Future options for the RNZN
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
I suspect the ANZACII will be more capable than a T26, but the latter may offer cost advantages for NZ they can't ignore. Also the likes of CAMM could potentially be used as part of a land based application in the air-defence role. Plus having a deployable MCM ROV capability might suit NZ with such a small fleet. I'm sure the UK are hoping T26 will end up like the Leander's and have a successful export history to keep costs even lower, hence they will be pushing hard to the likes of NZ/Brazil to come and sign-up. Maybe even convince NZ to sign-up for a few Wildcats as part of the over all package.
Last edited:
t68
Well-Known Member
Your poor mans Aegis frigate proposed by Northrop Grumman is based on the CGC, Northrop proposed the same hull for a complement to LCS she is slightly larger than an Anzac class so in theory should handle the requirements that they are trying with HMAS Perth.
Don’t forget the requirements of the CG is to expand with the USN when needed and is designed to fit into USN deployments so fit out will be compatible between CG and USN which in turn will be compatible with the RAN.
Before we all get too many ideas about Frigates from here and there. One salient factoid for you all to digest.
The Anzac Treaty has placed to date $800m worth of Defence business in New Zealand companies from a 1.2b cost from NZ so far. The Trans-Tasman trade pact called CER has anchored this Treaty.
This is a significant economic and political reason why old Anzac frigates are very likely to get replaced with new Anzac Frigates.
The Anzac Treaty has placed to date $800m worth of Defence business in New Zealand companies from a 1.2b cost from NZ so far. The Trans-Tasman trade pact called CER has anchored this Treaty.
This is a significant economic and political reason why old Anzac frigates are very likely to get replaced with new Anzac Frigates.
Absolute Tosh Toby. You do not know what you are talking about.
Type 26 will be available with space and plumbing for US kit instead, like ESSM and alternative radar fit etc.
Technically, there's no reason the 26 couldn't be a good fit - but as has been mentioned, there are good economic reasons as to why the Kiwi's will end up buying whatever their nearest and most powerful neighbour gets,
Ian
The Type 26 is being marketed as a MEKO-style modular ship, into which you can put your choice of weapons & sensors. IIRC BAe is proposing it as the basis for ANZAC II.
I can back this up with anecdotal evidence. I'm at university at the moment and last semester was doing a history course. Part of the course involved the NZ Land Wars through to WW1. A discussion was held about defence and because of the high profile of NZDF in Christchurch, comments were made about the lack of capability of NZDF. This was by a group of 18 - 20+ odd year olds. I mentioned the left wing anti military groupings of the 1990s and 2000s like Clark, Minto, Hagar, Locke and Co. The general consensus was that they were wrong and that we needed a viable and capable defence force. So I do think that the public opinion has changed and is changing. With regard to the Maori Party, from what I understand they aren't anti defence; they have a different focus and if what I am hearing is correct, their days might be numbered. The Mana party is a different story and they do have people within it who do not look favourably on defence.
My personal view is that the RNZN should be a 3 frigate navy with 5 OPVs. I have been reading what as been posted here and I would add that we need ships that are capable of operating in waters from the Equator to the Ice. I think that in the future NZ is going to have to have a greater presence in Antarctic Waters and the Great Southern Ocean, because of greater competition for the resources that are there, treaty or no treaty. Australia will be in exactly the same position. NZ also has a claim in Antarctica that it may want to prosecute at some stage, after the current treaty expires.
So I would suggest that it would be in NZs best interest to work with Australia in the ANZAC Frigate replacement. As MR C points out CER is a very important consideration, but also the obvious things, like the oft repeated commonality etc need to be remembered. NZ is a very small country and a bit of realism and pragmatism has to be faced. Yes a Type 26 may be nice but it's half way across the world and logistics and engineering backup. In todays world the tyranny of distance is not a so great hindrance, but things can change and Sydney or Melbourne is a lot closer than say Rosyth. If NZ is part of the ANZAC II project then we get part of the action ,with kiwi firms able to bid and get some of the work. That has to appeal to the pollies because offsets look good, and we'd get far greater offsets with an ANZAC II build than we would with a pommy deal.
In fact, they could probably "pull through" the silos from the Anzacs after a refurb and also the radar if the Anzacs are refitted to CEAFAR uniformly?
It'd need some engineering work for the integration if so, but still, systems re-use etc..
Ian
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Except my understanding was that the ANZAC II's were unlikely to get CEAFAR, that they would get the AUSPAR system instead. AUSPAR being the next generation radar under developement by CEA Technologies.
I think someone may have mentioned the US looking at AUSPAR as their SPY-1 replacement for future combatents.
I think someone may have mentioned the US looking at AUSPAR as their SPY-1 replacement for future combatents.
Why do you think Type 26 & ANZAC II are necessarily different ships? It's been pointed out here, more than once, that Type 26 is being offered for ANZAC II. There are reported to be Australians over here giving input to the design team. No commitment, of course, but BAe & the MoD are both keen to make sure they don't make any design decisions which would rule it out of contention.
..or they could fit 'em with CEAFAR pulled from the existing ships? I'm not being daft here, they'd have current silos, up to date radar, bring the gun over and a few other bits and you'd save maybe 15-20% of the cost of the ship? Given everyone's broke, I'm just wondering if that's a useful angle to take? AUSPAR sounds over the top for a GP frigate - don't get me wrong, nice to have but given the gap in cost between using something you've already got that works and buying something new that costs more..well..
You'd save a lot of cash which could either be a plus point to get the program through or pay for a decent helicopter each one or whatever works.
Or do the requirements specify AUSPAR levels of performance from the radar? What's this thing's job?
Ian
I have little doubt Australia's frigates will be fitted with AUSPAR. CEAFAR is okay as an experimental system, particularly for ESSM. However that doesn't mean its what should be deployed fleet wide. While most economies are struggling NZ and AU are doing ok. AUSPAR is the next generation of radar that Australia needs. I don't think Australia is going to compromise its entire navy by placing a development radar on its next generation ships.
AUSPAR will work with SM-2/6/PAC-3 etc. CEAFAR isn't designed for those weapon systems.
Type 26 and Australia's frigates may or may not be the same. There is a understanding between the UK, AU and NZ on this issue. Systems, hulls, features may be shared across platforms. However, there is a bit of difference in between the UK and what Australia wants. UK specs seem to be happy with a low level frigate, perhaps not quiet as powerful as some europeans more multipurpose, where as Australia's frigates are heading to maxium capability, with features not seen in any frigate currently (or preposed).
Australia wants ABM intergrated into the frigates so the frigates are capable of deploying a ABM shield.
AUSPAR will work with SM-2/6/PAC-3 etc. CEAFAR isn't designed for those weapon systems.
Type 26 and Australia's frigates may or may not be the same. There is a understanding between the UK, AU and NZ on this issue. Systems, hulls, features may be shared across platforms. However, there is a bit of difference in between the UK and what Australia wants. UK specs seem to be happy with a low level frigate, perhaps not quiet as powerful as some europeans more multipurpose, where as Australia's frigates are heading to maxium capability, with features not seen in any frigate currently (or preposed).
Australia wants ABM intergrated into the frigates so the frigates are capable of deploying a ABM shield.
justsomeaussie
Member
Where in earth are you getting this from? AUSPAR as admitted by CEA is a technology demonstrator for the next generation of CEAFAR. It doesn't work with anything.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
With respect to the RNZN's Anzac-class FFH replacement programme, the area where I foresee commonality being most critical would have to do with armament, and after that possibly sensors and electronics. IMO these areas are where it would be most important for the RNZN to have common systems with the RAN.
Now the RNZN vessels would not necessarily mount the same weapon systems as whatever the RAN uses to replace their Anzac-class frigates, but it (again, IMO) is important that whatever the RNZN uses should also be something which one of the RAN's surface combatant classes will keep in service.
My reasoning behind this is that, while the 4.5"/114 mm naval cannon is in service with the RN, and indeed AFAIK has served the RN quite well, such a calibre naval cannon is not normally found serving in the Pacific basin. This means that unless elements of the RFA were available in the Pacific, the RNZN could not tap into allied RAS capabilities. Now if the RNZN replacement frigate continued the trend with a 5"/127 mm cannon like aboard RAN and USN vessels amongst many others, then allied and friendly naval stores vessels could re-arm RNZN frigates if needed.
Also, there is the potential for the RNZN to benefit from spiral developments conducted by Australia and/or the US. While the UK would certainly continue developing their weapon lines, given the different environments which the RN would be operating in, the development paths might not be in areas of interest to the RNZN.
As for a discussion about choosing between the T26 or Anzac II... It is possible that the hulls themselves would be one and the same. However, I have some doubts about that, since AFAIK Australia wants to have the Anzac II be domestic build hulls, which means any economies of scale which could be achieved by T26 builds for the RN, Brazil, Australia and NZ would not be reached, at least not in the same way.
The UK yards would of course build for the RN and likely any Brazilian orders, but at the same time (roughly) there would be an Australian yard building for the RAN, which means any upskilling or efficiencies gained in the UK would not impact the Australian builds, and vice versa.
-Cheers
Now the RNZN vessels would not necessarily mount the same weapon systems as whatever the RAN uses to replace their Anzac-class frigates, but it (again, IMO) is important that whatever the RNZN uses should also be something which one of the RAN's surface combatant classes will keep in service.
My reasoning behind this is that, while the 4.5"/114 mm naval cannon is in service with the RN, and indeed AFAIK has served the RN quite well, such a calibre naval cannon is not normally found serving in the Pacific basin. This means that unless elements of the RFA were available in the Pacific, the RNZN could not tap into allied RAS capabilities. Now if the RNZN replacement frigate continued the trend with a 5"/127 mm cannon like aboard RAN and USN vessels amongst many others, then allied and friendly naval stores vessels could re-arm RNZN frigates if needed.
Also, there is the potential for the RNZN to benefit from spiral developments conducted by Australia and/or the US. While the UK would certainly continue developing their weapon lines, given the different environments which the RN would be operating in, the development paths might not be in areas of interest to the RNZN.
As for a discussion about choosing between the T26 or Anzac II... It is possible that the hulls themselves would be one and the same. However, I have some doubts about that, since AFAIK Australia wants to have the Anzac II be domestic build hulls, which means any economies of scale which could be achieved by T26 builds for the RN, Brazil, Australia and NZ would not be reached, at least not in the same way.
The UK yards would of course build for the RN and likely any Brazilian orders, but at the same time (roughly) there would be an Australian yard building for the RAN, which means any upskilling or efficiencies gained in the UK would not impact the Australian builds, and vice versa.
-Cheers
I never suggested NZ should get the Absalon Class, I was advocating the type of ship, whether the Absalon Class fits RNZN's requirements or not I don't know, but despite some arguments here I can envisage a multi-role vessel as an ANZAC replacement being popular in some quarters for a replacement of RNZN's frigates AND it's strategic sealift ship with one relatively similar class, with Canterbury obviously being the final vessel replaced.
As for the Absalon's combat capability, it is actually a pretty big step up from NZ's ANZAC Class.
It carries as it's routine weapons package: 1x Mk 45 Mod 4, 127mm gun, 8x Harpoon SSM's, 36x ESSM's carried in Mk 56 VLS, MU-90 torpedos and 2x 35mm Oerkilon "Millenium Gun" CIWS's, plus it has 2 hangars and facilities for 2 naval helicopters up to the size of the EH-101, a modern combat system, 3D air defence radar system and multiple channel of fire, fire control systems for it's ESSM, which I'm sure you'll agree is a pretty significant advance in combat capability when compared to the RNZN ANZAC's in their current configuration and compares well even to the RAN's ASMD upgraded ANZAC's...
It doesn't possess an area air warfare capability true, however compared to patrol frigates, which is what the ANZAC's are, it is extremely well armed. Plus it has the C&C and amphibious support capability as well.
The follow-on Iver Huitfeldt class frigate uses the same basic hull platform as the Absalon, but offers the true area air-warfare and long range land attack capability missing from the Absalon or ANZAC Class.
As I said, I'm not advocating any one particular capability, but a hull type similar in intent to the Absalon / Iver Huitfeldt classes (ie: with multi-purpose design intent) offer a variety of capabilities that may be very useful for a small navy with many roles to fill.
A mix of Absalon and Iver Huitfeldt's as an example, utilising a relatively common hull/machinery and supportability type, employed to replace the ANZAC's and Canterbury in future years might see the lack of combat capability within the RNZN addressed quite handsomely, whilst simultaneously boosting sealift capability. It would only then require a landing craft solution to be devised.
Again with a hull design similar to an Absalon but not that exact design, it may be possible to include landing craft carrying capability, whilst retaining most of the sealift capability, as well as the types obvious combat capabilities.
Food for thought anyway.
The types of steel used by European designs is unsuitable for ships that are required to operate from the tropics to the Southern Ocean. That as a minimum will have to change.
A number of past cooperative developments between Australia and the UK as well as proposed acquisitions from the UK have fallen through because of the UKs unwillingness to compromise on combat outfit. Unless this has changed the Type 26 has bucklies chance as an ANZAC replacement.
The 4.5" is a red herring. I think BAe would be very surprised if an export customer requested it. AFAIK it's not even being made now, the RN using reconditioned guns from stock to fit to new ships.
It's very unlikely that UK yards would build for Brazil. Brazil will build its own, except perhaps for a lead ship of class. Its shipyards are perfectly capable of building frigates, & indeed, much larger ships.
I have, perhaps, been guilty of using Type 26 inaccurately, for what BAe calls the "Global Combat ship", i.e. a MEKO-style modular frigate design, which can be customised to requirements. I don't expect that an RN-spec T26 will be wanted by Brazil or the RNZN, & certainly not by the RN, but the GCS could well be the basis for ANZAC II. Whether the degree of commonality would be enough to justify calling it the same ship is debatable. We should probably think in terms of a family of ships.
Really? Then how do European designs manage to do just that? Some of them operate from the tropics to the Arctic, & in the Baltic, the Med, the Black Sea, the Red Sea, the Persian Gulf, the South Pacific, Caribbean, Indian Ocean, South China Sea, Java Sea, etc., i.e. in just about the full range of salinities & temperatures found in the sea.
The RNZN currently operates a few European designs, as well as Canadian, Korean & US designs.
Type 26 is modular in intent and design, and is being offered with options to fit US missile silos, various radar systems and is being actively marketed with the Oto Melario 127mm mount for export. So, yeah, right now, if you wanted a Type 26 with Mk41, ESSM, SMART-L, hell, they'll fit it with nerf darts and paint it pink if you'll buy a couple.
The 114mm gun issue is as has been stated very much by the by. BAE have publicly stated they're well aware that they will have an uphill struggle to shift any of these puppies if they're not able to work with US kit as that's quite widely used a number of countries, in particular, in this case, New Zealand and Australia.
In short, as I've said, there's no *technical* reason I'm aware that the Type 26 wouldn't fit the bill. Plenty of political ones tho..