Just like to make a small correction about this being an LM product, not a Canadian product. In fact, CMS330 is based on the original CMS designed for the Halifax class in the early 1980s, and as such, the GoC owns the IP rights. LM has the right (and world product mandate) to market the system, given by the GoC. Also, all development and production is done in Canada (in fact, the production facility is about 6 kms from where I live, in the Ottawa suburb of Kanata).CMS330 is a Lockheed Martin product, not Canadian, with the RAN SAAB9LV basically being a bespoke RAN product with the RAN having to cover the cost and the risk of integrating AEGIS into it. Whereas the CMS330 being a Lockheed product, I would suggest that if the RCN and / or the RNZN were to go down the AEGIS path, integration may be an easier and cheaper. Also the ADF has not exactly covered itself in glory around the integration of new software into existing systems has it? Remember the Seasprite saga? Or the integration of Army software into the Tiger?
ESSM is not the be all to end all either, no matter how much our Aussie posters may believe so. It still has to have a dedicated radar for targeting where as CAMM doesn't. Whilst ESSM Block II is still under development, CAMM is already in fleet wide issue with the RN and it's land variant is not far off being issued to the pommy army. Just saying. We could always talk about rugby union.
Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
Ok gents, lets dial back a bit on the politics and play nice please. Commenting on the intellectual capabilities or lack there of pollies as a species is ok, but delving into the dark evil arts of politics makes the Mods nervous. Meanwhile Preceptor hasn't been fed for quite a while, due to his food budget being diverted to the Mods beer fund, so he's far grumpier than usual again.
Australia will have the 9lv in the 3 awds, 8 anzacs + 2 nz , 9 hunters (of a continuous build program), 12 OPV's (of a continuous build program), 2 x LHD's, 2 x AOR and Sweden, in the 5 x Visby's. Which by my count puts it on over 40 ships. More importantly those 40 ships are basically in the region in and around NZ. I worry less about supporting cms from a point location as I do about taskforce integration, training and operations. Australia is likely to lead any operation, while, lets say I doubt CMS330 ships will be leading in our region.
AFAIK there isn't a huge world of difference between the CMS330 and the 9lv, and from my understanding the CMS330 even uses elements of the 9lv such as the CanACCS-9LV workstations (at least on the upgraded Halifax).
It isn't so much the value of one of against the other as in the break down of the original ANZAC goal, a common class of ships, where training, upgrades, weapons, support, logistics, etc and easily cross supported. Where one ship could fire from a common warstock and operations could be supported by Australia's massive territory and regional power both soft and hard.
There are other flow on effects as well. As Australia starts divesting itself of the Anzacs, NZ could have as many ASMD ships as she wanted. As NZ get rid of hers sometime in the next decade, they could then operate together with other ships of its class for some other nation.
The whole ANZAC concept came about because of souring defence relations NZ had with the US (and other nations). I don't know the current vibe in NZ, (or Canada) but here, I would say Australia seems to have serious concerns regarding the future stability and level of participation in by key members in the current status quo. Australia isn't tripling the displacement of its fleet out of compensation due to Rugby losses, or rampant nationalism.
I can understand the want and need to look at perhaps a different platform, but one that shares the key elements, systems, weapons. We seem to have gone the other way, a common platform, but one that no longer shares elements, systems and weapons.
In a war scenario I would hate to see big problems arise due to square pegs and round hole type of issues.
AFAIK there isn't a huge world of difference between the CMS330 and the 9lv, and from my understanding the CMS330 even uses elements of the 9lv such as the CanACCS-9LV workstations (at least on the upgraded Halifax).
It isn't so much the value of one of against the other as in the break down of the original ANZAC goal, a common class of ships, where training, upgrades, weapons, support, logistics, etc and easily cross supported. Where one ship could fire from a common warstock and operations could be supported by Australia's massive territory and regional power both soft and hard.
There are other flow on effects as well. As Australia starts divesting itself of the Anzacs, NZ could have as many ASMD ships as she wanted. As NZ get rid of hers sometime in the next decade, they could then operate together with other ships of its class for some other nation.
The whole ANZAC concept came about because of souring defence relations NZ had with the US (and other nations). I don't know the current vibe in NZ, (or Canada) but here, I would say Australia seems to have serious concerns regarding the future stability and level of participation in by key members in the current status quo. Australia isn't tripling the displacement of its fleet out of compensation due to Rugby losses, or rampant nationalism.
I can understand the want and need to look at perhaps a different platform, but one that shares the key elements, systems, weapons. We seem to have gone the other way, a common platform, but one that no longer shares elements, systems and weapons.
In a war scenario I would hate to see big problems arise due to square pegs and round hole type of issues.
I think you're hugely overstating the issue. The various nations of NATO have wildly different platforms, systems, weapons, CMS, etc. and yet NATO doctrine requires them to operate together and fight together as a cohesive force, which they practice doing all the time.
There are both advantages and disadvantages to allies using different equipment.
Another possible option would be to get SK to do the design and build. Just like HHI downsized their HDF-3500 design to meet the Philippines' requirements, maybe we could get DSME to design us a downsized version of their KDDX. Something closer to 140m with a reduction in crew size from 180.
DSME showcasing its next generation KDDX Destroyer for ROK Navy at Indo Defence 2014
I have no idea how much something like that would cost, but given how cheaply SK are able to design and build their ships, it might be a possibility. It would be a high end vessel. Too ambitious?
Last edited:
If you look back historically you will see that bigger ships have tended to be more adaptable to up grades and have longer life cycles If you look at thr type 23's machinery layout you will see that to get really quiet you need to go further than simple dampening
New engines for the Royal Navy’s Type 23 Frigates
As you will see the engines are gen sets isolated in their own modules and the modules are isolated from the hull. The electric motors that drive the ship are based on submarine motors.
Last edited:
As a sidenote, I think that designing a ship for a service life of 18 years isn't a bad thing if you follow through and actually replace those ships after 18 years. Had they done that the RN could have avoided the cost of a life extension refit for these ships.
Ah, but the problem was the RN, MOD and Westminster. Need we say more.
Maybe not. The Canadian Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) modeled the cost curve for AOPS, and found that the cost for the 8th ship (should 8 be built) would be around 35% less than what they refer to as the Developmental ship (AOPS 1). The cost of AOPS 1 is reputedly around $CAD 450 million (or roughly $US 300 Mil), so AOPS 8 should cost around $CAD 292 Mil (or roughly $US 200 Mil). And that is fully kitted with a multi-function surveillance S-band radar (Terma 6002), X-band and S-band navigation radars (unknown), IFF system (Thales), CMS (Lockheed Martin Canada CMS330), IPMS (L3), IBMS (OSI Systems Canada) , heated external CCTV (Kongberg), IR sensors (Thales), and a very sophisticated and comprehensive communications suite. And, somewhat embarrassingly, a 25mm BAE mk38 gun system.
Svalbard was apparently built for $US 80 Mil, but that was in 2001, and did NOT include sensors, communications, or weapons. This will have more than doubled by now, in any case, given the 8% average yearly inflation that is standard in shipbuilding. So, I'm not sure there actually are any options out there that offer similar capabilities, for less. You could maybe buy the design and farm the work out to one of the Korean yards, but as efficient as they are, I doubt they could overcome the efficiency advantage that Irving will have built up by the time the 6th ship rolls off the line, so even then I'm not sure it would be cheaper to build elsewhere.
Maybe I am overstating the issue.
I am not sure the NATO model is an awesome one to copy, particularly for a country like NZ that isn't in NATO, rather a bare minimum floor of compatibility. . NATO doesn't tend to perform expeditionary warfare (or at least has significant issues) where logistics and integration are greater issues. Also NZ isn't UK, Germany or France, and even in that context those nations typically partner with each other rather than introduce complete orphan systems and weapons.
I understand the limitations with the Anzacs, and CAAM isn't a bad setup and is attractive for a number of reasons, I have no issue with its capabilities. But I worry about the future direction this could be then taken to with that kind of mindset. Particularly with NZ defense spending at such low levels. CAAM isn't operated by Australia, US, Canada, or any of the US allied Asian nations.
I am not also blaming or casting negative on NZ and its decisions, I don't know enough to make any real judgement call on that. Also, Australia needs to do more to work with allies in its region. An example highlighted when East Timor went out and purchased two Chinese patrol boats.
Australia has learnt many tough and expensive lessons about this. Seasprite and Tigers among others, they were real eye openers regarding the issues that were either implied weren't issues or were thought to be easy to integrate. We also learnt a lot about what NATO gear can and can't do and some glaring issues with NATO gear.
I would certainly like to see NZ with four capable frigates. I certainly hope that is the outcome.
The RCN AOPS1 is a Fincantieri VARD 7-100-ICE AOPS and as an aside the Protector Class OPVs being the VARD 7-085 OPV.
Might be, but could also be the US. The USCG have one operational icebreaker left and it is old and tired. Unfortunately for the USCG in peace time it is part of the DHS and the DHS has been looking at diverting the US$750 million for the icebreaker replacement to fund Trumps wall.
https://warisboring.com/politics-could-scuttle-americas-new-icebreakers/
So if the future USCG icebreaker is deep sixed, then this could be an opportunity for NZ to acquire something like a VARD 7-100-ICE AOPS to further enhance its cooperation with the US because it could then use said vessel as the McMurdo icebreaker as well as the SOPV that the NZG is acquiring. Along with Aotearoa that would give the RNZN a good Antarctic capable component to contribute the the Joint Antarctic Logistics Pool.
Joe Black
Active Member
How about getting the Singaporean ST Marine 120m frigate?
Some specs:
Vanguard 120 Frigate
Displacement 3800 tons, speed 28 knots, range 6000 nm and endurance 25 days.
High survivability and reduced signatures
Sea keeping: Operations in Sea State 6 and Survival in Sea State 9
AAW, ASuW, ASW and asymetric warfare capable and space for unmanned vehicles
IMDEX Asia 2017: ST Marine Debuts its Vanguard Series of Surface Combatant
Get them to help establish a license built program, perhaps ship 1 in Singapore, ship 2 and 3, or even 4 in NZ?
Some specs:
Vanguard 120 Frigate
Displacement 3800 tons, speed 28 knots, range 6000 nm and endurance 25 days.
High survivability and reduced signatures
Sea keeping: Operations in Sea State 6 and Survival in Sea State 9
AAW, ASuW, ASW and asymetric warfare capable and space for unmanned vehicles
IMDEX Asia 2017: ST Marine Debuts its Vanguard Series of Surface Combatant
Get them to help establish a license built program, perhaps ship 1 in Singapore, ship 2 and 3, or even 4 in NZ?
Last edited:
NATO operates in a European theatre (in a hot conflict) where supply lines are short, where war stocks are close and wheresustainment opportunities are many.
The RZNN will be operating in the Indo Pacific region where opportunities to repair and re arm orphan (to ANZUS partners) weapons and systems are few so no, it’s not overstated.
I’m reminded of the time when the RAN Daring class destroyer, HMAS Vendetta, served with the US 7th Fleet during the Viet Nam war.
In order for her to participate the government had to charter and man a merchant ship to carry 4.5” ammunition to the Far East, the ship couldn’t execute the normal Gunline rotation in and out of Subic but had to use Singapore in the main and therefor lacked the close cooperation with the USN enjoyed by the CFAs during their rotations. Their experience was that the hugely generous support given by the USN was phenomenal and many thousands of dollars in support were handed out FOC
This in no way diminishes the work Vendetta did, simply highlights the comparative disadvantage she operated under and the elevated cost incurred for such a deployment when compared with the DDGs
Finally, this in no way should be a contest between different systems or weapons, each have their advantages and it’s not a matter of mines bigger than yours, it simply points to the potential disadvantage which the lack of commonality Incurs in operations far from home based sustainment.
Last edited:
I agree and one more gem to consider. What ever vessel is purchased it must be able to be supported by facilities in NZ or near by. This will drive the equipment fit. The equipment selected and yard slots will drive the build schedule .... all of this will only occur after the contract has been signed. There is utterly no point suggesting a vessel until such stage as the requirements are set.
Finally .... we seem to have a bit of shiny kit syndrome going on where members are advocating for the new ship of choice without looking at the princiapls behind the design. The same goes for the discussion on costs noting the information on the costs of certain ships is calculated in a different way in each place. In some cases (the OMS option) the donor vessel for this project benifited from pulling kit through from other vessels. It may be cheaper (without a common cost base we cannot tell) but I suspect the noise management will not be a patch on the T26. You get what you pay for.
With cost calculation the AOR for Australia is a good case study. This is a 1.5 billin project but only 600m is for the ships themselves, the rest is for support and sustainment.
Project cost may also include the process of setting requirements, selecting the design and agreeing the contract. If you want to see how staggeringly expensive this can be look at LAND 17 and the Caribou replacement. Basically you cannot rely on cost comparisons unless you have a common cost base.
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
Did the 493 million sticker price for HMNZS Aotearoa include the through life support?Or is it the capability it brings that makes it that much more expensive?
Because 600 million for two such vessels seems like good value at first look for Australia,even when factoring exchange rate diferrences for our currency.
And incurred the cost of new ships . . .
What is cheaper per year? That's what matters for the overall cost: what capacity can be delivered per year, per dollar/pound/etc.
The NZG factors in whole of life costs in its project costs, so I presume that is what the $493 million covers. Also remember that different nations do their sums different ways.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
10 U.S. Code § 7309 - Construction of vessels in foreign shipyards: prohibition
Not likely, as US Navy and Coastguard ships are required to be built in US shipyards (above).
The possible interested parties would be NZ, possibly a handful of South American countries with Antarctic interests, or somewhere in Northern Europe without it's own ship-building industry. I suspect NZ is the country being referred to, but it is more likely we are trying to learn more about the design concepts than planning to order a vessel.
Replacing the USCG icebreaker that gives access to McMurdo/Scott Bases each spring would probably take something much larger than a Vard 7. My understanding is that the USCG Polar Star is around 12,000 tonnes, while the AOPS/VARD 7 is about half that. In an alternative fantasy world, NZ would buy a heavy icebreaker to take over the Polar Star's Antarctic duties and cement our place as a country with a serious interest in the frozen south. Sadly, the prospect of this happening is about nil, even though one could be constructed in a Japanese/Korean yard for under US$300 million.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
As Ngati says, recent procurement projects have included support and sustainment costs. This was certainly the case of the T-6 trainer aircraft and various other large items. As far and I know NZ MOD has never released a breakdown of the Aotearoa project costs, which is unusual. However, it would be very surprising if it didn't include support for a defined period of years.