Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[Arclighy]

The Point of Order post says "Australians hope NZ will buy Hunter class Frigates..."
The body of the post goes on to say, "Across the Tasman, the Australians expect the RNZN will select the new Hunter class frigates being built by ASC in South Australia to replace the RAN’s Anzacs."
I think it quite reasonable to 'hope' for a sale of the Hunter class to NZ when the time comes. I actually can't imagine that any person connected with the program would have the 'expectation' of that sale. Certainly, given the state of NZ defence spending, the decision time being over a decade away, and the probability of other options being developed over the period, an 'expectation' is totally unrealistic. I am not in any way involved in the Hunter program, so may be missing something here. I haven't heard nor read any public comments from anyone say the sale is 'expected'. It is a very broad statement, and l think it is a big call by Point of Order to claim such.

 

[Rangitoto]

Australians hope NZ will buy Hunter class frigates but size and price will come into Defence considerations

I stopped reading after the third factual error and this sentence:
"In a sense the RNZN’s role is similar to that of the US Coastguard."

 

[RegR]

In some respects one would need to examine both the future surface combatant capability and the future OPV replacement capability together. For example two Type 26 and a largish OPV that possessed latent combatant capabilities.

Also there is the FFG(X) solution, which has a very capable suite of GFE systems and is to be built in numbers (20+) under a new and competitive contractual regime. We will know how that 3rd pathway sits by the middle of next year as an option and how close to the USD$800-900m price point it is.

Agreed, more "capable" OPVs could be seen to take pressure off the need for more frigates due to the number of tasks they could then realistically undertake but guess the age old excuse/story of overall funding will dictate, with more expensive frigates potentially meaning less hulls and lesser specced OPVs and vice versa "lesser" frigates freeing up funding for another hull, better optioned OPVs or both.

Usual story, capability costs so generally the first thing to cut to make up the shortfall is overall numbers. A balanced decision to find an optimal result.

 

[MrConservative]

I stopped reading after the third factual error and this sentence:
"In a sense the RNZN’s role is similar to that of the US Coastguard."

It is a Politics and Policy blog written by senior press gallery members whom are non specialists in Defence matters. Nevertheless, though there are technical inaccuracies they are well connected with a number of sources. They are on the money with respect to the thrust of where the general thinking of the frigate replacement project is going.

 

[ngatimozart]

The Point of Order post says "Australians hope NZ will buy Hunter class Frigates..."
The body of the post goes on to say, "Across the Tasman, the Australians expect the RNZN will select the new Hunter class frigates being built by ASC in South Australia to replace the RAN’s Anzacs."
I think it quite reasonable to 'hope' for a sale of the Hunter class to NZ when the time comes. I actually can't imagine that any person connected with the program would have the 'expectation' of that sale. Certainly, given the state of NZ defence spending, the decision time being over a decade away, and the probability of other options being developed over the period, an 'expectation' is totally unrealistic. I am not in any way involved in the Hunter program, so may be missing something here. I haven't heard nor read any public comments from anyone say the sale is 'expected'. It is a very broad statement, and l think it is a big call by Point of Order to claim such.

G'day @Arclighy and welcome to the forum. I would agree that claim expectation of a RNZN acquisition of the Hunter Class is a big reach at best. The Hunter drumbeat is solely based upon the RAN acquisition and none other.

In some respects one would need to examine both the future surface combatant capability and the future OPV replacement capability together. For example two Type 26 and a largish OPV that possessed latent combatant capabilities.

Also there is the FFG(X) solution, which has a very capable suite of GFE systems and is to be built in numbers (20+) under a new and competitive contractual regime. We will know how that 3rd pathway sits by the middle of next year as an option and how close to the USD$800-900m price point it is.

I also think that the results of next years NZ Parliamentary election will also show us where the land will lie with regard to defence for the following five years, which are actually quite important when you think about it. A lot of decisions will have to be made in those years and I think many that have been slated in the DCP may have to be bought forward as geostrategic situation in the Asia Pacific deteriorates, especially if the PRC makes significant inroads into the South West Pacific region.

With regard to the USN FFG(X) program, I would advise caution there, because there is some risk with that program. There are some capacity issues with US shipyards due to retiring workers and lack of younger ones taking up apprenticeships etc., creating shortage of qualified workers, lack of space in existing yards, and diminishing number of yards. The program itself hasn't reached the stage of final design approval and Congressional funding approval for building to start. The US Govt, hence USN is still operating under continuing resolutions for federal budgets, so future funding budgets are basically not worth the spreadsheet they're calculated on. Once a design is selected you can almost guarantee one or more of the losing companies will be off to Court to contest it. If they fail there they will be having their Congress critters putting their considerable oars in mix, causing further delays. Also, the USN isn't Congress's favourite at the moment because of the significant cost overruns and delays on the CVN program.

 

[MrConservative]

I also think that the results of next years NZ Parliamentary election will also show us where the land will lie with regard to defence for the following five years, which are actually quite important when you think about it. A lot of decisions will have to be made in those years and I think many that have been slated in the DCP may have to be bought forward as geostrategic situation in the Asia Pacific deteriorates, especially if the PRC makes significant inroads into the South West Pacific region.

Depending on who wins it could even go back to where things were 15-20 years ago in an ideological sense.

With regard to the USN FFG(X) program, I would advise caution there, because there is some risk with that program. There are some capacity issues with US shipyards due to retiring workers and lack of younger ones taking up apprenticeships etc., creating shortage of qualified workers, lack of space in existing yards, and diminishing number of yards. The program itself hasn't reached the stage of final design approval and Congressional funding approval for building to start. The US Govt, hence USN is still operating under continuing resolutions for federal budgets, so future funding budgets are basically not worth the spreadsheet they're calculated on.

A number of people think that HHI is in the box seat for that reason in that they can switch across from the end of the Legend built at Pascagoula, Mississippi into the evolved Frigate design. The money side is there as the LCS programme is to be truncated.

Once a design is selected you can almost guarantee one or more of the losing companies will be off to Court to contest it. If they fail there they will be having their Congress critters putting their considerable oars in mix, causing further delays. Also, the USN isn't Congress's favourite at the moment because of the significant cost overruns and delays on the CVN program.

How much of that is a variable in the context of 12 years when we would be wanting to cut steel?

 

[ngatimozart]

Depending on who wins it could even go back to where things were 15-20 years ago in an ideological sense.

And that is a concern with them possibly being more ideologically extreme regarding defence. Would almost make Aunty Helen look like a neocon.

A number of people think that HHI is in the box seat for that reason in that they can switch across from the end of the Legend built at Pascagoula, Mississippi into the evolved Frigate design. The money side is there as the LCS programme is to be truncated.

Possibly, but it is still far less certain than say 10 years ago, when such things were far more predictable. The US election next year will have a large import upon how this program proceeds.

How much of that is a variable in the context of 12 years when we would be wanting to cut steel?

If we lived in a benign strategic environment as per Aunty Helen, I would agree with the 12 year timetable, however I don't think we will have that luxury and I think that it will be one of the decisions that we may have to bring forward a lot sooner whether we like it or not. I am keeping an open mind on this.

 

[John Fedup]

As Canada’s procurement process for the CSC dragged on, the expectation of a T26 win seemed impossible here yet it happened so a Hunter or CSC can’t be ruled out. Add in the deteriorating geopolitical situation and the ability to select from two pacific rim T26 vendors, it seems this design is in the running.

 

[spoz]

There is no indication visible on this side of the Tasman that Australia "expects" NZ to purchase Hunters, and, as suggested above, they would be hard to fit into our drumbeat unless they came at the end of the Program which is too late for NZ; and even there they would be competing with the requirement to build the replacements for the Hobarts.

Two of the three contenders for the FFG(x) are in the 6-7000+ ton range and nobody outside the bid process really knows what HII is offering, so I don't quite know how the article posits that the ships will be about 4000 tons.

Go for an Ivor Huitfield specced at the Danish level and you have a fairly competent ship although one thing it can't do is NGFS!

 

[John Fedup]

HI’s offering for the FFG(x) remains a mystery. Whatever the outcome of this tender is, it might be a solution for NZ. However, T26 still might be viable as Canada’s 15 ship build will extend well into the 2030s assuming the pollies don’t cut the numbers. What the world looks like 10-15 years from now might make a high end frigate like the T26 necessary and maybe even more than the assumed three ships. I suspect that the US umbrella will strongly contract with another Trump term. Like it or not, defence expenditures will have to increase for all allies.

 

[MrConservative]

NoCookies | The Australian

The first of the Hunter class should be launched in 2027-28 and enter service inside 2029-31. The ships are initially planned to be built on a two-year interval, meaning the ninth and last ship would not enter service until 2044-46, but this drumbeat could be accelerated depending on skills, capability and budget, Lockhart says.

Pretty clear that if the NZ government ordered 2-3 Type 26 Frigates the flexibility is there within the programme to have them built. The contractor BAE will have around 5-7 years to adjust and would already have an alternative contingency drumbeat planned for such a possibility because that is Production Planning 101 stuff. A $5 billion shipbuild order does make things happen.

It is also pretty clear that the NZ government is interested per what BAE has said to the Financial Times and comments made in NZ

BAE Systems looks to position Hunter-class frigate for New Zealand | Jane's 360

The spokesperson's comments followed a news report by the Financial Times newspaper on 11 July, which quoted Steve Timms, BAE managing director for naval ships, as saying "New Zealand is clearly interested" in the company's 6,900-tonne Type 26 frigate, on which the Hunter-class design in based.

Also this from BAE Systems CEO Gabby Costigan which reveals that BAE seems pretty keen on selling them.

With three countries in the Five Eyes intelligence alliance - Australia, Britain and Canada - opting for warships based on the Type 26, Ms Costigan said she was hopeful New Zealand would also place an order, although it is considered unlikely Donald Trump's administration will complete the quintet.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...frigate-plans-in-glasgow-20190909-p52pnz.html

The Type 26 has been in the RNZN / NZ Govt frame for a number of years. There are a number of NZ firms pre-qualified on the project.

That still does not make it a slam dunk for selection, but it is indeed a strong contender.

 

[oldsig127]

NoCookies | The Australian

The first of the Hunter class should be launched in 2027-28 and enter service inside 2029-31. The ships are initially planned to be built on a two-year interval, meaning the ninth and last ship would not enter service until 2044-46, but this drumbeat could be accelerated depending on skills, capability and budget, Lockhart says.

Pretty clear that if the NZ government ordered 2-3 Type 26 Frigates the flexibility is there within the programme to have them built. The contractor BAE will have around 5-7 years to adjust and would already have an alternative contingency drumbeat planned for such a possibility because that is Production Planning 101 stuff. A $5 billion shipbuild order does make things happen.

While this is all true, there's at least as great a chance that geopolitical circumstance will drive Australia to accelerate the drumbeat and build more ships for the RAN. Cursory inspection of the newspapers and online will show many commentators already claiming "too little too late" and wanting everything tomorrow, not excepting a slice of moon cheese. I'm not convinced we'd cede two (or more) potential slots to our friends and neighbours to keep BAE happy unless a valley of death was again approaching. Perhaps given that the yard doesn't belong to BAE except in so far as it's used to produce Australian ships the commercial and political imperatives would be at odds.

oldsig

 

[MrConservative]

While this is all true, there's at least as great a chance that geopolitical circumstance will drive Australia to accelerate the drumbeat and build more ships for the RAN. Cursory inspection of the newspapers and online will show many commentators already claiming "too little too late" and wanting everything tomorrow, not excepting a slice of moon cheese. I'm not convinced we'd cede two (or more) potential slots to our friends and neighbours to keep BAE happy unless a valley of death was again approaching. Perhaps given that the yard doesn't belong to BAE except in so far as it's used to produce Australian ships the commercial and political imperatives would be at odds.

oldsig

I am sure that Canada, the UK and the US if FFG(X) is down-selected, we would be more than happy to build them with them and redirect the billions of work and jobs into the Australian economy, elsewhere.

 

[spoz]

The drum beat of the Australian build has more to do with maintaining a long term steady workload and therefore workforce demand than anything else. While BAE might well like to build more ships and therefore make more money, if that was to create a hump in the workforce demand which could not be sustained long term it probably wouldn't be looked on with very much favour in political circles - unless of course there was an electoral advantage in it.

 

[ngatimozart]

There is no indication visible on this side of the Tasman that Australia "expects" NZ to purchase Hunters, and, as suggested above, they would be hard to fit into our drumbeat unless they came at the end of the Program which is too late for NZ; and even there they would be competing with the requirement to build the replacements for the Hobarts.

Two of the three contenders for the FFG(x) are in the 6-7000+ ton range and nobody outside the bid process really knows what HII is offering, so I don't quite know how the article posits that the ships will be about 4000 tons.

Go for an Ivor Huitfield specced at the Danish level and you have a fairly competent ship although one thing it can't do is NGFS!

Who says that it can't do NGS? The only reason the RDN Ivers don't have 5" guns is because when they were built they RDN could afford them and fitted 76 mm guns that they had instead. If you care to look the Absalons have 5" guns and the Ivers are the same hull as the Absalon.

 

[MrConservative]

It might pay people to familiarise themselves again or indeed in the case of first instance, with the following:

https://www.defence.gov.au/WhitePaper/Docs/2016-Defence-Industry-Policy-Statement.pdf

https://www.defence.gov.au/NavalShipbuilding/Docs/NavalShipbuildingPlan.pdf

 

[ngatimozart]

It might pay people to familiarise themselves again or indeed in the case of first instance, with the following:

https://www.defence.gov.au/WhitePaper/Docs/2016-Defence-Industry-Policy-Statement.pdf

https://www.defence.gov.au/NavalShipbuilding/Docs/NavalShipbuildingPlan.pdf

See the Naval Ship Building Plan page 99 para 6.13:

"6.13 New Zealand is a close partner, and we often deploy together in support of shared regional and global security interests. Maintaining interoperability with the New Zealand Defence Force, including in the maritime domain, will remain important. New Zealand was a partner in the successful Anzac Class frigate project. Significant elements of its project Protector, including two offshore patrol vessels, were also built in Australia. New Zealand’s recently released 2016 Defence Capability Plan places an emphasis on increasing the offshore patrol vessel fleet as well as replacing various minor warfare vessels. Their AnzacClass frigates are scheduled to be replaced in the late 2020s and early 2030s. We recognise New Zealand, like Australia, will make capability choices based on its own interests. We will continue to maintain an extensive dialogue with New Zealand to identify areas of potential cooperation of mutual benefit, including in maritime capability development and sustainment."​

And the Defence Industry Policy Statement pp. 55 - 57:

"Direct support from Team Defence Australia for Australian industry exports
There can be no higher praise for Australian-developed defence equipment than that given by the men and women of the ADF who have used the capabilities in both peace and wartime. Potential international customers place significant weight in procuring capability that has been tested in operational service. To ensure this message is heard by potential international customers, the Government will continue to promote Australian defence industry exports by using former two and three-star ADF officers as Team Defence Australia representatives at international trade shows. The Team Defence Australia initiative will be improved by integrating it within the CDIC. This will enable targeted, focused promotion of products prioritised to Defence’s capability needs, which will maximise the potential for export growth.

Working with the Defence Export Controls Branch
Within Australia’s system of export controls, the Defence Export Controls Branch is responsible for regulating the export of defence and strategic goods, services and technologies. Export controls ensure that goods and technologies that can be used for military purposes, or to develop weapons of mass destruction, do not get into the wrong hands. It is important that this can be achieved without disrupting legitimate trade, innovation and international scientific collaboration. The implementation of strengthened export controls under the Defence Trade Controls Act 2012 requires close engagement with industry and academic stakeholders to ensure that these new controls are understood and practicable. In consultation with stakeholders, the Defence Export Controls Branch, within the Department of Defence, has introduced reforms for a more streamlined, risk-based approach to export controls that provides a leaner and more responsive export control system. The reforms include the introduction of:

• an online permit system that has streamlined the application process and reduced processing times for export permits
• risk-based approaches, such as:
  • – broader export licences for lower-risk items going to lower-risk destinations
  • – longer licences for lower-risk exports enabling greater self-assessment by exporters of the control status of their goods through an online assessment tool.

The Government recognises that Australian companies producing sensitive technologies in service with the ADF have at times raised concerns about restrictions on the export of their products . To help companies in this situation, Defence has established a Sensitive Technologies Advisory Group to:

• identify sensitive Australian-produced technologies that are in service with the ADF and therefore need to be protected
• work with the producers of these technologies on the exportability of their products, so that they can make reasoned commercial decisions or develop variants early in the capability development life cycle
• harness opportunities to use exports and the disposal of equipment being retired from service with the ADF to pursue international engagement objectives.

The Australia–United States Defence Trade Cooperation Treaty is in place to enable opportunities for Australian companies to export their products . It provides Australian defence industry with opportunities to import, export, transfer or re-export eligible defence articles that support Australian or United States government defence projects, military exercises, cooperative programs and equipment sustainment, without the need for individual licences or authorisations .The Treaty framework may also benefit Australian defence industry by opening new avenues for industrial cooperation and allowing partnering and technology sharing with their United States counterparts, and by reducing lead times in brokering business opportunities and responding to requests for tender."​

Think that covers it, so pretty well makes it clear that door is open for NZ to acquire Hunter class frigates if it desires to do so.

 

[oldsig127]

Think that covers it, so pretty well makes it clear that door is open for NZ to acquire Hunter class frigates if it desires to do so.

Which is all well and good, but both you and MrC missed my point by a nautical mile. If *Australia* needs to increase the drumbeat to the maximum possible to produce an extra three ships in the timeframe for Australia, the geopolitical imperative would surely rule - build for the RAN and say sorry to NZ.

I'm moderately confident that it'll never happen either way. Almost all the posts by Kiwis in this forum about their ANZAC replacements include a line about it being too expensive to build in Australia. Perhaps a T26 built in a Korean yard might suit? <facetiousness alert>

oldsig

 

[swerve]

Who says that it can't do NGS? The only reason the RDN Ivers don't have 5" guns is because when they were built they RDN could afford them and fitted 76 mm guns that they had instead. If you care to look the Absalons have 5" guns and the Ivers are the same hull as the Absalon.

Yeah, one of the many ways the Danes kept the costs down. E.g. IIRC Stanflex was designed partly to save money, by creating a pool of common weapons easily switched between vessels & thus enabling total stocks to be reduced.

 

[spoz]

Who says that it can't do NGS? The only reason the RDN Ivers don't have 5" guns is because when they were built they RDN could afford them and fitted 76 mm guns that they had instead. If you care to look the Absalons have 5" guns and the Ivers are the same hull as the Absalon.

I did say “specced at the Danish level”, that would mean 76mm. I’m sure the ship could take a 5/62 but there would have to be some redesign to accomodate it (I’m not sure if it fits the Stanflex footprint), and then it would be a different, and more expensive, spec.

From memory, the Absoloms do have one deck more than the Ivers.

If NZ wants T26 all on this side would say “terrific” from a standardisation and capability perspective but the fit out decided on and yard availability would probably drive the preferred build location - and given the ANZ upgrade that might well be Canada. After all, Australia almost had them build some St Laurents for the RAN in the 50s....