Exactly, the difference is far less massive than it can appear to be. And that’s before considering Hunter would also bring further NZ Economic benefit as there’s already NZ suppliers involved from memory. Additionally, AU and ANZ could share and manage sustainment and in turn maintenance costs in the long run.
Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
It would make alot of sense (especially if NZ could be (convinced to be) integrated into the Aust shipbuilding programme (in a full and proper sense not just the Hunter project). It would do a lot for Aus/NZ Closer Defence Relations, mean that the Aus & NZ Gov would committ to long term planning (naval capabilities and coverage etc) .... especially if NZ industry could join in, as they did with the ANZAC Frigate programme, meaning that NZG accepts the higher costs associated with (continuous) Australian ship building with continuous NZ industry participation (and resultant taxes and spending stimulating jobs and economic development).
According to Page 7 of the report RAND suggests these higher costs could be reduced (and hopefully be more palatable for the NZG)?
So for the RNZN, it means they have (continuous) vessels available (no matter which class/capability), as sometimes RNZN seems to be hit with key personnel resigning due to the lack of opportunities to go to sea etc). Also good for recruiting (stable career prospects and promotion opportunities etc).
But back to the Hunters, it would make sense for the RNZN to be as fully as interoperable and capable as the RAN, wouldn't it be great for the RNZN if they could.
However would the USG sell to NZ some of the technology that the RAN Hunters will acquire (SPY and some of the missile tech)? If not, that means a RNZN "Hunter" wouldn't be "the same" as a RAN Hunter, meaning changes in the design? How will that work out?
Should be a good test of US-NZ relations. Alternatively could the CoA "acquire" these vessels (100% compatible as the RAN Hunters) and "lease" them to NZG? Could that be a workaround? From a NZ perspective it would also mean the dreaded "Capital Charge" probably wouldn't apply, meaning not inflating the defence budget which could be a major benefit for the NZG to "afford" 3 vessels not 2 ...
Shanesworld
Well-Known Member
Would Australia trust us to commit to such a programme after not fulfilling the options 3 and 4 on anzac after gaining alot of commercial benefit?
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Fully integrate ... meaning (potentially) Frigates, OPV's , future Sealift vessels etc.
And fully integrate for strategic reasons (and supply chain resilience reasons etc).
Fully integrate = means forever, which for shipbuilding (and conflict ... and repairs needed because of damage), would be a wise lesson we should have learnt from WW2/post WW2.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Remember we no longer have the "British Admiralty" running our naval strategic planning (and ship replacement programme), and post fall away from ANZUS we (NZ) seem to have "lost our way" as new generations of NZ politicians unaware of how such matters work in the wider collective scheme continue to cut capabilities "they" deem we don't need by not funding them. Sorry to say but we need a "bigger brother" to give us some semblance of order. 
Thus the 8800 tonne Hunter Class if AUD$257,000 per tonne would be in NZD going on todays rate $2.335B and the smaller 7300 tonne Constellation Class at AUD203,000 per tonne would be $1.503B.
Three Hunter Class would therefore be circa $7B and three Connie Class a tick over $4.5B. The bottom line is based on these numbers two Hunter Class buy three Connies.
Three Hunter Class would therefore be circa $7B and three Connie Class a tick over $4.5B. The bottom line is based on these numbers two Hunter Class buy three Connies.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Yes for sure and the NZG has options which is always good for us ..... but if we (NZG) could work out the cost benefit to NZ industry/tax take etc ... to join an Australian (and NZ) continuous shipbuilding programme ... also benefiting the Aus Govt and give continuity for Oz employment and skill retention .... it would probably be worth the higher costs (look how much NZ benefited from the original ANZAC programme)!
Also means the RNZN could get a decent fleet of ships/types!
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Maybe two CSC instead of three Connies works for Jacinda in order to celebrate junior’s election win.
P.S. we need a puke moji
Shanesworld
Well-Known Member
I better get what you mean. Makes alot of sense. Absolutely.
But should they (Aus) trust such a flakey voter base as exists here.
I know a number of companies that exist because of experience and business won through the ANZAC project. But the public seemingly didnt notice/care when we failed to order what was the minimum number of frigates we needed. Literally as frigates were busy or just had been off timor in a noble cause.
But i bet when the consequences of our lack of capability appear no one will own their previous apathy and will instead pile on the peace activists who (while wrong) will at least stand by their principles.
Cost per tonne is calculated using Light Ship Weight - not Full Load Displacement.
Hunter’s LSW is expected to be 8,200 tonnes (as per latest senate estimates, with FLD expected to be around 10,000 tonnes)
I’m not sure what the Light Ship Weight of the Constellation Class is expected to be? They’ve just made some Hull changes by removing Hull mounted sonar which would alter things weight wise too.
Just a detail, Hunter class will use AEGIS but not SPY. Radar suite will be from CEA Tech
oldsig
Cost per ton when considering warships is a pretty useless measure, to be quite frank. The real variable, besides the individual shipyard costs, is the cost of the fit out and of course that means the capability you want to get out of the ship. So, to get a real comparison between the two from a cost for capability perspective you would need to either add a 5inch/62 and HMS to Constellation or take them away from Hunter, and provide them with the same above water senor suite and CMS. In all of those, Hunter is closer to a USN DDG than to the new FFG in capability terms (although not absolutely of course given its much fewer number of VLS cells). Plus of course the relative level of self noise (the reduction of which costs mega $) each of them produces. The cost of getting marginal improvement in that area is eye watering, and we have no idea how that stacks up between the two.
Bravonavyzulu
New Member
Good morning all. New member here but have read thru this and other threads and am eager to join the discussion.
Having read the Navy Journal article, some months back, that had the Algerian LPD pictured stating that such a ship could be a contender to replace the ANZACs I am wondering if those here feel this vessel could be up gunned to a 5" in place of the 3" without compromising the areas below or the vessels performance.
I am fascinated by this vessels design and want to know more about it. Since it has been identified by a NZ Navy officer it must be a viable option. I realize that it isnt a dedicated ASW platform like a T26 but it could offer so much more to a smaller navy such as New Zealand.
Depending upon the mission prior to departure it could configure itself to numerous military and / or government operations.
Less fighty than a T26 but more utilitarian with the same armament as the current ANZACs plus additiinal helicopters.
Just looking to see others ideas and opinions. Thank you.
Having read the Navy Journal article, some months back, that had the Algerian LPD pictured stating that such a ship could be a contender to replace the ANZACs I am wondering if those here feel this vessel could be up gunned to a 5" in place of the 3" without compromising the areas below or the vessels performance.
I am fascinated by this vessels design and want to know more about it. Since it has been identified by a NZ Navy officer it must be a viable option. I realize that it isnt a dedicated ASW platform like a T26 but it could offer so much more to a smaller navy such as New Zealand.
Depending upon the mission prior to departure it could configure itself to numerous military and / or government operations.
Less fighty than a T26 but more utilitarian with the same armament as the current ANZACs plus additiinal helicopters.
Just looking to see others ideas and opinions. Thank you.
I have no idea why you would want to replace a frigate with an LPD. It has zero ASW capability (no sonar), it's slow (top speed 20 knots) and the maneuverability of an inner city bus.
I understand the conops that Algeria and Qatar are going for; having a mothership LPD that can also be your AAW vessel makes sense for a small navy, but they are definitely not replacements for a frigate.
Now, if you were proposing it as a replacement for the Canterbury or a new amphibious capability...
Bravonavyzulu
New Member
I am not extolling this, only following up on the comments in this article about a single type platform. Could not a container based VDS be operated from the well dock for ASW as an option if it were to be selected for a ANZAC replacement? Also containerized torpedoes and the multiple helicopters. I was seeking opinion of the ability of the design to support the 5” gun.
I do not feel that this is an adequate replacement for Canterbury as it lacks the increase in size compared to what is likely desired. Yes it can carry more people but it lacks the cargo needs. The well dock is great. But what loss of space comes from the carriage of helicopters.
I do not feel that this is an adequate replacement for Canterbury as it lacks the increase in size compared to what is likely desired. Yes it can carry more people but it lacks the cargo needs. The well dock is great. But what loss of space comes from the carriage of helicopters.
Nighthawk.NZ
Well-Known Member
If it was the same article I am thinking of they were talking about the future navy in general, the part about Algerian LPD was, I am pretty sure, an option for the ESV's or Enhanced Sealift Vessel's not replacing the ANZAC's. Me personally I would prefer the Singaporean Endurance 170 and wrote a article why... but that is another debate.
Bravonavyzulu
New Member
I read your articles about this and tend to agree with your thoughts. With the ST170 it has two decks, one specifically for aircraft and lower level(s) for vehicles and equipment I think. I may have misunderstood the authors idea but I thought he was intimating a single hull type to replace the ANZACs and OPVS. I will have to go reread the article.
Again I am not endorsing this concept. I was just trying to determine if the hull design could accomodate the larger 5" mount in place of the 3" .
Another question could CB90s be slung from davits in place of the LCVPs? I believe I read somewhere that the RN trialed this from either a Bay or LPD on loan from the Swedes.
Again I am not endorsing this concept. I was just trying to determine if the hull design could accomodate the larger 5" mount in place of the 3" .
Another question could CB90s be slung from davits in place of the LCVPs? I believe I read somewhere that the RN trialed this from either a Bay or LPD on loan from the Swedes.
Bravonavyzulu
New Member
I just went and read the article and indeed the author is proposing a radical concept that would see three such vessels as the Algerian LPD along with the SOPV, and the tanker. Interesting but I cant see the OPV role being handled by such large vessels with high personnel and operating costs.
His article was written in 2020 before the recent events of AUKUS and the increasing tensions in the SCS.
DAMENS recent announcement of similar multi role ships shows that there is some interest in doing more with less but time will tell if anyone buys into the concept.
Still hoping someone with an inside perspective or a naval engineer could comment on the upgunning to 5". Thanks in advance and I appreciate the comments to this point.
His article was written in 2020 before the recent events of AUKUS and the increasing tensions in the SCS.
DAMENS recent announcement of similar multi role ships shows that there is some interest in doing more with less but time will tell if anyone buys into the concept.
Still hoping someone with an inside perspective or a naval engineer could comment on the upgunning to 5". Thanks in advance and I appreciate the comments to this point.
And just because a Naval Officer writes an article about the Navy does not necessarily make it correct, and nor does it ensure that suggestions made are practical or feasible, particularly if that article in written in a professional journal. Like all the rest of society, some people like to stir the pot; and in most western Navies outside the box thinking is encouraged, particularly in junior officers. That means you do occasionally get off the wall, impractical suggestions made.
Bravonavyzulu
New Member
I errored in stating Damen as promoting a new vessel series. I believe it was Lurseen. Long week.