Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[RegR]

I would honestly hope that the NZDF thinks long and hard about this before deciding to adopt (or develop and adopt) one of the NFH configurations for the NH90. As I understand it, of the current RNZN vessels only Canterbury and Aotearoa can fit a NH90-sized helicopter into the hangar. If the Seasprite replacement is to happen towards the end of this decade, but the current OPV's and frigates are not due to be replaced until some time in the 2030's, there would likely be several years where there would be not platforms but Canterbury or Aotearoa which would have helicopters embarked.

In addition, increased hangar space would be required for all new construction for RNZN vessels, but that would still require years of both preparation, and then actual construction, before embarking helicopters.

There would of course be concerns about maintenance and support issues, as well as Cpfh, but my greater concern would be about the NZDF actually having a gap where they could not make use of naval helicopters because one platform cannot be supported by the other.

Not to worry, as history has shown just because the tentative seasprite replacement date is 2028 that will mean we have at least another decade before any helo reaches any level of capability anyway the way this (or any) govt introduces a major capability.

I think it would be foolish to base our future fleets on our legacy fleets, especially on the basis of size and hangers and all for the sake of a few years. The ideal soloution would be to bite the bullet and either bring the frigate and OPV replacements forward or push the maritime helo replacements out (I think I already know which of the 2 they would opt for) but like I said chances are we will have at least a few sprites flying well past the posted dates, happens every time.

 

[Todjaeger]

Not to worry, as history has shown just because the tentative seasprite replacement date is 2028 that will mean we have at least another decade before any helo reaches any level of capability anyway the way this (or any) govt introduces a major capability.

I think it would be foolish to base our future fleets on our legacy fleets, especially on the basis of size and hangers and all for the sake of a few years. The ideal soloution would be to bite the bullet and either bring the frigate and OPV replacements forward or push the maritime helo replacements out (I think I already know which of the 2 they would opt for) but like I said chances are we will have at least a few sprites flying well past the posted dates, happens every time.

What I would be more concerned about is the NZDF selecting a replacement naval helicopter which they cannot realistically operate from RNZN vessels for several years, and therefore lose proficiency in doing so. A properly kitted out naval helicopter can provide a significant SA boost to a naval vessel, or even a TF. If the RNZN finds itself having to deploy frigates without such assets for a number of years, that would put the RNZN at a disadvantage especially if deploying into a potential conflict area. Also, if certain people within NZ and NZG see no helicopters embarked for a number of years, they might develop the notion that such a capability is not needed or VfM and decide to cut, or try and cut the funding required to sustain such a capability. A use it or lose it mentality.

Another potential risk would be for NZDF procurement to have the left and right hands not know what the other is doing. The replacement helicopter programme could be running and settle upon one particular platform, while the Future Frigate programme settles upon a design which might not accommodate the selected helicopter platform.

 

[RegR]

What I would be more concerned about is the NZDF selecting a replacement naval helicopter which they cannot realistically operate from RNZN vessels for several years, and therefore lose proficiency in doing so. A properly kitted out naval helicopter can provide a significant SA boost to a naval vessel, or even a TF. If the RNZN finds itself having to deploy frigates without such assets for a number of years, that would put the RNZN at a disadvantage especially if deploying into a potential conflict area. Also, if certain people within NZ and NZG see no helicopters embarked for a number of years, they might develop the notion that such a capability is not needed or VfM and decide to cut, or try and cut the funding required to sustain such a capability. A use it or lose it mentality.

Another potential risk would be for NZDF procurement to have the left and right hands not know what the other is doing. The replacement helicopter programme could be running and settle upon one particular platform, while the Future Frigate programme settles upon a design which might not accommodate the selected helicopter platform.

But then you limit your options right from the start by purchasing them for your current platform, unless of course you are purchasing a similarly sized or smaller platform...so the argument could then go both ways, we don't need large frigates and they fit on the OPVs so why not just get corvettes to replace the frigates and save even more!!

All new frigates and even most OPVs now cater for larger helos by design as navies realise the added potential of hanger space/ flex space. Like I said, we should really be purchasing the ships first or at least purchasing the helos as part of the frigate project otherwise it's all abit cart before the horse type of scenario and considering these are potentially 20/30/40 year capabilities not exactly something we can afford to get wrong in year 1.

 

[recce.k1]

I would honestly hope that the NZDF thinks long and hard about this before deciding to adopt (or develop and adopt) one of the NFH configurations for the NH90. As I understand it, of the current RNZN vessels only Canterbury and Aotearoa can fit a NH90-sized helicopter into the hangar. If the Seasprite replacement is to happen towards the end of this decade, but the current OPV's and frigates are not due to be replaced until some time in the 2030's, there would likely be several years where there would be not platforms but Canterbury or Aotearoa which would have helicopters embarked.

In addition, increased hangar space would be required for all new construction for RNZN vessels, but that would still require years of both preparation, and then actual construction, before embarking helicopters.

There would of course be concerns about maintenance and support issues, as well as Cpfh, but my greater concern would be about the NZDF actually having a gap where they could not make use of naval helicopters because one platform cannot be supported by the other.

Hi Tod, I don't believe it will be a major issue, the "Project Protector" vessel hangers (OPV's and HMNZS Canterbury) were designed to be the same size as the ANZAC Frigates (this was much mentioned back in the project days around the mid-2000's).

I understand the ANZAC Frigates' hangers were designed for the likes of a Seahawk sized helicopter (which makes sense as the Seahawk was in service with the RAN at the time on the Adelaide class FFG's, so was the "standard" of the time so-to-speak). And remember the smaller Seasprites only came about because of the cancelled Australian/Malaysian offshore patrol combatant (OPC) project, in which the Seasprites were repurposed for the Frigates.

So if the RAN were able to modify their ANZAC Frigate hangers to operate the MH-60R, then it follows in theory so should the RNZN ANZAC's, OPV's and Canterbury.

Which suggests a future RNZN Seasprite replacement could be something the size of the MH-60R or AW159 (if still available).

But I seem to recall some discussion on the RAN thread a few years back saying the MRH90/NH90/NFH90 wasn't a good fit for the (RAN) ANZAC Frigate hangers (hopefully one of the aussies on here could clear that up).

The other thing is, I doubt the NZDF would be advancing a case to replace the Seasprites if they wouldn't fit in existing vessel hangers!

I do support Reg's suggestion of "purchasing the helos as part of the frigate project" in theory, but I guess with time running out on the Seasprite by the end of this decade, and the ANZAC replacements being pushed out to at least the mid-late 2030's, by then the Seasprites will likely be inoperable by then, which would leave a serious capability gap failure (non-available helos)! Plus there could be a new generation of naval helos in the planning pipeline by then.

Perhaps an alternative solution could be using an interim helo platform (roughly 2029-2039 on the current ANZAC's)? The RNZN did this in the later 1990's by obtaining Seasprite SH-2F models for a while until the new build SH-2G's were ready in the early/mid-2000's.

Kaman probably couldn't come up with an interim solution but the likes of Sikorsky probably could (eg refurbished second-hand Seahawks).

And, for better or worse, it's one way for this government to make savings (cuts) in the defence capability plan.

 

[RegR]

Hi Tod, I don't believe it will be a major issue, the "Project Protector" vessel hangers (OPV's and HMNZS Canterbury) were designed to be the same size as the ANZAC Frigates (this was much mentioned back in the project days around the mid-2000's).

I understand the ANZAC Frigates' hangers were designed for the likes of a Seahawk sized helicopter (which makes sense as the Seahawk was in service with the RAN at the time on the Adelaide class FFG's, so was the "standard" of the time so-to-speak). And remember the smaller Seasprites only came about because of the cancelled Australian/Malaysian offshore patrol combatant (OPC) project, in which the Seasprites were repurposed for the Frigates.

So if the RAN were able to modify their ANZAC Frigate hangers to operate the MH-60R, then it follows in theory so should the RNZN ANZAC's, OPV's and Canterbury.

Which suggests a future RNZN Seasprite replacement could be something the size of the MH-60R or AW159 (if still available).

But I seem to recall some discussion on the RAN thread a few years back saying the MRH90/NH90/NFH90 wasn't a good fit for the (RAN) ANZAC Frigate hangers (hopefully one of the aussies on here could clear that up).

The other thing is, I doubt the NZDF would be advancing a case to replace the Seasprites if they wouldn't fit in existing vessel hangers!

I do support Reg's suggestion of "purchasing the helos as part of the frigate project" in theory, but I guess with time running out on the Seasprite by the end of this decade, and the ANZAC replacements being pushed out to at least the mid-late 2030's, by then the Seasprites will likely be inoperable by then, which would leave a serious capability gap failure (non-available helos)! Plus there could be a new generation of naval helos in the planning pipeline by then.

Perhaps an alternative solution could be using an interim helo platform (roughly 2029-2039 on the current ANZAC's)? The RNZN did this in the later 1990's by obtaining Seasprite SH-2F models for a while until the new build SH-2G's were ready in the early/mid-2000's.

Kaman probably couldn't come up with an interim solution but the likes of Sikorsky probably could (eg refurbished second-hand Seahawks).

And, for better or worse, it's one way for this government to make savings (cuts) in the defence capability plan.

Nah, Cants hangers are a lot bigger than the ANZACs and can easily accommodate an NH90 sized helo with room to swing a cat, with a 90 on an ANZAC you could only swing a bees....a bee.

 

[ngatimozart]

The ROKN acquired 8 AW159 Wildcats as the first batch of their Maritime Operational Helicopter Program. Last year they ordered the second batch, but the ROKN originally wanted to single source the Wildcat. However the DAPA rules stipulate that single sourcing may only occur after 2 failed competitions. Therefore the the ROKN had to hold a competition for Batch 2 with the AW159, MH-60R, and the NH90 NFH being submitted. The MH-60R won the competition and the ROKN has ordered 12.

The AW159 is only operated by 4 navies, RN, ROKN, Bangladesh, and Malaysia, and if we acquired we could end up in a similar situation to that of the Wasp and the Seasprite. Secondly we would have to pay for the integration of the Mk-54 LWT and the Penguin AShM onto the aircraft. TBH it is a far to risky option when the 2 navies that we work the most, RAN & USN, both operate the MH-60R. It has a far larger production base and a larger user base.

Finally I agree that the NH90 NFH isn't a starter mostly because of acquisition costs, CPFH, cost of integration of weapons.

 

[Todjaeger]

Hi Tod, I don't believe it will be a major issue, the "Project Protector" vessel hangers (OPV's and HMNZS Canterbury) were designed to be the same size as the ANZAC Frigates (this was much mentioned back in the project days around the mid-2000's).

I understand the ANZAC Frigates' hangers were designed for the likes of a Seahawk sized helicopter (which makes sense as the Seahawk was in service with the RAN at the time on the Adelaide class FFG's, so was the "standard" of the time so-to-speak). And remember the smaller Seasprites only came about because of the cancelled Australian/Malaysian offshore patrol combatant (OPC) project, in which the Seasprites were repurposed for the Frigates.

So if the RAN were able to modify their ANZAC Frigate hangers to operate the MH-60R, then it follows in theory so should the RNZN ANZAC's, OPV's and Canterbury.

Which suggests a future RNZN Seasprite replacement could be something the size of the MH-60R or AW159 (if still available).

But I seem to recall some discussion on the RAN thread a few years back saying the MRH90/NH90/NFH90 wasn't a good fit for the (RAN) ANZAC Frigate hangers (hopefully one of the aussies on here could clear that up).

The other thing is, I doubt the NZDF would be advancing a case to replace the Seasprites if they wouldn't fit in existing vessel hangers!

I do support Reg's suggestion of "purchasing the helos as part of the frigate project" in theory, but I guess with time running out on the Seasprite by the end of this decade, and the ANZAC replacements being pushed out to at least the mid-late 2030's, by then the Seasprites will likely be inoperable by then, which would leave a serious capability gap failure (non-available helos)! Plus there could be a new generation of naval helos in the planning pipeline by then.

Perhaps an alternative solution could be using an interim helo platform (roughly 2029-2039 on the current ANZAC's)? The RNZN did this in the later 1990's by obtaining Seasprite SH-2F models for a while until the new build SH-2G's were ready in the early/mid-2000's.

Kaman probably couldn't come up with an interim solution but the likes of Sikorsky probably could (eg refurbished second-hand Seahawks).

And, for better or worse, it's one way for this government to make savings (cuts) in the defence capability plan.

Canterbury and Aotearoa can both accommodate NH90-sized helicopters. The frigates can fit a Seahawk (S-70B) sized helicopter, but were found to be too small/tight to realistically fit a NH90-sized helicopter. IIRC GF used the line "not enough room to swing a bee's dick" to describe the space available with an NH90 in an ANZAC-class frigate's hangar.

From my POV, if the Seasprites are going to need to be replaced around 2028/29-ish, then planning needs to start soon, if not already be underway, given how long it can take for platform selections and fitouts to be made, contracts signed, then platforms built and delivered. Failure to start this in time could mean that either the Seasprites need to be kept operational longer than planned (which might not be an option depending on the availability of parts) or the NZDF might not have a viable, available when needed naval helicopter capability. This could be a repeat of earlier issues experienced by the C-130H fleet where missions had to be scrubbed because faults were detected in the one available, operational Hercules when it went to take off on a mission. IIRC the mission was to fly to Thailand to evac Kiwis stranded there during a period of civil unrest.

I do think the RNZN also needs to consider working to "future-proof" plans for new vessel acquisitions by requiring the helipad and hangar to be sufficiently large and reinforced to permit the landing of larger, heavylift rotary aviation including designs used by other nations in the region. It might be too late for the Aotearoa to be able to permit the landing of a Merlin or Chinook helicopter, but the future SOPV could be designed to do so, and so could the future frigates.

 

[John Fedup]

The Harry DeWolf AOPS can accommodate both the Cormorant (Merlin derivative) and the CH-148, both larger than the NH90. Whether Irving can offer a competitive deal off their hot production line for NZ will be interesting assuming this vessel is suitable.

 

[Nighthawk.NZ]

It might be too late for the Aotearoa to be able to permit the landing of a Merlin or Chinook helicopter, but the future SOPV could be designed to do so, and so could the future frigates.

Pretty sure HMNZS Aotearoa's flight deck can accommodate up to a Chinook helicopter... pretty sure... however I will admit not 100% sure. The hanger can accommodate the NH-90 but not anything much larger than that... Similar to HMNZS Canterbury... can land the Chinook but that's it...

 

[Rob c]

Bugger double.

 

[Rob c]

Ok not taking sides, but spend an hour by making a list of currently operational core (major) capabilities (fleets, types etc) in each NZDF force component (ie: NZ Army, RNZAF, RNZN) then jot down beside it the Govt that ordered the capability.. the importance is who ordered it & therefore committed $$$... think you'd be surprised!

An interesting addition would be the project that were cancelled or significantly reduced. While I was at defence HQ , I found out about some. The RNZAF asked for a total of 13 airframes for the transport and ASW role ( they were looking at a ASW C130 as an option) but that got wound back to 8 then increased to 10. They also asked for 18 Skyhawks but that was reduced to 14. It was said that this was a direct order from Keith Holysmoke. The Navy did a lot of work to get a modern Dutch frigate on line in the late 1970's that was cancelled at the last minute. The Army wanted the Air Force to have a total of 20 UH 1H,s but this was scrapped at the final hurdle and the was a long list of projects that got started and the pollies said no to earlier in the process.

 

[recce.k1]

Canterbury and Aotearoa can both accommodate NH90-sized helicopters. The frigates can fit a Seahawk (S-70B) sized helicopter, but were found to be too small/tight to realistically fit a NH90-sized helicopter. IIRC GF used the line "not enough room to swing a bee's dick" to describe the space available with an NH90 in an ANZAC-class frigate's hangar.

From my POV, if the Seasprites are going to need to be replaced around 2028/29-ish, then planning needs to start soon, if not already be underway, given how long it can take for platform selections and fitouts to be made, contracts signed, then platforms built and delivered. Failure to start this in time could mean that either the Seasprites need to be kept operational longer than planned (which might not be an option depending on the availability of parts) or the NZDF might not have a viable, available when needed naval helicopter capability. This could be a repeat of earlier issues experienced by the C-130H fleet where missions had to be scrubbed because faults were detected in the one available, operational Hercules when it went to take off on a mission. IIRC the mission was to fly to Thailand to evac Kiwis stranded there during a period of civil unrest.

I do think the RNZN also needs to consider working to "future-proof" plans for new vessel acquisitions by requiring the helipad and hangar to be sufficiently large and reinforced to permit the landing of larger, heavylift rotary aviation including designs used by other nations in the region. It might be too late for the Aotearoa to be able to permit the landing of a Merlin or Chinook helicopter, but the future SOPV could be designed to do so, and so could the future frigates.

Excellent points, fully agree, I also agree with the need to "future proof" new vessels acquisitions with larger helipads and hangers. I was surprised the AOR Aotearoa and its hanger was designed for the NH90, rather than say the larger and longer Merlin, as larger helos are a feature of allied navies and who knows what the future holds. But I guess the consideration was why would an AOR require to store such a large helo, when mostly a helo would likely be a visiting one conducting vertrep etc?

I think Nighthawk could be on the money with Aotearoa's flight deck being able to accommodate a Chinook though (just like Canterbury), it certainly looks large enough but it would be great to have that confirmed one way or another (because I don't think it has).

An interesting addition would be the project that were cancelled or significantly reduced. ........

The Navy did a lot of work to get a modern Dutch frigate on line in the late 1970's that was cancelled at the last minute.

I recall that, there was a lot of (generally positive or perhaps neutral would be more accurate) media coverage at the time. It was to replace the two Type 12M Rothesay class ASW Frigates with Dutch Kortenaer ASW Frigates. IIRC the attractions were reduced crewing (therefore reduced operational costs), gas turbine propulsion systems, and modern weapon systems. But at the end of the day the funding wasn't forthcoming.

The other type under consideration was the US Oliver Hazard Perry, following Australian plans to acquire them. These were much more expensive though and IIRC the government was much less inclined to support their purchase.

As it was so long ago I'm now not clear on the timing of all this, IIRC the OHP proposal came after the Kortenaer proposal? If so why would the RNZN advocate for a more expensive vessel after a (somewhat) cheaper type was rejected? Or was it because the RNZN could see an opportunity to piggy-back on RAN plans to acquire additional OHP's (the Adelaide class) locally built in Australia, to eventually replace the other two other Type 12I Leanders? If so, a possible fore-runner to the joint ANZAC Class project (that wasn't to be)?

Also around the late 70's/1980 there were also public discussions of replacing the Wasp naval helos with the Sea Lynx (which despite the chatter didn't eventuate). I guess this was in relation to should new vessels be aquired (as opposed to upgrading the Type 12I hangers, which eventually happened in the 1990's to accommodate the Kaman SH-2F acquisitions)?

 

[Nighthawk.NZ]

Don't know if this has been posted here before or not... it's an interesting read... admittedly I haven't finished reading it all

https://navalinstitute.com.au/designing-a-fleet/

Designing a Fleet
by Andrew Watts ex RNZN

 

[MrConservative]

Don't know if this has been posted here before or not... it's an interesting read... admittedly I haven't finished reading it all

https://navalinstitute.com.au/designing-a-fleet/
Designing a Fleet
by Andrew Watts ex RNZN

It has but worth putting it up again. First published in the RNZN Journal last year. Here is the link to the journal for a bit more reading material during lockdown.

https://www.nzdf.mil.nz/assets/publication/Professional-Journal-of-the-Royal-New-Zealand-Navy-December-2020_online.pdf

Regards, MrC

 

[ngatimozart]

Don't know if this has been posted here before or not... it's an interesting read... admittedly I haven't finished reading it all

https://navalinstitute.com.au/designing-a-fleet/
Designing a Fleet
by Andrew Watts ex RNZN

Read it and yes it's an interesting concept. He suggests rolling a FFG / LHD / LOSC into one platform and acquiring three of them. Technically feasible but is it worth the effort? You can multi-role to much and lose specific necessary capabilities and skills. The other point is a 24 - knot speed fast enough WRT to ASW? However it's worth investigating nevertheless.

The hull form will dictate the speed through the water. We know that flat decks can achieve 30+ knots with the right hull form and the rest is just the application of power. More power So we will have to choose a really efficient propulsion system that is quiet and efficiently transfers the power from the engines to the propellers. In my mind a CODEG would be the option reducing the need for long prop shafts.

Then the sensors and weapons would have to be FFG capable. In the paper the 76mm gun was suggested but I would argue that the Oto Melera 127mm gun would be a better capability and mounted forward of the island. An Oto Melera 76mm Super Rapid gun should be mounted abaft the island. 32 Mk-41 VLS cells and 16 AShM canister launchers. Two triple Mk-32 launchers and LIG-N1 30mm CIWS II on each corner of the flight deck. The sensors would have to be something along the lines of the RCN CSC fitout.

Whether this is a viable option or not I don't know.

 

[Lucasnz]

Read it and yes it's an interesting concept. He suggests rolling a FFG / LHD / LOSC into one platform and acquiring three of them. Technically feasible but is it worth the effort? You can multi-role to much and lose specific necessary capabilities and skills. The other point is a 24 - knot speed fast enough WRT to ASW? However it's worth investigating nevertheless.

.... Whether this is a viable option or not I don't know.

Speed profiles are quite interesting and there are some published profiles online for time @ speed. On commentary on the USCG Cutters indicated around 85% of time was at 15knots or less, while a OHP frigate achieved 99% of tasking at speeds of 22kts or less. Operational tasking speeds were higher. The files I had on these are archived on a disk somewhere, but there were savings to be made in seeking a lower overall top speed. It would be interesting to see the time @ speed profiles of the ANZAC and OPV.

I'm not adverse to the proposal, but it does seem to be a case of jack of all trades master of none. Is this what the RNZN are thinking about in order to provide greater flexibility with a limited fleet size and multiple classes of ships. Modularity needs to be approached with a bit of caution. The Danes kept the module concept but near the end of the SF300 patrol craft lives they were assigned designated roles. Either way a shift to more generalist ships (i.e. Damen Crossover combatant) would still require a significant uplift in aviation capability across the NZDF in order to maximize the capability. Maybe we could reinvent the Kiev class

 

[Rob c]

Speed profiles are quite interesting and there are some published profiles online for time @ speed. On commentary on the USCG Cutters indicated around 85% of time was at 15knots or less, while a OHP frigate achieved 99% of tasking at speeds of 22kts or less. Operational tasking speeds were higher. The files I had on these are archived on a disk somewhere, but there were savings to be made in seeking a lower overall top speed. It would be interesting to see the time @ speed profiles of the ANZAC and OPV.

My personal view of speed requirements is that the the required speed is not the speed you do most of the time, eg the frigates 22kts for 99% of the time, but the speed you need to do when the crap hits the fan. This is the speed that may keep you alive and make you an effective combat unit. I have a friend who was in the navy down at Wellington HQ during the finalization of the ANZAC frigate specifications. and he said that Treasury was using a similar argument to try and get the gas turbines deleted all together from the ANZAC design, as a cost saving measure. His information was that Treasuries on both sides of the ditch got one turbine removed (the original design had 2) but in the end the redesign of the gearboxes for this too work, cost just as much as the what was meant to be saved.

 

[Nighthawk.NZ]

My personal view of speed requirements is that the the required speed is not the speed you do most of the time, eg the frigates 22kts for 99% of the time, but the speed you need to do when the crap hits the fan.

The speed given in most stats is a sustainable speed or for longer durations... Their top speed is usually kept a secret(ish) and is a burst speed or a speed can not be maintained for too long is usually much higher... like you said speed to get them out of the crap if shit hits the fan...

So example the 27+kts that HMNZS Te Kaha and Te Mana can do can be sustained for a lot longer period of time... but their top speed is probably 30+knots. (I don't know their burst speed only heard rumors)

I remember doing speed trials for F69 HMNZS Wellington, we hit 33+knots held that speed for about half an hour... but her speed in the long-duration tests was about 27knot's ...

 

[Shanesworld]

Speed profiles are quite interesting and there are some published profiles online for time @ speed. On commentary on the USCG Cutters indicated around 85% of time was at 15knots or less, while a OHP frigate achieved 99% of tasking at speeds of 22kts or less. Operational tasking speeds were higher. The files I had on these are archived on a disk somewhere, but there were savings to be made in seeking a lower overall top speed. It would be interesting to see the time @ speed profiles of the ANZAC and OPV.

I'm not adverse to the proposal, but it does seem to be a case of jack of all trades master of none. Is this what the RNZN are thinking about in order to provide greater flexibility with a limited fleet size and multiple classes of ships. Modularity needs to be approached with a bit of caution. The Danes kept the module concept but near the end of the SF300 patrol craft lives they were assigned designated roles. Either way a shift to more generalist ships (i.e. Damen Crossover combatant) would still require a significant uplift in aviation capability across the NZDF in order to maximize the capability. Maybe we could reinvent the Kiev class

Maybe throw the minsk on a trailer, lick of paint? New kitchen and bathroom? Nz has plenty of experience with reno's

The Sad Story Of How This Soviet Aircraft Carrier Ended Up Rotting In A Landlocked Chinese Lagoon

The Kiev class carrier Minsk was saved from the scrapyard after the fall of the Soviet Union, but is now wasting away 50 miles northwest of Shanghai.

www.thedrive.com

 

[chis73]

From what I've read, mostly RN stuff, a GP frigate (eg. ANZAC) spends most of its time operating at 15-18kts, whereas a specialist ASW frigate (eg. Type 23) operates on a more sprint-and-drift approach (to use the towed array sonar it drifts at give-or-take 5 kts, then has to kick into high gear at > 20kts to get back into position in the task group). For the RNZN, we tend to see more of the GP frigate profile (more than most other navies given the long transits we tend to do). Whether to design our next frigate for the GP profile is debatable, given the increase in submarines in the Pacific. Even an ASW frigate like the Type 23 spends most of it's time (in peacetime) operating as a GP frigate. The Type 23 gets by tolerably well as a GP frigate, certainly better than the Leander ever did (it's short range was due to the fact that they removed the cruise turbines the Type 12 design originally had, the connecting gearbox didn't work if I recall. In the Leander, the cruise turbine spaces were taken by the fin stabilizers to allow the helo to operate at higher sea states).

One possible model I've considered for a future RNZN frigate would be to adopt the Type 23's CODLAG propulsion system (the Diesel Electric would give excellent ASW slow-speed performance and an excellent range at a modest, maybe a little slow, cruise speed (<15kts). If you replaced the twin Speys with a single gas turbine, that might give you more internal space, for extra fuel, or to up the armament a little (say a pair of twin 40mm Dardo CIWS mounts in place of the 30mm cannons amidships). Going to a single GT would need a more complicated/heavier gearbox though (but no different than that on the ANZAC). If you could get the WR-21 gas turbine to work then that engine (in terms of power & efficiency) would just about be perfect. Unlike most gas turbines it could offer good efficiency on GT at low power levels. You could then run efficiently at 5kts & 15kts on diesel electric, >28kts on gas turbine at full speed, and perhaps also at a >20kt canter for high speed trans-tasman transits.