Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[shipJGR]

Reading the discussion of New Zealand purchasing Harry DeWolf class AOPSs reminds me of a question I had that may be worth a speculative post. Should New Zealand and Canada forge a close cooperative defence agreement (at least for their navies)?

Even though New Zealand is spending less money, it appears that a lot of what the two countries are doing is complementary.

1. The AOPS is certainly an option for New Zealand and with opposite seasons you could easily envision some sort of sharing agreement. A jointly owned ship may even be a possibility.
2. Pooling UNREP ships results in a fleet of three very capable ships. Certainly better for scheduling than one or two each. The MV Asterix could be useful, too.
3. Adding one or two CSCs for New Zealand later in the program after the costs drop may be an option. Again, an additional jointly owned CSC could be useful in order to ensure availability for lower cost.
4. HMNZS Canterbury and the additional proposed New Zealand “LPD” provide a capability desired by Canada, but that is not in the NSS. Plus, Canada should be willing to foot some of the costs.

FWIW. Take care

 

[Calculus]

The Harry DeWolf is a VARD-7-100-ICE

Actually, it's an improved version of the 7-100-ICE, differing from that design by being roughly 5 meters longer and 300 tons heavier, and equipped with retractable stabilizers for improved handling in rough open waters, air conditioning (for tropical climates), and more robust ice strengthening (PC5 all around, PC4 bow). In Canadian service it will have CMS330, integrated bridge system, IPMS, Terma Scanter 6002 radar, enhanced communications for northern operations, and an enlarged hanger for the "biggish" CH-148. You are correct in that they are essentially the same, however, sharing a common baseline design, but the 7-100-ICE is pretty much a cool-climate only ship. The version Canada is building (known as the Arctic and Offshore Patrol Vessel, or AOPV, in RCN parlance) is designed to operate in arctic to tropical conditions, and the RCN anticipates this class will spend a goodly amount of time in the Caribbean and around Africa. Also, with regards to armament, you are also correct. The ship can mount a 57mm where the current 25mm is located, as well as a Phalanx over the hanger. It has been "plumbed" for that already, and if needed those systems could transfer from the frigates during the AOPV refits, when the RCN starts to decommission the first of the Halifax class around 2028. Both the 57mm and Phalanx have been extensively upgraded, and are at the latest standard, so would still be very viable weapons even 10 years from now. I would argue these are unnecessary, however, as these ships are not meant to be combatants, but the capability is there if needed.

Licensing the design and building in Korea might be a good idea, given these cost around CAN $400Mil when built in Canada. A lot of that cost is the fit-up of comms, sensors, systems, etc..., so I don't know how much cheaper it actually is to build the hull in Korea versus Canada. I have never seen that cost broken down. It would be cheaper for sure, but probably not by half or anything like that. As @chis73 indicated earlier, there is a hot assembly line in Canada right now, with the second of the class launched last month, two more currently under construction, and steel cutting for the 5th scheduled for later this year.

 

[Calculus]

Reading the discussion of New Zealand purchasing Harry DeWolf class AOPSs reminds me of a question I had that may be worth a speculative post. Should New Zealand and Canada forge a close cooperative defence agreement (at least for their navies)?

Even though New Zealand is spending less money, it appears that a lot of what the two countries are doing is complementary.

1. The AOPS is certainly an option for New Zealand and with opposite seasons you could easily envision some sort of sharing agreement. A jointly owned ship may even be a possibility.
2. Pooling UNREP ships results in a fleet of three very capable ships. Certainly better for scheduling than one or two each. The MV Asterix could be useful, too.
3. Adding one or two CSCs for New Zealand later in the program after the costs drop may be an option. Again, an additional jointly owned CSC could be useful in order to ensure availability for lower cost.
4. HMNZS Canterbury and the additional proposed New Zealand “LPD” provide a capability desired by Canada, but that is not in the NSS. Plus, Canada should be willing to foot some of the costs.

FWIW. Take care

I think the RCN would find closer cooperation with New Zealand quite agreeable. I have heard nothing but good comments from my Navy buddies about the RNZN, and its professionalism.

 

[alexsa]

I think the RCN would find closer cooperation with New Zealand quite agreeable. I have heard nothing but good comments from my Navy buddies about the RNZN, and its professionalism.

I would note that the commonwealth Navies have always worked well together and closer cooperation can only help...... BUT ... not sure how the proposed sharing of assets would work given the distances involved. This is particularly true of the AOR and OPV's and the fact that southern operations tend to be year round. Fishing vessels are no respecter of seasons and tend to be chased any time of the year. More to the point, if one or the other nation has a sudden need for a particular asset there is going to be quite a delay in getting that vessel in situ.

Added to this there is already cooperation between the RAN and the RNZN including the interchange of members of each navy to work on each others vessels. If the there is a serious regional threat thne close cooperation between the RAN and RNZN will be vital.

 

[Nighthawk.NZ]

Added to this there is already cooperation between the RAN and the RNZN including the interchange of members of each navy to work on each others vessels.

The RN, RCN, RAN and RNZN have regularly exchanged personal and have done so for many many years... even going back to the days I was in Pussers. It has even been used as to say we are undermanned due to having Aussie Sailors in the RNZN service... but the article would fail to say that that a similar number of Kiwi Sailors are serving in said commonwealth navies.

On saying that... are the powers that be going to increase the number of personal over the next few years due to the SOPV and said possible LPD or enhanced sealift... ???? (which personally the Endurance 170 would be the perfect fit)

 

[ngatimozart]

Reading the discussion of New Zealand purchasing Harry DeWolf class AOPSs reminds me of a question I had that may be worth a speculative post. Should New Zealand and Canada forge a close cooperative defence agreement (at least for their navies)?

Even though New Zealand is spending less money, it appears that a lot of what the two countries are doing is complementary.

1. The AOPS is certainly an option for New Zealand and with opposite seasons you could easily envision some sort of sharing agreement. A jointly owned ship may even be a possibility.
2. Pooling UNREP ships results in a fleet of three very capable ships. Certainly better for scheduling than one or two each. The MV Asterix could be useful, too.
3. Adding one or two CSCs for New Zealand later in the program after the costs drop may be an option. Again, an additional jointly owned CSC could be useful in order to ensure availability for lower cost.
4. HMNZS Canterbury and the additional proposed New Zealand “LPD” provide a capability desired by Canada, but that is not in the NSS. Plus, Canada should be willing to foot some of the costs.

FWIW. Take care

Most of our focus is the Asia Pacific in a box from 40°N to Antarctica and 100°E to 120°W, plus the Middle East because that's where most of our oil comes from.

In a NZ context we'd probably use the AOPS during the winter for EEZ patrol work around the South Island, Chatham Islands and sub Antarctic Islands. There can be quite big and lively seas around those areas especially during the winter, and those ships would be able to handle the conditions. A big Canadian icebreaker down here in the summer would be handy for cutting a channel into McMurdo.

We would have sovereignity problems with a joint CSC, because we are not part of NATO, although we do work with it, and there will always be areas where one country will not be agreeable to the ship partaking in a certain course of action. We don't share owneship of a ship with Australia and we are basically family with them, except in sport - we just hate each others guts when it comes to sport.

 

[Stampede]

Just a thought re New Zealand's future Fleet.

Could there be some merit in rolling the OPV and ANZAC replacement into a common hull.
A class of ship that can be an ASW asset to an allied task force under its protective umbrella of high end defence systems and be a more robust OPV in the constabulary role.
Suggest unless some serious funds were available, the aspiration of three large destroyers is beyond NZ.
If the Destroyer go head was given, it may well impact on the funds for the rest of the fleet and also the other services.
Suggest 5 to 6 Off shore combatants may be more realistic.
Medium sized helicopter capable flight deck with hangar supported by sufficient helicopter numbers
35 to 57 mm main gun to provide a CIWS and usefull constabulary fire-power
Seaceptor SAM ,.NULKA style Decoys and short ranged torpedoes.

Something in the 2000 to 2500 t size should be appropriate with a length around the 100m mark.
Automation and cleaver design should make this concept realistic
A ship with good sea keeping with long range may be more appropriate than a mixed fleet.
With potentially a future combination of a three supply / Amphibious ship group, New Zealand would have a sovereign capability to deploy a three ship sized task force within the region.

It may not take on a naval tiger, but would it have done so with only three destroyers anyway!

Suggest for high end strike, use and add numbers to the P8 force
Something to consider

Regards S

 

[Calculus]

We would have sovereignity problems with a joint CSC, because we are not part of NATO, although we do work with it, and there will always be areas where one country will not be agreeable to the ship partaking in a certain course of action.

Agreed. Sharing a HADR ship is one thing, and difficult enough given some of the operational and cultural differences between the two navies (despite the many similarities), but a combatant is another thing altogether.

 

[MrConservative]

Just a thought re New Zealand's future Fleet.

Could there be some merit in rolling the OPV and ANZAC replacement into a common hull.
A class of ship that can be an ASW asset to an allied task force under its protective umbrella of high end defence systems and be a more robust OPV in the constabulary role.
Suggest unless some serious funds were available, the aspiration of three large destroyers is beyond NZ.
If the Destroyer go head was given, it may well impact on the funds for the rest of the fleet and also the other services.
Suggest 5 to 6 Off shore combatants may be more realistic.
Medium sized helicopter capable flight deck with hangar supported by sufficient helicopter numbers
35 to 57 mm main gun to provide a CIWS and usefull constabulary fire-power
Seaceptor SAM ,.NULKA style Decoys and short ranged torpedoes.

Something in the 2000 to 2500 t size should be appropriate with a length around the 100m mark.
Automation and cleaver design should make this concept realistic
A ship with good sea keeping with long range may be more appropriate than a mixed fleet.
With potentially a future combination of a three supply / Amphibious ship group, New Zealand would have a sovereign capability to deploy a three ship sized task force within the region.

It may not take on a naval tiger, but would it have done so with only three destroyers anyway!

Suggest for high end strike, use and add numbers to the P8 force
Something to consider

Regards S

2000-2500 tonnes does not have the endurance/range - we are a long way away with a lot of water between us and everything. That might be reasonable solution in the Baltics or Med not where we are in the world - both geographically and increasingly strategically.

It may have a little bit of merit if it was along the lines of a Iver F370 / Absalon mix. A couple/three reasonably high end surface combatants and couple/three lower end in fit-out patrol vessels that could be tricked up if need be but have capacity and space to do a range of tasks - like play mother to MCM gear, survey remotes, assist in HADR & SASO et al.

The thing is Stampede. NZ can afford a hell of a lot more on defence than it lets on.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

Stampede the Vard 7 100 in either of the two designs above would meet your requirements with a few additions. A more fighty ship capable of non peer naval actions but able to support more than the current OPVs. Using the latest towed array sonar system from a seacan along with lightweight torpedoes from the embarked helo and containerized torpedoes this would cover ASW operations if need be. I too believe a more effective bow gun such as the BAE 57mm would be more appropriate.

As MrC says NZ can afford a higher expenditure on defence but chooses not to. I am concerned that T26 is too much ship. A T31 sized vessel would seem more appropriate at this point IMHO.

As to the SOPV I agree that a HDW would serve the RNZN well. In order to faciliate the process hull number 4 should be sold to the RNZN with minor modifications to meet your needs. The build process would be perfected and glitches worked out by #4. Most systems are standard across the two fleets particularly CMS 330. With its large hangar designed for the CH148 Cyclone the RNZN should have no trouble storing a Sprite and some form of RPAS at the same time. Its cargo capacity and vehicle deck will help with HADR when needed.

Irving Shipyard would welcome the work and it would be another feather in Canadas shipbuilding revival with Seaspan refitting your ANZACs and Halifax based Irving building your SOPV.

 

[Redlands18]

2000-2500 tonnes does not have the endurance/range - we are a long way away with a lot of water between us and everything. That might be reasonable solution in the Baltics or Med not where we are in the world - both geographically and increasingly strategically.

It may have a little bit of merit if it was along the lines of a Iver F370 / Absalon mix. A couple/three reasonably high end surface combatants and couple/three lower end in fit-out patrol vessels that could be tricked up if need be but have capacity and space to do a range of tasks - like play mother to MCM gear, survey remotes, assist in HADR & SASO et al.

The thing is Stampede. NZ can afford a hell of a lot more on defence than it lets on.

PPA Class Multi-purpose Offshore Patrol Vessels, Italian Navy
Maybe look at what the Italians are doing with their PPA project, using the same Hull, machinery and Superstructure to produce a range of ships from a OCV to a full on Frigate.

 

[MrConservative]

I am concerned that T26 is too much ship. A T31 sized vessel would seem more appropriate at this point IMHO.

Nonsense Nova. The A140 (Iver F370) chosen for the Type 31 competition with the capacity for 32 Mk 41 VLS, 24 Mk 56 VLS and 16 deck launched Block II SSM's plus the scope for Mk 45 Mod 2 being selected - is not that much smaller than the Type 26.

New Zealand faces exactly the same geo-strategic military threats as Australia and Canada which necessitates having a comparable surface combatant capability in its next Frigate. It does not exist in some sort of Woke alternative universe.

I am concerned that people both inside and outside NZ here think having some half arsed low end solution is all that NZ needs or could afford. NZ has the fiscal capacity and resources right now to buy four Type 26 Frigates along with doubling the OPV fleet if it choose too.

 

[MrConservative]

PPA Class Multi-purpose Offshore Patrol Vessels, Italian Navy
Maybe look at what the Italians are doing with their PPA project, using the same Hull, machinery and Superstructure to produce a range of ships from a OCV to a full on Frigate.

Things are worth looking at.

BUT - The reality is the RNZN / NZ Govt are not going to depart from a non FVEY's solution be it Type 26, Type 31 or FFG(X) in the surface combatant role. As for OPV's - the present VARD 7-85 Protector designs will inform the SOPV and the following future OPV's. If the VARD 7-100 ICE / AOPS design is selected as the SOPV then dollars to donuts the VARD 7-100/110 design is looking pretty good with respect to cross fleet synergies from human factors to training to sustainment.

So yes things are worth looking at as an "academic" exercise but orthodoxy will prevail.

 

[alexsa]

PPA Class Multi-purpose Offshore Patrol Vessels, Italian Navy
Maybe look at what the Italians are doing with their PPA project, using the same Hull, machinery and Superstructure to produce a range of ships from a OCV to a full on Frigate.

OK, we need to be careful in assuming that a good looking hull can do anything. The OPV version of this has a range of 5000nm ....but if you up arm the vessel you chew up fuel capacity and reduce the range. It is a compromise that come with smaller ships. Given it is a common hull form in respect of LBP/LOA and beam the choice is run the ship deeper (less freeboard and more resistance) or carry less fuel ... or both.

Added to that ... is the vessel suited to our operational area? Heating, insulation and ice strengtherning for southern ocean operations are again going to add weight and will basically need a redesign of the hull.

Even if you are not going into ice you will almost certainly require additional strengtherning of the forward structure to withstand the seas in that area. By way of an example the steel used in the Hobart DDG is different to that used onthe Spanish F100 to F105 series to cater for cold shock and normalisation of the hull. Another example was the reinforcing required of forward structure of the design of the current RNZN OPV to cater for the period and height of expected seas in the souther ocean.

It is not a case of looking at a ship and then trying to make it work. It really is acase of figuring out what you really need and buying something that fits ....... which has growth potential to cater for a change in circumstances. A compromise to try and make a OPV a top end frigate or a frigate a southern ocean OPV may end up with something that is not very good at either.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

MrC at an average of $3 billion per T26 is there a realistic chance that the NZG today, tomorrow or at anytime will expend this kind of coin for a single hull? I cant see it happening.

As has been stated numerous times by many on DT the best chance for an ANZAC replacement is a South Korean build of a proven design.

I may be wrong, as I was with the P8, but I just cant see the NZG regardless of party able to get support for such a massive outlay. Stampede is likely on the right track with the government going with more hulls with less capability. Not a militarily correct decision but your governments haven't really done the correct thing on many defence purchases. LAV3, ACF, huey replacement program, all had there failings. Canada hasn't got a good track record either on good military acquisition and we need to improve sooner rather than later. At least NZ seems to have fixed its process where we havent got a clue.

 

[Milne Bay]

MrC at an average of $3 billion per T26 is there a realistic chance that the NZG today, tomorrow or at anytime will expend this kind of coin for a single hull? I cant see it happening.

As has been stated numerous times by many on DT the best chance for an ANZAC replacement is a South Korean build of a proven design.

I may be wrong, as I was with the P8, but I just cant see the NZG regardless of party able to get support for such a massive outlay. Stampede is likely on the right track with the government going with more hulls with less capability. Not a militarily correct decision but your governments haven't really done the correct thing on many defence purchases. LAV3, ACF, huey replacement program, all had there failings. Canada hasn't got a good track record either on good military acquisition and we need to improve sooner rather than later. At least NZ seems to have fixed its process where we havent got a clue.

You are most likely correct in the assumption that T26 types are beyond what the NZ government is seeking.
More hulls with less capability isn't always a bad thing, and in the context of a complementary force to that of the RAN, probably a better solution and better value for money.
MB

 

[Todjaeger]

MrC at an average of $3 billion per T26 is there a realistic chance that the NZG today, tomorrow or at anytime will expend this kind of coin for a single hull? I cant see it happening.

As has been stated numerous times by many on DT the best chance for an ANZAC replacement is a South Korean build of a proven design.

I may be wrong, as I was with the P8, but I just cant see the NZG regardless of party able to get support for such a massive outlay. Stampede is likely on the right track with the government going with more hulls with less capability. Not a militarily correct decision but your governments haven't really done the correct thing on many defence purchases. LAV3, ACF, huey replacement program, all had there failings. Canada hasn't got a good track record either on good military acquisition and we need to improve sooner rather than later. At least NZ seems to have fixed its process where we havent got a clue.

A great deal will depend on how the strategic outlook changes (or becomes more apparent) in the run up to the start of the RNZN's Future Frigate programme, as well as what the projected situation will be post-2030. The GotD might not be looking to spend that kind of coin, but it is quite possible that they might determine that a more substantial frigate capability is required to deal with existing and emerging threats.

As it stands, the RNZN's ANZAC-class frigates once their upgrades are completed will be, IMO, barely adequate for a range of threats with limited ASuW and ASW capabilities. With increases in competition for resources and therefore conflict in the Asia-Pacific region likely in the coming years, the NZG might be forced to spend more than they want to to acquire what is needed, or else Kiwis might be forced to adapt to changed circumstances that are disadvantageous to them but that their nation is otherwise unable to effect improvement on.

As for the RNZN replacing the OPV's and frigates with a common vessel which is more capable than an OPV but less than a frigate... That IMO would be a plan to bring about the demise of the RNZN combatant capability.

 

[Milne Bay]

Same as the ACF. Leaving the four P8s as the sole protector of NZ sovereignty.

I don't believe that NZ would have to face threats to its sovereignty on its own.
Anyone posing a major threat that country will also be posing a threat to Australia in my opinion.
NZ won't be on its own
MB

 

[alexsa]

MrC at an average of $3 billion per T26 is there a realistic chance that the NZG today, tomorrow or at anytime will expend this kind of coin for a single hull? I cant see it happening.

As has been stated numerous times by many on DT the best chance for an ANZAC replacement is a South Korean build of a proven design.

I may be wrong, as I was with the P8, but I just cant see the NZG regardless of party able to get support for such a massive outlay. Stampede is likely on the right track with the government going with more hulls with less capability. Not a militarily correct decision but your governments haven't really done the correct thing on many defence purchases. LAV3, ACF, huey replacement program, all had there failings. Canada hasn't got a good track record either on good military acquisition and we need to improve sooner rather than later. At least NZ seems to have fixed its process where we havent got a clue.

Out of curiosity can you advise on where the 3 billion per ship figure was drawn from? The BAE contract for the first three T26 is reported as 3.7 billion pounds and as far as I am aware that includes set to work costs (again I am happy to be corrected) and some sunk costs. That is 4.85billion USD for three vessels which is 1.61 billion USD per vessel if any sunk costs are included in that sum.

Care needs to be taken in quoting costs as many batch contracts include set to work and sunk costs (such as detailed design work) and the establishment of a logistic train that do not necessary flow on to subsequent hulls.

The Hunter Class project is set to cost 35 billion AUD (23.5 billion USD) and that does include significant sunk costs in the estabishment of a new ship yard, set costs, training colleges for skills and the establishment of support infrastructure for the class and ongoing support arrangements (which could be utilsied by the RNZN if they did select the Hunter). That is based on figures at the time of the establishment of the project.

I am not presupposing or promoting an option but careful consideration of what cost means (and thereal capability of the vessel and real cost of all options) needs to be considered.

 

[MrConservative]

As it stands, the RNZN's ANZAC-class frigates once their upgrades are completed will be, IMO, barely adequate for a range of threats with limited ASuW and ASW capabilities.

To be fair the ASW side of the package is stronger than the ASuW but the whole point in 2014 was to get an adequate stop gap vessel out to 2030. Two good things out of the upgrade were selection of CMS330 and CAMMS.