Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[ADMk2]

The US Govt has approved the sale of five MH-60R's and associated equipment and munitions to NZ and a second package for MK 54 torpedoes at an overall cost of US$1.57bn.

Technical Difficulties

Technical Difficulties

Some interesting precision weapons upgrades for the NZDF in there with Hellfire, APKWS II and Mk.54 Mod 0.

Seems as if NSM is on the way too. Very “shooty” by NZ standards…

Will be interesting to see how NZ proceeds along this path, especially with Mogami FFM and Type 31 both coming with Mk. 41 VLS and what that will mean for RNZN’s preferred CAMM missile option…

 

[Lolcake]

NZ should not go down the type 31 path. If they are serious about defence force integrarion with Australia all kit and purchases need to be the same. It just makes more sense in this current environment to add more kit od the same ilk and integrate training between both countries ideally moving towards one defence force at some point in time. I expect flak here, but in reality this creates greater detterence.

 

[kiwi in exile]

Some interesting precision weapons upgrades for the NZDF in there with Hellfire, APKWS II and Mk.54 Mod 0.

Seems as if NSM is on the way too. Very “shooty” by NZ standards…

Will be interesting to see how NZ proceeds along this path, especially with Mogami FFM and Type 31 both coming with Mk. 41 VLS and what that will mean for RNZN’s preferred CAMM missile option…

225 APKS
65 helfires
5 miniguns
unspecified number of GAU 21 M3M FN 50cal helo guns
dipping sonar
MAD

more coverage about the $400m/unit cost breakdown by Phiol Pennington
good explainer on factors as to why we paid more/unit than our friends

 

[old faithful]

Some interesting precision weapons upgrades for the NZDF in there with Hellfire, APKWS II and Mk.54 Mod 0.

Seems as if NSM is on the way too. Very “shooty” by NZ standards…

Will be interesting to see how NZ proceeds along this path, especially with Mogami FFM and Type 31 both coming with Mk. 41 VLS and what that will mean for RNZN’s preferred CAMM missile option…

I really think that 5 MH60R's will redline them.
2 frigates, The Canterbury and Aotearoa, will leave just 1 airframe not in use. I guess if more than 2 frigates are ordered, maybe more airframes will be ordered as well.

 

[swerve]

Some interesting precision weapons upgrades for the NZDF in there with Hellfire, APKWS II and Mk.54 Mod 0.

Seems as if NSM is on the way too. Very “shooty” by NZ standards…

Will be interesting to see how NZ proceeds along this path, especially with Mogami FFM and Type 31 both coming with Mk. 41 VLS and what that will mean for RNZN’s preferred CAMM missile option…

CAMM fits in Mk41. It's been tested.

Mk41 is big, heavy & expensive just to launch CAMM, though.

 

[Rob c]

NZ should not go down the type 31 path. If they are serious about defence force integrarion with Australia all kit and purchases need to be the same. It just makes more sense in this current environment to add more kit od the same ilk and integrate training between both countries ideally moving towards one defence force at some point in time. I expect flak here, but in reality this creates greater detterence.

This has not always turned out for the best in the past, the ANZAC's were expensive and we only got 2 were at the time we could have had 3+ type 23s, the seasprite saga did not go well, the navy originally wanted linxes, and the NH90 saga is well known. The defence kit does not all have to be the same to operate well together, rather the comms, ,proceedures and data transferes must be intigrated and understood between partners. the question on the frigates is what is more effective, 2 Mogami's or 3 AH140's,

 

[spoz]

You could not have had 3 T23s for the price of two Anzacs. Even the T23 lights offered to Australia for that Program were considerably more expensive than the Meko 200 (or the M class) options. The full T23 would have been more again - and there were good reasons for that in the acoustic quieting of the ships.

As for the SH2s, NZ has had pretty good service from them. And, the NZ configuration of the aircraft is nothing like that which was planned for the RAN; about the only commonality was the airframe and the engines.

While the NH-90 proved problematic for Australia, again NZ seems to have done reasonably well with them. Sure, they were deliberately a similar configuration to the Australian aircraft but that is not apparently something that has handicapped them.

 

[recce.k1]

I really think that 5 MH60R's will redline them.
2 frigates, The Canterbury and Aotearoa, will leave just 1 airframe not in use. I guess if more than 2 frigates are ordered, maybe more airframes will be ordered as well.

For sure more airframes is the ideal (apart from the usual needs to cover the fleet, preserve airframe hours, training and attrition etc, I'm also thinking during a conflict they could be tasked from land to search harbors for underwater intruders which nowadays could include UUV's that may have "leaked" through, assuming there had been some indication of course to enable the tasking in the first place - I'm simply basing this thinking on WW2 experience eg Pearl Harbor where patrol PBY's were dropping depth charges on hostile (unbeknown to them at the time) miniature submarines that were found in restricted areas). OTOH it's also an opportunity cost in the eyes of Treasury ... but an additional airframe (6) should have been the minimum IMO.

My reading is the five MH-60R's primarily cover the Frigates (roughly 3:1 ratio). Aotearoa only embarks a helo when also tasked with patrol duties (UN SCS sanction enforcement etc). Canterbury has recently operated NH90's only (Operation Calypso in the South Pacific and to PNG this year), so may not need a SH-2G/MH-60R depending on what its tasking is.

The reality is, with a small fleet the RNZN is only deploying up to 2, maybe 3 ships concurrently anyway. This years RIMPAC will see two SH-2G's deployed concurrently for the first time in a while according to NZDF info.

Looks like the high cost for this MH-60R acquisition is also due to the need to set up new training and support systems and infrastructure, presumably if the Maritime Fleet Renewal review recommends increasing the fleet then hopefully a second acquisition tranche is approved as part of the project's funding.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I don't think of disposing of a bunch of camm will be a huge problem in this environment. I wonder what NZ did with all the ESSM?
Shame there isn't a CAMM launcher of the type like the mk144 launcher.

I really think that 5 MH60R's will redline them.

More aircraft are always possible, the line is open. Given they have a frigate buy coming up it makes sense to acquire initial capability stand that up, then grow that out as part of a transition. Given the 8 seasprites, presumably somewhere between 3-7 more. That would give very robust capability particularly that less likely, higher number. It also makes sense to split air fleet age. Realistically, more helos might only really be need 5+ years after. By tapping into Australia's training/ops/maintenance pipeline, training and flight hours can be supported by Australia's larger fleet in the interim. They may get more use out of those 5 than 8 of the seasprites. This would be a great project where working together to stand-up robust NZ capability in NZ but also work together to make it operationally efficient.

the question on the frigates is what is more effective, 2 Mogami's or 3 AH140's,

I would hope NZ has learnt a lesson about ships and 2 ships isn't enough. Never again 2 surface combat ship fleet.

Purchase price is only one part. Operational costs, mostly manpower costs, upgrades etc are the other side of the equation. Time and time again its been showed that trying to say money in one part (purchase) comes back 10 times in the other parts.

Mogami is very strong in that lifetime cost. Partnering with Japan and AU who will operate a 12+11 ship fleet of that specific type and another 12 of the earlier type is a huge factor. That's one of the most common modern western ships ever made! That is an actual fleet. Updates can be developed with serious coin and rolled out by multiple shipyards, no custom jobs like NZ did on Anzacs. The ship isn't just a rushed together weapons platform, the Japanese have specifically been very bold in efforts with support and operational cost management. Part of that is making it so capable from the outset, no expensive retrofit to cram in more stuff is really needed. Low sticker prices have always been an issue with almost every military purchase that has ever occurred.

But for the same reasons as the MH60R, acquiring that same platform with AU + JP will be very advantageous. Both operating large fleets, both looking for efficiency.

But benchmark the hell against the Type 31. I think its very important that happens.

It may be however that a decision between 3 Mogamis and 4 AH140 needs to be made. That's a valid discussion. 3 ships is still very problematic, just ask Australia with 3 mere Hobart's, upgrades kill that capability outright as being always available. So its not just more units = better. Its a question if you want to have actually reliable always deployable capability. Small fleets have their own challenges.

With Mogami its a less pick and choose platform. You won't really be able to cut cost out of it/make it custom.

 

[ADMk2]

CAMM fits in Mk41. It's been tested.

Mk41 is big, heavy & expensive just to launch CAMM, though.

Yep, but NZ will be required to consider whether to fund a bespoke integration of their current missiles into Mogami FFM and integrate them into the Mk.41 launcher that will come with that ship (same as Type 31) or to fund the acquisition of a replacement missile - the obvious choice being ESSM Blk 2 which will already be integrated with the launcher and combat system.

Alternatively they integrate the existing “mushroom farm” launchers and missile into either platform and forgoe Mk.41.While CAMM is integrated on Mk.41 broadly, I suspect there are configuration differences between quad-packed Mk.41 launched CAMM snd single cell ‘mushroom farm’ launched CAMM.

Any way will represent more cost for NZ, hence my interest (and no doubt others) in seeing which option they choose.

 

[Rob c]

You could not have had 3 T23s for the price of two Anzacs. Even the T23 lights offered to Australia for that Program were considerably more expensive than the Meko 200 (or the M class) options. The full T23 would have been more again - and there were good reasons for that in the acoustic quieting of the ships.

The `quoted figure for the type 23 program was 130m pounds per ship,approx. $NZ260m though this varied from ship to ship, the figure NZ paid for 2 ANZAC's from memory was about $1.3B.
The increased costs appear to be due to the Australian build.

 

[Rob c]

As for the SH2s, NZ has had pretty good service from them. And, the NZ configuration of the aircraft is nothing like that which was planned for the RAN; about the only commonality was the airframe and the engines.

The current SH2's are the ex RAN aircraft purchased some years ago, but flown with 3 crew when needed not the RAN requirement of 2

 

[spoz]

Yes, am well aware of that. I used to lecture on the RAN Sea Sprite program. The RNZAF very sensibly reverted to a much simpler combat system than the RAN wanted; part of the problem was trying to have the whole workload managed by a crew of 2.

The price comparison for the Anzac program was in early 1987; at that point the total program cost was set at $AUD 3.5 billion, or $350 million each amortised. The final bill would have come to NZ something like 13 or 14 years later. And of course “cost per ship” is only a part of “total program cost”. Even then, “cost per ship” was not the way the RAN (and it was the RAN then) priced capability.

 

[Cadredave]

NZ should not go down the type 31 path. If they are serious about defence force integrarion with Australia all kit and purchases need to be the same. It just makes more sense in this current environment to add more kit od the same ilk and integrate training between both countries ideally moving towards one defence force at some point in time. I expect flak here, but in reality this creates greater detterence.

Flak is an understatement, we may be similar but we are not the same one defence force will never happen, as that means NZ will have to give up its sovereignty.

 

[Nighthawk.NZ]

The current SH2's are the ex RAN aircraft purchased some years ago, but flown with 3 crew when needed not the RAN requirement of 2

The error was something to do with auto pilot when weapon tests as pilot needed to be hands free to do other tasks (or something)... the helo would veer off and only having two crew... NZ have 3 crew members and the pilot during weapons fire didn't need hands free...

On a side note Kaman continued to work on the issue when the Aussies gave them back and they were able to sort the issue... but as stated the RNZN have three crew and no hands free..

 

[Milo]

Alternatively they integrate the existing “mushroom farm” launchers and missile into either platform and forgoe Mk.41.While CAMM is integrated on Mk.41 broadly, I suspect there are configuration differences between quad-packed Mk.41 launched CAMM snd single cell ‘mushroom farm’ launched CAMM.

Pretty sure the UK's Type 31 frigates will already have the mushroom farm launchers for CAMM. Fitting the MK41 VLS was a more recent decision.

 

[StevoJH]

Pretty sure the UK's Type 31 frigates will already have the mushroom farm launchers for CAMM. Fitting the MK41 VLS was a more recent decision.

Are the Mk.41’s replacing the mushroom farm or in addition?

If a replacement, the RN (and possibly Poland) will have to pay for integration. It also opens up the possibility of the longer ranges CAMM variants.

 

[swerve]

While CAMM is integrated on Mk.41 broadly, I suspect there are configuration differences between quad-packed Mk.41 launched CAMM snd single cell ‘mushroom farm’ launched CAMM.

The tests were of quad-packed CAMM, using the ExLS insert ("host" ExLS). The missile is the same: the wrapping is different. MBDA offers ExLS as a launch method for CAMM in both the host & free standing versions. It was integrated & tested in cooperation with LM, which obviously wants as many missiles as possible integrated into its launchers.

That's from MBDA & LM published information, e.g. this from LM - ExLS & CAMM & from MBDA - CAMM in ExLS & Mk 41

“These trials have further demonstrated the maturity, reliability and safety of the CAMM vertical launch system from both 3-cell ExLS and ExLS Host/MK 41"

 

[Todjaeger]

The `quoted figure for the type 23 program was 130m pounds per ship,approx. $NZ260m though this varied from ship to ship, the figure NZ paid for 2 ANZAC's from memory was about $1.3B.
The increased costs appear to be due to the Australian build.

Something also worth remembering whenever one wants to talk about the "Australian build" in the context of the ANZAC-class frigates is that a significant portion of the modules were actually built/assembled in Whangarei before being shipped over to Williamstown in VIC for consolidation and final assembly. I cannot lay my hands on the figures right at the moment but seem to recall something like 40% of either the superstructure modules or 40% of the total modules were built in NZ. Some years ago I had looked through the numbers and it seemed to be that NZ was building more modules for RAN ANZAC-class frigates than Australia was building for the Kiwi frigates.

I suspect much of the Kiwi narrative around the costs of building the ANZAC-class frigates in Australia chooses to overlook or ignore NZ facilities and associated workforces were involved and included in the costs being complained about. Being sort of an outsider to the entire thing I would seem that Australians might have better grounds to complain since the final Kiwi frigate order ended up only constituting 20% of the frigates built, yet the NZ workshare IIRC exceeded 20%.

 

[Rob c]

I suspect much of the Kiwi narrative around the costs of building the ANZAC-class frigates in Australia chooses to overlook or ignore NZ facilities and associated workforces were involved and included in the costs being complained about. Being sort of an outsider to the entire thing I would seem that Australians might have better grounds to complain since the final Kiwi frigate order ended up only constituting 20% of the frigates built, yet the NZ workshare IIRC exceeded 20%.

Yes this happened, my point was by doing this and politics we got a less capable navy. I did like the T23 at the time as I felt it was a more capable ship and significantly larger which would have given less problems up grading down the line.