Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
I hope a decision is made to purchase a third frigate.
We may be open to a number of scenarios if this happened.
a. - Three new vessels - same class - 1 early production with remaining two set at end of production run if a large number of vessels for the class are to be built.
b. - One new frigate every 10-12 yrs
c. - One new frigate followed by two 15 - 20yrs later ( two classes).
( b and c allow for changes in requirements and advances made in technology - drones and unmanned vessels)
I am sure other options are out there.
We may be open to a number of scenarios if this happened.
a. - Three new vessels - same class - 1 early production with remaining two set at end of production run if a large number of vessels for the class are to be built.
b. - One new frigate every 10-12 yrs
c. - One new frigate followed by two 15 - 20yrs later ( two classes).
( b and c allow for changes in requirements and advances made in technology - drones and unmanned vessels)
I am sure other options are out there.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Maybe, and maybe not.
From memory, there were a few economic advantages to Kiwi participation in the ANZAC-class build programme which have tended to get glossed over. Yes, the final product was likely more expensive than if the vessels were ordered from certain overseas yards but with a significant portion of work being done in Kiwi facilities, the net cost vs. generated economic activity for NZ was actually less. Keep in mind that NZ build ship blocks for both the pair of Kiwi frigates, and the eight frigates for the RAN.
At this time it seems unlikely that NZ could participate in the same fashion (and there is a distinct possibility that Australia would say, "No,") but if NZ was able to join in a large/prolonged production run, the unit cost for the frigate could be less than ordering a one-off build of a frigate or a small production run done by an Asian shipyard. Similarly, participating in a larger production run could end up reducing the overall costs over time as upgrade costs can be shared across the build.
Right now there are four (or five?) frigate replacement programmes being run by various Kiwi allies. These are the Australian SEA 5000, the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC), the USN's FFG(X), and then the UK's Type 26 and perhaps Type 31/Type 31e as well.
If (big IF) the RNZN were to join one of these frigate build programmes, the volume build might be sufficient to reduce the per unit cost. Unfortunately though I suspect most of the systems used would be different from ones either currently or about to enter Kiwi service.
Realistically I do not see the RNZN being able to have it's own frigate designed and built (even in an Asian shipyard) that is about kitted out for an all around GP frigate capability and low cost. The vessel would either be low cost but unable to operate in a high threat environment, or able to operate in such an environment but also expensive.
My money would be on the Type 31e especially if the Arrowhead 140 is the winner. IMO it gives us everything we need.
A lot will depend on what sort of ship is required. The SEA 5000 ships Australia is buying will be decidedly high end compared to the Anzacs. This decision is shaped by the region's changing strategic environment.
Eventually, China will seek to expand its influence beyond the South China Sea and may well end up deploying ships and aircraft into the South Pacific. New Zealand doesn't seem to recognise this.
In my opinion New Zealand doesn't only need to be looking at far more capable ships to replace the Anzacs but it should be looking at increasing the size of its fleet as well. They should be looking at 3 or 4 frigates.
I actually think Australia would be willing to accommodate NZ in the SEA5000 program ... but it would be expensive.
If I were NZ I would actually be looking elsewhere.
Eventually, China will seek to expand its influence beyond the South China Sea and may well end up deploying ships and aircraft into the South Pacific. New Zealand doesn't seem to recognise this.
In my opinion New Zealand doesn't only need to be looking at far more capable ships to replace the Anzacs but it should be looking at increasing the size of its fleet as well. They should be looking at 3 or 4 frigates.
I actually think Australia would be willing to accommodate NZ in the SEA5000 program ... but it would be expensive.
If I were NZ I would actually be looking elsewhere.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Pretty much my view too.
At the 2017 (or 2016?) Sea Power Conference in Australia, a senior RNZN officer noted in his talk that there were three options for NZ's frigate replacement
1) Buy whatever Sea 5000 selects
2) Buy from an existing offshore build programme, such as Type 26 (this was the example he provided)
3) Have something custom-build to NZ's requirements.
The officer didn't indicate any preference between the three options. I haven't got time to dig out the link, but the video is probably still on-line.
A key factor will be cost, and I'm not holding my breath about Australia being able to fend off the horde of rapacious state politicians, dodgy union bosses, cost-plus contractors and sundry other ticket clippers who are liable to descent onto any large defence project.
The NZ Govt will follow its rules and put out a broad RFI to global industry for what it requires as a future surface combatant capability which will likely reference proven commercial designs and systems.
If a shipbuilder or consortium can meet those specifications, has a consistent track record and reputation as a mature shipbuilder, can meet the drumbeat targets, and offer a compelling value for money proposition then the contractor will get the business. NZ has no interest in paying the premium to be a partnered extension of another nations naval ship building programme that happened in the past. Nor can people extrapolate the current midlife upgrade of the existing Anzac class as an indication of what vessel the RNZN requires in 15 years.
It will be a purely business proposition for us and it will be up for global industry to put across their best business case. If an Australian entity wants to offer SEA 5000, the UK Type 26/31, the US FFG(X), or other friendly naval shipbuilding nations in the region such as Hyundai FFX-B3, Mitsubishi 30FFM, or a Euro like the FREMM or FTI or even the Canadian build - they will be all judged on their merits per cost and capability. Exactly as what was done in the recent FMSC bid.
If a shipbuilder or consortium can meet those specifications, has a consistent track record and reputation as a mature shipbuilder, can meet the drumbeat targets, and offer a compelling value for money proposition then the contractor will get the business. NZ has no interest in paying the premium to be a partnered extension of another nations naval ship building programme that happened in the past. Nor can people extrapolate the current midlife upgrade of the existing Anzac class as an indication of what vessel the RNZN requires in 15 years.
It will be a purely business proposition for us and it will be up for global industry to put across their best business case. If an Australian entity wants to offer SEA 5000, the UK Type 26/31, the US FFG(X), or other friendly naval shipbuilding nations in the region such as Hyundai FFX-B3, Mitsubishi 30FFM, or a Euro like the FREMM or FTI or even the Canadian build - they will be all judged on their merits per cost and capability. Exactly as what was done in the recent FMSC bid.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I honestly would have some concerns about NZ following such a process, given the history of NZ defence procurement over the last 30 years or so.
Too much and IMO far too often decisions seem to have been made based upon the business cases presented and the 'value for money' of an acquisition or upgrade. This has led to an overall decline in both quantity and capability for the RNZN in a number of key areas, especially if hostilities were to occur. A prime example being the fact that during the Kiwi frigate upgrades, for the next few years there is going to be a maximum of a single frigate available for operations at a given time, and the potential is quite high that there will be periods where none are available.
What I would like to see happen is for a set of minimum requirements in terms of both capabilities and the quantity of vessels to be developed, without looking at what the 'value for money' is in having either the capability set, or quantity. In terms of capabilities, I would want the required capabilities to extend past self-defence capabilities and have the vessels able to both operate in and escort other vessels in a high threat environment. The Kiwi public might have been sold on NZ being in a benign security environment, but it does seem that over the next 30 years or so, the Asia-Pacific region is going to be contested by various powers and NZ will need the ability to both project and protect it's interests.
Once NZ has both the list of capabilities required (as well as the 'extra' capabilities that would be nice to have but are not specifically required) as well as both the minimum and desired numbers, then the RNZN might request information from the active frigate build programmes running in/for Australia, UK, Canada and the US to see which active programmes most closely meets or exceeds the RNZN requirements. Once the active programmes are considered, NZ might try placing an order with the programme which most closely matches what the RNZN is looking for in a frigate.
Yes, I agree with your assessment as the desired process and hopeful outcome.
Mr Conservative was, I think, pointing out the likely probability though
MB
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I guess the only advantage of considering a CSC ship is the LM combat management system which NZ will have on its upgraded frigates? Really can't see any cost advantage compared to the other programs accept for possibly the US program which benefits from the size of the proposed build.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
My reading of the situation is that the four/five different frigate programmes would all have their various pros and cons for Kiwi participation.
The UK frigate programme(s) might have the smallest production run, depending on how many either Type 26 or Type 31 frigates get ordered (me being me, I would be concerned if the RNZN were to order what I understand the Type 31 is intended to be) but it seems likely that there would be a greater commonality with then current RNZN weapon systems.
The SEA 5000 programme is likely to be a somewhat expensive design over all, along with introducing weapons systems not already in Kiwi use, however there would be comparatively local support for the design.
The CSC programme is likely to have a larger production run (15 vessels before any Kiwi order) than either the UK or Oz programmes, and the potential exists for commonality between the CMS for RNZN vessels.
The US FFG(X) is likely going to have the largest overall production run, as well as quite capable systems overall, and being a USN vessel, future developments and support is likely to be less expensive due to the larger number of vessels to spread the cost over.
Of course NZ might opt for a completely different design with licensed production somewhere else, but I would have concerns about whether or the the RNZN would be getting a vessel which is viable and supportable over both the short and long term.
It is not the process of the business case which is a standard cross government procurement approach used by a number of countries that has been the issue or where one would really need to direct their concerns. It is Treasury's funding conventions as demonstrated in the Protector vessels and born out of the Coles Inquiry that have not worked for Defence where all the project money has to be upfronted - something in which the current DefMin has said he hopes to address as it is counter productive in procuring major defence projects - something nearly all other government departments don't face.
Just Australia, UK, Canada and the US? I am sure that both Japanese and South Korean superyards will feature in the Future Surface Combatant Capability race as they have also started active frigate programmes using MOTS systems from global suppliers such as RR, LM and BAE and are actively seeking exports and more than capable of delivering results.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I would think a future Japanese frigate is likely going to be high- end and expensive but even so, trade considerations might make the added cost worthwhile. An SK option would be similar as well perhaps?
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
When I look at the programmes either the ROK Navy or the JMSDF are currently running, it seems that the production runs are most likely going to be completed prior to the 2030 time frame, and/or the vessels are most likely too small or large for NZ needs.
Looking at the ROK Navy, it looks like there are currently plans to build additional units of the following classes Sejong the Great-class destroyer (KDX-III), which is an Aegis-equipped 11,000 tone DDG and IMO far, far more than NZ would be looking to get. There also seem to be plans for the ROK Navy to order about six examples of what are being referred to currently as the KDX-IIA destroyer, which is to be an Aegis-equipped version of the Chungmugong Yi Sun-sin-class destroyer (KDX-II) though it looks like the planned production run for that would currently end around 2026. That would still be building an Aegis-kitted destroyer in the ~7,000 ton range which is potentially more than NZ is looking for. Lastly there are the examples of the FFX programme, with the Daegu-class (FFX-II or Batch II) currently in production with 1 of 8 built, 3 currently in production and 4 more planned, or the ~6 planned for Batch III, with Batch III examples possibly in production when the RNZN ANZAC-class frigates are to be replaced. The concern here is that the Daegu-class is about the same size as the current RNZN FFH and might be too small to meet RNZN requirements in the 2030 time frame.
Looking at current Japanese build programmes, the ones which are currently active look to either be ending far earlier than NZ would be ordering any vessels, or much too large or small to meet NZ needs. The Asahi-class destroyer (only two planned) had the 2nd example laid down in 2016, with an expected in service date of 2019. Also, a pair of larger/improved versions of the Atago-class destroyer were ordered in 2015, which IMO would be much more than NZ would want, since the base Atago-class DDG is itself essentially a scaled-up, 10,000 ton version of the Kongo-class Aegis DDG. As useful as the Japanese Destroyer-Helicopters would be, I just do not see any getting up in the RNZN as they are too large (19,000+ tonnes). Also the Japanese-built warships tend to have a premium price and use weapons and systems sourced from Japan. This works for the Japanese as there is a national security interest in sustaining domestic design and build capabilities for both entire platforms and mission systems, there is a cost to do so which I doubt NZ would be interested in paying.
IMO if NZ were to order warships which were not part of an existing frigate or destroyer build programme involving a 5I's partner nation, then it would most likely be a licensed production build (perhaps with some minor modifications) carried out in an overseas yard that is able to do a low cost build due to the volume or work. There might still be a few European yards which could do this, or S. Korean yards like DSME.
That's what I was thinking - I've not been overly enthusiastic about Type 31e so far, but Arrowhead 140 ticks a lot of boxes - it's a roomy hull with potentially good sea keeping, margins for growth and should be flexible.
We'll see what the build price might be but yeah..
To be honest mentioning KDX-III in this context should really come with a distraction alert.
So for consistency are you therefore also inferring that a 7000 tonne vessel is too big per the Type 26 and SEA 5000?
Both HHI and DSME offer scalable variants of their hulls in the FFX and KDX programmes.
As above the FFX-III is a scalable module build. So those "concerns" can be mitigated. The Koreans were able to build a 107m poverty FFX-II for the PN and a 122m standard length for the Thai's. With the 125m FFX-B3 evolution at 15m beam and 4.5m draft and with the ability to scale a longer hull lets say 5-7m length module plug(s) it should be able to provide a vessel with at least a 4500 tonne displacement or 700 tonnes greater that the current Anzacs.
Look further would be my suggestion. The ability to read documents and news in Japanese over the last 20 years is a helpful skill I use.
The MHI 30FFM programme has started this year with the first funding allocations from ALTA / DOD with ¥58B being allocated for the first vessel. The initial batch of 8 are ordered to replace the Asagiri Class and follow up further batches of six and eight vessels to replace the Abukuma and Hatsuyuki Class and lift the JMSDF surface combatant fleet to a planned 54 vessels by FY 2032/33 of which 22 are planned as 30FFM or as likely batch variants.
Here you have a new vessel in the 5500-6000fl range which contradicts the view that Japan and Korea build vessels that are too small or too big.
"Tend to have" also means that it is not necessarily also the case.
JMSDF ships compare favourably in terms of cost per capability to their European and US counterparts. The 2 vessel 25DD Asahi Class that you pointed out is being delivered for commissioning into the JMSDF at ¥72.3 Billion per vessel and is actually the latest batch build variant of a long term continuous improvement build that started with the Murasame-class, Takanami Class and prior DD19 Akizuki Class which in themselves developed from the earlier Hatakaze's. It is nuanced to ASW where as its sister class the Akizuki's were nuanced to ASuW.
So what is the difference between that and the other national domestic builders other than to say that Japan has not until now sort to export its military projects?
One thing I picked up after living and working in Japan for nearly 2 decades and with USCCJ corporate membership was the close relationship between US and Japan companies in R&D including the defence sector and the sheer industrial economy of scale, production capacity, integration and R&D capability within the Japanese industrial tech sector. They are in a completely different industrial capability ballpark to smaller countries and economies such as Canada, the UK and Australia.
It is a myth that Japanese vessels are entirely different and unique with respect to systems and weapons. Not the case at all as J-Aegis uses a high degree US sourced components and when they come up with something special it is pretty transformative viz XRAM or the AESA radar in the F-2. but that is digressing. It is also unwise to postulate past Japanese defence policy performance prior to Abe's "3 Arrows" policy architecture which has the Article 9 position change and new policies relating to defence export positioning since 2014 is somehow going to remain the same.
The 30FMM is a veritable parts bin of US and UK supplied gear and weapons from LM, RR, BAE but with local giants such as NEC who work closely with the big US firms in Japan like LM and Boeing. Rolls Royce MT30 CODLAG, MTU 12V28 33D STC, L62 Mk. 45 Mod 4 Naval Gun, 16/32 Mk41 VLS, RIM-116C Mk.15 Mod. 31 Phalanx are being used due to cost efficencies - this is Japans FFG(X) with the same cost/capability rationale and with NEC putting forward it multi-functional radar - the CMS is yet to be selected but possibly ATECS. With its association with LM in this area and work within J-CEC/J-Aegis therefore a locally built variant or license build of CombatSS-21 or direct purchase maybe also a possible alternative.
The MOD are really firm on the £250m cap on each hull, this is not going to end up like Type 26 where the costs spiralled out of control. At £250m the price is going to be pretty favourable to Treasury at current exchange rates. Plus it's a big vessel there's plenty of room for future upgrades. Out of all the options this appears to work best for us IMO.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
With Australia now in the T26 camp and should Canada select the T26 (this the favourite), I would think the T26 chances for the RNZN have been enhanced.
NZ should be looking seriously at the Type26. Their navy will face the same challenges as the Australian navy will in the coming decades and frankly a much less capable ship than the type 26 probably won't cut it.
They should, but they'd need a mighty shock to move them from the current path towards a coastguard+ model. I'd almost be prepared to bet their ANZAC replacements will be corvette sized or at most small GP frigates
oldsig