 because it is an oversized OPV and nothing more. Its a complete waste of an excellent design. The AH140 is the design that I strongly advocate for the RNZN with a different fitout to the RN Type 31 and the RDN Iver Huitfeld Class. IMHO we should be watching and following very closely what the RDN does because Denmark is a similar sized country population and economically. They think outside the square on how to get the best possible VfM / bang for buck. FYI I have been following the OMT F370 - Absalon / Iver Huitfeld classes closely for 10 years.

The Type 31's now supposed to be getting 32 Mk 41 VLS. It was already being built with the structural basis for four 8 cell modules, for potential future fitting, & it was announced in May by the First Sea Lord that they're going to be fitted. It may also get NSM.

Royal Navy’s Type 31 frigates to be fitted with Mk41 vertical launch system | Navy Lookout

Not quite an oversized OPV . . .

 

[Shanesworld]

The Type 31's now supposed to be getting 32 Mk 41 VLS. It was already being built with the structural basis for four 8 cell modules, for potential future fitting, & it was announced in May by the First Sea Lord that they're going to be fitted. It may also get NSM.

Royal Navy’s Type 31 frigates to be fitted with Mk41 vertical launch system | Navy Lookout

Not quite an oversized OPV . . .

Get rid of a combat fleet, get 6 of these "premium opv's" for combating the destabilising effects of climate change and get two stretched absalons with 2 extra diesels to repkace the canterbury for HADR work. Job done and fleet refreshed by 2032.

 

[Shanesworld]

Crikey mate….this sounds like it was taken straight from the Green Party Defence manifesto…..they would love nothing more than to swing the axe on one of our few remaining ‘combat arms’.

Of course, I respect your opinion Shane,…..but I‘m seriously on the other end of the spectrum with regard to that proposed course.

This is not aimed at you (Shane) but the watering down has got to stop - if it continues we will no longer have a Defence Force, we will simply end up with an impotent body of people whose only ”mission” will be cleaning up after a few natural disasters and some fisheries patrols (observing but unable to do two tenths of F-all about it)….I just believe we need to go the other way with our procurements and ensure they at least have some ”teeth”…

Enough of the “…fitted for but not with…” bullshit too.

I worried we’re turning into a bunch of softcocks and it’s a disservice to those who have gone before….

Apologies team, this can be hugely frustrating….I’m aware that budget is ‘the‘ critical factor, followed closely by political will (which on the face of it maaaaaay be changing…or at least more considered).

I’d like to see us lean on our Five Eyes partners a bit more to see how they can help us with our procurement.…Quid pro quo - help us with some good deals on the procurement and we’ll be able to do more in our region (pull our weight) - it’s win/win.

I also think good procurement (selecting the right pieces) will help with retention of current people and attracting new ones to the fold…..

Just my 2 cents…

Mate its tongue in cheek. "Do away" with the frigates but get "patrol boats" that are more heavily armed and greater in number, larger and more capable (6x ah140 and 2x absalon all armed as god intended) . If the average green and labour apparachik voter can play word games to destroy our national capacity to defend ourselves i figure we start playing the same restore it. Call the peace promotion love ships if need be. But just bloody get them.

But even so, thanks for respecting the opinion.

 

[Whiplash34]

Mate its tongue in cheek. "Do away" with the frigates but get "patrol boats" that are more heavily armed and greater in number, larger and more capable (6x ah140 and 2x absalon all armed as god intended) . If the average green and labour apparachik voter can play word games to destroy our national capacity to defend ourselves i figure we start playing the same restore it. Call the peace promotion love ships if need be. But just bloody get them.

But even so, thanks for respecting the opinion.

Hey mate, roger that…realised what you were actually saying after I’d already “clacked off“ and posted, hence my redaction

Annnnnd you’re right, the veritable wolf in sheep’s clothing….like the strategy…..!

 

[swerve]

Get rid of a combat fleet, get 6 of these "premium opv's" for combating the destabilising effects of climate change and get two stretched absalons with 2 extra diesels to repkace the canterbury for HADR work. Job done and fleet refreshed by 2032.

I was almost fooled . . . . Nice one.

 

[JohnJT]

The Type 31's now supposed to be getting 32 Mk 41 VLS. It was already being built with the structural basis for four 8 cell modules, for potential future fitting, & it was announced in May by the First Sea Lord that they're going to be fitted. It may also get NSM.

Royal Navy’s Type 31 frigates to be fitted with Mk41 vertical launch system | Navy Lookout

Not quite an oversized OPV . . .

Indeed. With 32 Mk 41 cells it's offensive and air defense capabilities rival a T26. With NSM even moreso.
Add to that it's (arguably) more advanced radar and it's a decently equipped frigate. It's only real weakness being ASW.
I mean, that's a theoretical max load of 128 CAMM. That's a deep magazine.

I'm interested to see how much these vessels will end up costing, in real terms.

 

[swerve]

The Poles are fitting a hull sonar to their version & fitting it with a towed sonar, & the original Absalons & Iver Huitfeldts have a hull sonar. All the work's been done, if anyone wants to buy a T31 fitted for ASW.

 

[JohnJT]

The Poles are fitting a hull sonar to their version & fitting it with a towed sonar, & the original Absalons & Iver Huitfeldts have a hull sonar. All the work's been done, if anyone wants to buy a T31 fitted for ASW.

The ASW version also has...

Underwater radiated noise signatures are managed within the platform, to reduce the range at which it can be detected by an adversary. This includes measures to counter the self-noise of the main propulsion, electrical power generation and auxiliary systems.

ADAPTABLE CONFIGURATION

I wonder if this radiated noise control could be added to all versions? It's certainly a very flexible design.

I'm also curious if you could combine the midship 32 cell Mk41 with the forward 16 cell Mk41 of the Amphibious Warfare version (pic from NavyLookout)

Potentially 48 Mk 41 VLS cells.

 

[Gooey]

Interesting stuff chaps.

I'd like to think that my 'back of a fag package' planning, which is currently being done in far more detail and time by MoD and NZG, will say the same thing in that that ASW Frigates are the priority for our (only) war fighting capability in contribution with Australia/the region. Also, that reality dictates that 6 war canoes are required. Although, what eventually is released by the Defence Policy & Strategy Statement follow-on is sadly predictable.

Ignoring internal NZ political realities and continuing the above fantasy fleets threads, the various cheaper options (eg Arrowhead 140) are in reality Tier 'lesser' capability in the complex ASW department. Again, looking at P-8 we did not acquire and build our own reconnaissance aircraft due to the complexity of ASW/radar/ ESM/communications/weapons integration; so we reap the benefit of a small number of aircraft that are actually operable with the USN/RAN ASW system-of-systems for training, logistics, operations against the PLAN, and updates.

For the same reason, why would NZG/RNZN want to develop an orphan class of Kiwi ASW FFG which ultimately would be a weak-sister, with no.8 wire work-arounds, that as a bonus would not be fully integrated with Five Eyes navies? Assuming (a dangerous thing to do) that we want to have an operationally effective RNZN the answer is a long range, FVEY compatible ASW frigate, designed to operate in our region; I don't know how suitable the US Constellation FFG is but presumably both the RAN Hunter or RCN CSC are.

Therefore, why not get a ASW FFG capability that is built locally: the Hunters? Like the P-8 they are of course expensive. Like the P-8 they are compatible and integrated. We could always top up the RNZN numbers with a "tier II" type like A140.

 

[Gooey]

Add to that it's (arguably) more advanced radar and it's a decently equipped frigate.

Nice piece JohnJT, thanks.

I'm a bit of a CEA Technology fan-boy so am interested how to judge a Hunter v T31 radar assessment? The little information out in the either may suggest that a multi band, multi face, AESA system (CEA) is notionally better than a physically rotating, single face AESA. Add in local logistics and upgrades and this also favours CEA.

CEA Technologies was established in 1983 by two former Naval Officers with a goal of creating a centre of excellence for the design and support of systems for the Australian Defence Force.

www.cea.com.au

 

[swerve]

Nice piece JohnJT, thanks.

I'm a bit of a CEA Technology fan-boy so am interested how to judge a Hunter v T31 radar assessment? The little information out in the either may suggest that a multi band, multi face, AESA system (CEA) is notionally better than a physically rotating, single face AESA. Add in local logistics and upgrades and this also favours CEA.

CEA Technologies was established in 1983 by two former Naval Officers with a goal of creating a centre of excellence for the design and support of systems for the Australian Defence Force.

www.cea.com.au

The Poles are going for the Thales Sea Master to their AH140s - which has four fixed faces.

 

[JohnJT]

The Poles are going for the Thales Sea Master to their AH140s - which has four fixed faces.

And the NS50. It's a very impressive sensor suite.

SM400 Block 2 S band fixed face AESA radar and NS50 X band rotating AESA radar. Best of both worlds. Long range S band search and local area X band volume search and high quality target track.

The main radar system is the Thales Sea Master SM400 Block 2. It uses four AESA fixed antennas with electronic scanning and operates in S-band (NATO E/F-band). The SM400 simultaneously provides air surveillance, helicopter control, surface surveillance and weapon control functions. Its four faces provide unrestricted (360 degrees) coverage. In addition to it, a rotating AESA 4D dual-axis multi-beam radar Thales NS50 will be located on top of the mast under the dome. The NS50 offers air and surface detection, tracking, and classification performance, providing highly accurate 4D target information required for rapid acquisition by Fire Control Systems, for fire control of short-range “fire and forget” Surface-to-Air-Missile Systems and for fire control of ship-borne artillery against surface targets.

Latest News on Poland's MIECZNIK Frigate Program - Naval News

Here is the latest news on Poland's MIECZNIK program calling for the construction of the three Miecznik frigate for the Polish Navy.

www.navalnews.com

SM400 Block 2 – S-band Multifunction Radar

SEA MASTER 400 is the export version of SMILE, offered in the Ocean Patrol Vessel (OPV) programme of the Royal Netherlands Navy.

www.thalesgroup.com

NS50

Short to medium range AESA air & surface surveillance radar

www.thalesgroup.com

I notice one of the new features of the block 2 SM400 is "Growth to Standard Missile family using JUWL". That would give the radar the ability to guide via datalink active SM-2/6 missiles.

 

[Redlands18]

Nice piece JohnJT, thanks.

I'm a bit of a CEA Technology fan-boy so am interested how to judge a Hunter v T31 radar assessment? The little information out in the either may suggest that a multi band, multi face, AESA system (CEA) is notionally better than a physically rotating, single face AESA. Add in local logistics and upgrades and this also favours CEA.

CEA Technologies was established in 1983 by two former Naval Officers with a goal of creating a centre of excellence for the design and support of systems for the Australian Defence Force.

www.cea.com.au

The Type 31/A140 is not going to get close to the AD capabilities of the Hunter class, not with the combination of the CEAFAR2 Radar, CEC and the AEGIS/9LV CMS.

 

[ngatimozart]

The ASW version also has...

ADAPTABLE CONFIGURATION

I wonder if this radiated noise control could be added to all versions? It's certainly a very flexible design.

The original Iver Huitfeld design has the capability of rafting the machinery in the machinery spaces. That is still in the AH140 design too. It's expensive, but not as expensive as having to replace a sunk ship.

The Type 31/A140 is not going to get close to the AD capabilities of the Hunter class, not with the combination of the CEAFAR2 Radar, CEC and the AEGIS/9LV CMS.

Who says that we want CEAFAR2 Radar, CEC and the AEGIS/9LV CMS? Why would we?

IF we went with AEGIS we would be far better off going with SPY-7 and the RCN CMS300 because we already use the RCN CMS. The upgraded RCN CMS300 for their CSC includes Sea Ceptor, plus ESSM II, SM-2 and other things. It would be cheaper and better for us in the long run. I know Aussie posters have a hard on about CEAFAR2 Radar and the AEGIS/9LV CMS, but thy are not necessarily the best systems around. Over this side of the ditch we don't have a lot of faith in RAN electronic systems.

 

[swerve]

The Type 31/A140 is not going to get close to the AD capabilities of the Hunter class, not with the combination of the CEAFAR2 Radar, CEC and the AEGIS/9LV CMS.

Why not? The AH140 is designed to be flexible. Type 31 has a single face NS110. Miecznik frigate (same basic ship) is being built with a four face SM400 & NS50. Babcock & OMT will be happy to tweak it to take CEAFAR2 & whatever CMS you want, & adding CEC should be no problem at all. There's space & weight for that. The original Iver Huitfeldt class has a different CMS (Terma-C) & radars, with a big SMART-L LRR & a four-face APAR radar for short-medium range.

You could buy AH140 with exactly the same CMS & radars as Hunter. Or as Ngatimozart says, exactly the same as the RCN's putting on CSC. It'd be harder to make it as good at ASW, but as good at AAW shouldn't be a problem.

 

[Gooey]

Who says that we want CEAFAR2 Radar, CEC and the AEGIS/9LV CMS? Why would we?
IF we went with AEGIS we would be far better off going with SPY-7 and the RCN CMS300 because we already use the RCN CMS ...

OK, I'll bite.

Continuing this fantasy thread about the RNZN getting a militarily sensible number of '1st tier' FFGs without the boring SNCO shoulder-chip; why:
1. Because being a responsible strategic partner, NZG want to deter PLAN, be capable of fighting them if required with a degree of survivability for RNZN peps, and effectively contribute with our partners to the collective defence of NZ SLOC
2. It may be that Hunters alphabet soup suite, if it survives the next RAN review, is better than RCN CSCs suite; it may not
3. Personally, having done a little bit of TD work with CEA Tech systems I was somewhat impressed, but thats smaller scope than comparing CEC and AEGIS with CEAFAR2 v RCN CSC SPY-7 v USN Constellation SPY-6 etc
4. It may be that local design and logistics with NZ's only strategic partner is a consideration, both politically and militarily
5. Following spending NZ taxpayers $638.9m and experiencing some delay with LMC, to get an ANZAC FSU GP FFH with mechanical radar, no SSM, no Nulka, and 10 shots of a small, short ranged, unique Sea Ceptor SAM, it may have been a mistake for my NZG not to have instead been involved in the RAN ANZAC ASMD/AMCAP FFH program with a better radar, SSM, and 16 shots of a NATO standard, longer range, bigger, SAM; but, you do get bragging rights for retaining the cool looking CIWS and burning fuel 2'ish knots faster
6. My 2014 experiences with a RNZN LT CDR engineer about Sea Ceptor being a better fit for NZ due to its active seeker reducing the ships radar requirements may not reflect the lack of professional advice to NZG; or it may; whichever, it is no surprise that RNZN has over the past decades lost reams of professional war-fighting mastery due to conscious NZG decisions to operate a coast guard and not a fighting navy (or army or air force obviously)

Finally, I'd bet my first born that cobbling together a bespoke weapons system into whatever NZG settles for in our planned 2035 war canoe, instead of selecting an unmodified FVEY ASW FFG, will end in tears and satisfy only the politicians and contractors.

Capability projects | Ministry of Defence website

www.defence.govt.nz

 

[Nighthawk.NZ]

5. 10 shots of a small, short ranged, unique Sea Ceptor SAM,

Pretty sure it is double that number being 20 shots of CAMM .... just saying

 

[Gooey]

Nighthawk. NZ, you are absolutely correct. Apologies for my brevity.

I was assuming (always dangerous) that RNZN may follow the classic shot doctrine of 2 SAM per target.

That's common (unclassified chat) in a SAM engagement with some other SOP being perhaps 3 shots (SA-10/20) or 2 shots, look, evaluate, 2 shots (US Army GBI). The factors may include SAM type (Sea Ceptor is short legged, has a small war head, and has a fast reaction) v the target v the SAM weapon system capability (mechanical radar v multi panel AESA perhaps) and crew proficiency. Throw in this mix how many SAM are operational in your 'system' due to magazine size v reliability v logistics v availability v (most importantly) dollar resourcing; will also have an impact on how many of these things you can pop off, or not.

I suspect that the RCN CSC Sea Ceptor/ESSM II/SM2/6 SAM combo is a very good one in the future.

I suspect that the current options of 20 Sea Ceptor (total) v 32 ESSM II (total) is less capable and will have a greater impact on survivability, all things being equal.