Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[shipJGR]

From my point a view a few thousand miles away:

1. The Hunter/CSC may just be unaffordable at one to two billion USD a ship.
2. The FFG(X) is still not cheap and export control is a non-trivial problem with the USA (just ask Canada).
3. The Type 31/Iver Huitfeldt will either be under armed or the costs will also rise. (Anyone for partnering with Indonesia?)

As a suggestion that will satisfy no one, but might actually be affordable beyond one or two ships:

The Mexican Navy just commissioned the ARM Reformador. This is their take on the SIGMA 10514 and it is amazingly well balanced for a ship around the displacement of a Leander. Multi-level air defence, CAPTAS-2 sonar, Romeo helicopter, quiet lower-speed electric drive... You’d have to upgrade the Smart-S radar and Harpoon missiles plus, probably, replace the RAM and/or ESSM missiles with Sea Ceptor. Finding an English language discussion of her recent commissioning has proved impossible, but these articles together give you an idea:

https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2018/november-2018-navy-naval-defense-news/6691-pola-sigma-10514-arm-reformador-frigate-launched-for-mexican-navy.html, ARM Reformador - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libreand Patrulla Oceánica de Largo Alcance - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre

 

[MrConservative]

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.

The Danes went with the 76mm's as they found the cost saving by reusing them far cheaper than new 127mm which the Iver F370 was designed for but they baulked at the cost. Their intention is to eventually swap over to the 127mm. The RNZN intention is to refurbish and cross-deck on whatever is chosen, which will be major consideration of the selected design.

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....

OZ or Canada, it does not really matter to us.

 

[MrConservative]

From my point a view a few thousand miles away:

1. The Hunter/CSC may just be unaffordable at one to two billion USD a ship.
2. The FFG(X) is still not cheap and export control is a non-trivial problem with the USA (just ask Canada).
3. The Type 31/Iver Huitfeldt will either be under armed or the costs will also rise. (Anyone for partnering with Indonesia?)

As a suggestion that will satisfy no one, but might actually be affordable beyond one or two ships:

I am getting tired of having to repeat this.

The New Zealand Government can afford it. It has one of the lowest government debt ratio's at under 20%, consistently produces surpluses - the last one $7.5B. It is a strong stable economy with steady consistent growth. It just so happens that Defence has emerged as one of the few area where the governments over the last couple of decades have not sprayed the money around, nor even tapped into borrowing money to pay for defence even with the advantages of aaa rating.

The Mexican Navy just commissioned the ARM Reformador. This is their take on the SIGMA 10514 and it is amazingly well balanced for a ship around the displacement of a Leander. Multi-level air defence, CAPTAS-2 sonar, Romeo helicopter, quiet lower-speed electric drive... You’d have to upgrade the Smart-S radar and Harpoon missiles plus, probably, replace the RAM and/or ESSM missiles with Sea Ceptor. Finding an English language discussion of her recent commissioning has proved impossible, but these articles together give you an idea:
https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2018/november-2018-navy-naval-defense-news/6691-pola-sigma-10514-arm-reformador-frigate-launched-for-mexican-navy.html
POLA Sigma 10514 ARM Reformador Frigate Launched for Mexican Navy, ARM Reformador - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libreand Patrulla Oceánica de Largo Alcance - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre

For years the RNZN has complained that even the ANZAC is too small for the Pacific and the ranges that they have to cover when running independently. And your first contribution here is the suggestion of a very light EEZ "Frigate" that is likely to be smaller than the Protector OPV replacements and arguably less combat capable than the interim capability of the Anzac's to see them out of service.

 

[ngatimozart]

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

Yes we have posted about costs, however it would also be Australia's geopolitical and geostrategic interest for NZ to operate a fleet of Type 26 / Hunter class frigates. We will cross that bridge if and when we come to it.

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....

I would suggest that you go back and read up on the Absalon and Ivers. Where we decide to do our upgrades is our decision and probably the Canucks provided a cheaper quote, so no need to come the raw prawn about that.

As an aside, since it is clear that the NZG is apparently going to go solely within FVEY then my preference is to go fully Hunter Class, weapons, sensors CMS, the lot. Swallow the dead fiscal rat and acquire 3, then remain in lockstep with the RAN. Sign a bloody treaty if we have too. That will be to both our advantages.

 

[spoz]

Do the updated RNZN ANZACs have the mod 4 Mk 45 or are they still using mod 2s? If the latter you wouldn’t really want to port them across to a new build.

I’m not coming the raw prawn, the Canada comment referred to the probable benefits of potential combat system commonality with ANZACS, albeit in a further developed state

In a previous incarnation I had access to both Absolon and Iver GAs and other data, hence the “from memory” comment.

Personally I would be delighted if the RNZN went with three fully specced Hunters, it would as suggested be to the benefit of both countries.

 

[MrConservative]

Do the updated RNZN ANZACs have the mod 4 Mk 45 or are they still using mod 2s? If the latter you wouldn’t really want to port them across to a new build.

I hope you have sent your letter of complaint to the USN and Armada Española pointing out the folly of their ways following their decision to upgrade some of their Mod 2's to Mod 4's.

 

[spoz]

That was, in fact, my question. The RAN also upgraded their mod 2s to mod 4s - is the RNZN doing the same?

 

[Rangitoto]

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.

No redesign required, they were designed to take the Mk 45 gun from day one. If you look closely at the forward 76mm gun you'll see it's sitting on a gun mount that's too big for it, because it's a Mk 45 mount.

That was, in fact, my question. The RAN also upgraded their mod 2s to mod 4s - is the RNZN doing the same?

As far as I'm aware, they aren't doing it during the current upgrade. But the mod 2 to 4 upgrade is a pier side upgrade, so it doesn't need to coincide with a major refit. I'd be very surprised if the ANZACs are still using mod 2s when they reach their end of service.

Of course, even if they were still mod 2s, that doesn't mean they couldn't be upgraded as part of a cross deck to a new vessel.

 

[Rangitoto]

Te Kaha looking good. Almost complete

Nighthawk.NZ - TE KAHA’s new look.
http://navy.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/navy-today/nt238.pdf

 

[shipJGR]

That was, in fact, my question. The RAN also upgraded their mod 2s to mod 4s - is the RNZN doing the same?

I have only seen this in one place, but the photos seem to bear this out: “The second ship in the class, Te Mana, has the Mk45 Mod 4 gun instead of the Mod 2 on the first ship Te Kaha.” From Naval Analyses: MEKO 200 Frigate Mild-Life Upgrade (MLU) programmes worldwide

 

[Lucasnz]

A photo of Te Kaha on the prob-boards site. No longer moored alongside Te Mana. The Jack is up and the out of routine flag is down so the navy's getting close to the end of refit.

Within the context of the T26 / T31 debate as a replacement for the ANZAC's I think there is a lot in the T31 favour as a like for like replacement with improvements (127mm with extended range ammunition, and 32 Cell VLS and introduction of ASuM), along with improved capabilities for supporting operations in the Pacific (i.e. ISO containers, larger helicopter capability, additional personal - which I suspect with get eaten up by maintenance personnel requirements like the Danish found). My biggest concern as I look at the design however is increasingly around the ability of the navy to adapt the ship to changing operational environment in terms of weapons fitout to as threats change, without the need for significant refit, unless a "Stan Flex" approach is adopted for CAAM using Mk56 VLS (if possible). The Type 26 with it's additional VLS capability offers a more expensive upfront option in terms of capital cost, but provides for flexibility in the weapons outfit as the strategic and tactical environment changes (with potentially lower refit costs). I might be wrong, but when I look at the trends in the major powers arsenals, flexibility to adapt for a small navy starts to becomes important. While I've talked about the weapons capability I do recognise the importance of sensors etc. Given the capabilities of the base design for the Type 31 I don't think sensor capability will be an issue in terms of upgrades. As always my two cents worth, but ultimately it boils down to what we expect the ANZAC replacements to do, in terms of a military role.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

Lucasnz your last statement is the crux of the issue as far as I am concerned. But to dial it back what is the military role of the current ANZACs? If it is to provide an offensive deterent and to protect NZ interests they havent been able to do that for almost two years. With no SSM and only ASM Penguins launched from the SH2s that leaves the 5" gun for surface engagement. Unless the opposing force is little more than a gun armed patrol boat the ANZACs offer little more than an enlarged gunboat with eyes and self protection.

This is the perogative of the GOTD and I dont think there are too many here that see a change to a more offensive kit out. That being said your comments about multiple helo capability along with flexibility to accommodate ISO are pluses for any navy but as you state its vital for a small navy to be as flexible as possible. And that goes with numbers as well. Having only two frigates both requiring an MLU have put NZ in a spot had the proverbial SHTF in the local area. Yes Australia would have likely stepped in but thats like saying Canada doesnt need a navy because the US will step in. A four frigate navy would provide flexibility. A three frigate navy is bare minimum and a two frigate navy allows for the current situation to repeat itself.

 

[shipJGR]

Both frigates pictured at:

HMNZS Te Kaha F77 - ShipSpotting.com - Ship Photos and Ship Tracker

HMNZS Te Mana F111 - ShipSpotting.com - Ship Photos and Ship Tracker

As a note, the difference in the main gun shield is evident in the pictures.

 

[RegR]

Both frigates pictured at:

HMNZS Te Kaha F77 - ShipSpotting.com - Ship Photos and Ship Tracker

HMNZS Te Mana F111 - ShipSpotting.com - Ship Photos and Ship Tracker

As a note, the difference in the main gun shield is evident in the pictures.

Te Mana has always had that gun housing since its launch (taking advantage of the later build) and was more for the radar deflecting capabilities not the actual gun inside. I think mod 4 was 2000s and the frigates are 90s new so came with the mod 2 originally as per the initial RAN versions.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

Te Mana has always had that gun housing since its launch (taking advantage of the later build) and was more for the radar deflecting capabilities not the actual gun inside. I think mod 4 was 2000s and the frigates are 90s new so came with the mod 2 originally as per the initial RAN versions.

How does the VLS on the frigates work, can it only target incoming missiles, can it attack the planes or ships launching them without being targeted first? Can the torpedoes be launched effectively at ships smaller than frigate sized, like a gunboat? Obviously there is the typhoon weapons system and 50 calibre guns too for smaller vessels.

 

[StingrayOZ]

How does the VLS on the frigates work, can it only target incoming missiles, can it attack the planes or ships launching them without being targeted first?

They are designed for air threats. But the new CAMM stuff can basically target anything it can track. Working out whats a target needs to occur regardless of the system being used.

Surface ship Torpedoes in western navies are essentially just anti-submarine weapons now. They are light weight, and carry ~50kg of explosives, while able to do some damage they aren't an ideal weapon for that mission. They would not be ideal for gun boats either, which are generally quiet fast (40kts+) and have shallow drafts. Guns and missiles are better weapons against those threats.

I don't think we should really be mapping out what a New Zealand frigate can do by itself. The ANZAC class was all about Australia and NZ teaming up together. A New Zealand frigate can achieve a lot more working with countries like Australia or the US or Singapore than it can do by itself. Sensors are key.

Australia doesn't have a lot of ships either, so being able to throw in an additional frigate is a huge boost. NZ made a very significant contribution to the naval operation in East Timor, and unlike a lot of other nations, they were able to integrate tightly and didn't impose terribly on resources on the taskgroup.

 

[t68]

According to this site Nuship Aotearoa slipped out for builders trials,

Nighthawk.NZ - HMNZS Aotearoa Starting Sea Trials

 

[shipJGR]

Te Mana has always had that gun housing since its launch (taking advantage of the later build) and was more for the radar deflecting capabilities not the actual gun inside. I think mod 4 was 2000s and the frigates are 90s new so came with the mod 2 originally as per the initial RAN versions.

The combination of angled gun shield and 5”/62 gun (mod 4) are typically reported as a simultaneous change. As you noted, some 5”/54s apparently had the angled shield, too. Live and learn. At least the Te Mana may be slightly less expensive to update to mod 4.

 

[ngatimozart]

The MOD have released a RFT for the Frigate Sustainment Phase 1 – Communications Project (the FSP1 Project). The description is:

"The Crown is seeking to contract the services of a Prime System Integrator (PSI):

(a) to provide a detailed design for the required external communication system;
(b) to procure the external communications subsystems, and integrate all new and Government Furnished Equipment subsystems to the legacy communication subsystems onboard the two ANZAC frigates, and
(c) to provide a proposal for the support of the FSP1 Solutions through life."​

The tender closing date is 27/3/20. Ship visits to Victoria, Canada will be made over two successive days in January 2020. There are restrictions on the resident / incorporated localities of the companies which may submit replies with FVEY nations + 10 (all Euro - 9 NATO + 1 Euro).

"Objectives for FSP1 Project
3.2.1 The objective of the FSP1 Project is to upgrade the external communications system to enable the ANZAC frigates to seamlessly integrate into a national or international coalition and be an effective contributor through appropriate voice and data connectivity capabilities.

3.2.2 The FSP1 Project will address the critical obsolescence issues with current equipment and provide flexible communications equipment that maximises interoperability with the NZDF’s principal partners. Due to rapid technology changes, the equipment must be able to be “software defined”, enabling new communications requirements to be changed via software, future proofing the frigates until the end of their lives in about 2035.

3.2.3 The Crown recognises that contemporary communication system technology has the capacity to deliver additional capabilities that are already inherent within existing designs and that may be additional to the Crown’s stated requirements. The Crown expects to be able to leverage off these capabilities where possible to maximise effectiveness and/or efficiency of the ANZAC communication system. The Crown therefore requests that where such additional capabilities exist, they are not costed for removal and that the Tenderer highlights in its Tender these additional capabilities (“exceeds requirement”), so that they can be discussed and a decision made on their utilisation, or otherwise, during Preferred Tenderer selection.

3.2.4 To optimise project affordability, it is essential to consider the reuse and or refurbishment of existing equipment (e.g., antennae, cabling, racking), wherever this can be achieved while still maintaining the System’s quality and reliability. A reasonable degree of re-use has the potential to significantly reduce the installation time and overall project cost.

3.2.5 Long term support arrangements form part of this RFT, and responses in relation to the Through Life Support element should be provided as if the Tenderer has been successful with respect to PSI Contract (including having been awarded the Build and Install SOW). The Tenderer’s proposals with respect to Through Life Support and the expected long term support costs will be assessed as part of this RFT. The TLC approach will be assessed and the whole of life costs must provide value for money and will be considered as part of the value for money and Public Value evaluation of the Tender."​

This about covers the broad aspects of the RFT.

I am not providing links to the tender document because it is not available unless you are signed up for the GETS system, which you can do but will require a RealMe ID issued by the NZG.

 

[ngatimozart]

RNZN video of Canterbury & 3 Sqn NH90 during OP ENDURANCE at Campbell Island in NZs sub Antarctic Islands. It was a combined OP with DOC and the NZ Met Service. The DOC terrier in video was spooked on the last day, did a runner, and they had to mount a rescue op to retrieve it, which they did safely the day after Canterbury left Campbell Island. It's a specialist rodent, cat, stoat, and weasel hunting dog and wears a muzzle when on the job.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1041519019516692