Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[Redlands18]

It is important to remember that if you go to SK then you will have to buy a SK product. Yards do not simply hand over designs for which they own the IP. This may mean the NZ would rely on a logistics train based overseas which may complicate issues, however, NZ are in that position now so it is really not a change fromt the current position.

Noting the critique of Osborne and VFM. The modernised yard is full digitial yard in respect of design, build and support. A digital verson of each individual ship will be produced to allow traking of equipment, maintenance and alterations which greatly assists in the operation and maintenance of each vessel. The quality of the work coming of this yard is reported as being very good.

Delays such as those with the Arafura appear to be due to a decision of the customer (Defence), and not the yard, which appears to have delayed handover and certification. I would also note that we have not seen any industrial issue at Osbourne to date which appears to be a concern with comments in this thread.

Once Osborne gets into its stride (and provided the GOTD does not harpoon the continous build phyliosphy) then there will be significant economies of scale with ongoing builds as well as an established logistics support arrangement in the immediate region (and eventually a domestic facility for producing the weapons to arm these vessels .... again provided the GOTD does not change their mind on this) . This is also important from an operation and cost perspective.

All of this may not be sufficient for NZ to see this a value for money, however, I suggest all factors should consider before writing off potential solutions. Personnally, I do not see NZ going with the Hunter as it appears to be seen as too much. I am at a loss as to what NZ may select noting the RNZN have many of the same geographical issues to address necessitating reasonable endurance (something at, or in excess of 6000nm). The Arrowhead 140 appears to be, potentially, a good fit but you will not get that built in SK.

As an aside, the Sejong the Great (noting this appears attractive to many posters) has a range of 5500 nm and a crew of 300 both of which may be a challenge in the current climate. It will be expensive to operate and arm. Just filling the VLS will cost a great deal.

Actually that range figure for the Sejong the Great doesn't stack up too badly against both the Burke's and Kongo's and the F-100/Hobarts, all around 4500nm@18-20kt, can't find any figures for the Atago and Asahi classes. The Koreans are only fitting 88 VLS to the Batch 2 Sejongs, of which 24 are of a new larger VLS for Hypersonics currently in development. My thinking is that two Sejongs or two Burkes or two Asahi's may have been better than three Hobart batch 2s if the GOTD decided to accept the Navantia offer, I still think overall we are better off sticking with the Type 26 build.

 

[alexsa]

Actually that range figure for the Sejong the Great doesn't stack up too badly against both the Burke's and Kongo's and the F-100/Hobarts, all around 4500nm@18-20kt, can't find any figures for the Atago and Asahi classes. The Koreans are only fitting 88 VLS to the Batch 2 Sejongs, of which 24 are of a new larger VLS for Hypersonics currently in development. My thinking is that two Sejongs or two Burkes or two Asahi's may have been better than three Hobart batch 2s if the GOTD decided to accept the Navantia offer, I still think overall we are better off sticking with the Type 26 build.

Compared to the latest Burkes I agree with you. My cost comment was more focused on what NZ could afford or would want to spend in owning and operating the vessels. In the current situation the manning issue alone would be an issue for NZ.

 

[Redlands18]

Compared to the latest Burkes I agree with you. My cost comment was more focused on what NZ could afford or would want to spend in owning and operating the vessels. In the current situation the manning issue alone would be an issue for NZ.

My comment probably belongs more in the RAN thread.

 

[Stuart M]

It is important to remember that if you go to SK then you will have to buy a SK product. Yards do not simply hand over designs for which they own the IP. This may mean the NZ would rely on a logistics train based overseas which may complicate issues, however, NZ are in that position now so it is really not a change fromt the current position.

Using the Sejong's as a baseline, those things use much the same general kit as the USN, engines, MK41 launchers, SPY etc with a few SK additions that we wouldn't have to have included or replaced for other gear that does the same.

Noting the critique of Osborne and VFM. The modernised yard is full digitial yard in respect of design, build and support. A digital verson of each individual ship will be produced to allow traking of equipment, maintenance and alterations which greatly assists in the operation and maintenance of each vessel. The quality of the work coming of this yard is reported as being very good.

Delays such as those with the Arafura appear to be due to a decision of the customer (Defence), and not the yard, which appears to have delayed handover and certification. I would also note that we have not seen any industrial issue at Osbourne to date which appears to be a concern with comments in this thread.

Once Osborne gets into its stride (and provided the GOTD does not harpoon the continous build phyliosphy) then there will be significant economies of scale with ongoing builds as well as an established logistics support arrangement in the immediate region (and eventually a domestic facility for producing the weapons to arm these vessels .... again provided the GOTD does not change their mind on this) . This is also important from an operation and cost perspective.

All of this may not be sufficient for NZ to see this a value for money, however, I suggest all factors should consider before writing off potential solutions. Personnally, I do not see NZ going with the Hunter as it appears to be seen as too much. I am at a loss as to what NZ may select noting the RNZN have many of the same geographical issues to address necessitating reasonable endurance (something at, or in excess of 6000nm). The Arrowhead 140 appears to be, potentially, a good fit but you will not get that built in SK.

Theses alots of maybe in this, and while economies of scale will happen , one still runs into the issue of 'price'. If one is to talk of large production runs, the Canadian one is bigger, maybe a Canadian buy would be better if this is the criteria?
I'm also concerned about the Hunter classes growth capacity, I could well be very wrong, but I get the feeling the Hunters are maxed out, if true is that really where we want to be with a new ship?

As an aside, the Sejong the Great (noting this appears attractive to many posters) has a range of 5500 nm and a crew of 300 both of which may be a challenge in the current climate. It will be expensive to operate and arm. Just filling the VLS will cost a great deal.

I think the Sejong's are just used as an example of Vfm, certainly that's how I think of them and I wouldn't expect NZ to get that type of ship for the reasons you mention.

 

[JohnJT]

It is important to remember that if you go to SK then you will have to buy a SK product. Yards do not simply hand over designs for which they own the IP. This may mean the NZ would rely on a logistics train based overseas which may complicate issues, however, NZ are in that position now so it is really not a change fromt the current position.

Can you please explain how Babcock partnering with a SK yard to build A140s for NZ is different to Babcock partnering with PT PAL to build A140s for Indonesia?
HMNZS Aotearoa was a Rolls-Royce design built in a SK yard.
Thanks!

 

[Todjaeger]

Can you please explain how Babcock partnering with a SK yard to build A140s for NZ is different to Babcock partnering with PT PAL to build A140s for Indonesia?
HMNZS Aotearoa was a Rolls-Royce design built in a SK yard.
Thanks!

My take, for what it is worth, is that it has seemed like some of the ideas being put forth were automatically assuming that prospective customers for new warships can mix and match designs, ship fitout and builder yards at will, but as I understand it, things can be quite a bit more complicated than that.

For starters Babcock (or any other designer for that matter) would have to be willing to partner with an overseas yard, and at a cost/expense that NZ is willing to pay. At the same time, a S. Korean (or any other nations' yard) would have to be willing and able to partner with the designer of the chosen design, and again at a cost which NZ is willing to accept.

Things also can get quite tricky during fitout, particularly if the chosen design uses complex kit which the yard and builder are not familiar with. In the potential case of a S. Korean yard building a warship for English-speaking NZ which is likely fitted with a mix of US, UK, Euro and Canadian systems, this could add additional layers of complexity to such a programme. Nothing which would be insurmountable, but would likely add to the time required and overall cost. At some point, this could very well end up being more than NZ can (as is, is willing to) afford.

 

[Redlands18]

My take, for what it is worth, is that it has seemed like some of the ideas being put forth were automatically assuming that prospective customers for new warships can mix and match designs, ship fitout and builder yards at will, but as I understand it, things can be quite a bit more complicated than that.

For starters Babcock (or any other designer for that matter) would have to be willing to partner with an overseas yard, and at a cost/expense that NZ is willing to pay. At the same time, a S. Korean (or any other nations' yard) would have to be willing and able to partner with the designer of the chosen design, and again at a cost which NZ is willing to accept.

Things also can get quite tricky during fitout, particularly if the chosen design uses complex kit which the yard and builder are not familiar with. In the potential case of a S. Korean yard building a warship for English-speaking NZ which is likely fitted with a mix of US, UK, Euro and Canadian systems, this could add additional layers of complexity to such a programme. Nothing which would be insurmountable, but would likely add to the time required and overall cost. At some point, this could very well end up being more than NZ can (as is, is willing to) afford.

The Koreans would also be pushing their own design hard in this project, the Chungnam class, so how keen would they be to agree to building a competitors product?

 

[Todjaeger]

The Koreans would also be pushing their own design hard in this project, the Chungnam class, so how keen would they be to agree to building a competitors product?

I suspect a S. Korean yard would be interested in the work, but would likely charge a premium to build a different design if they offered one in a competition. TBH though, I suspect a more likely competitor would be a variant of the KDX II destroyer but that might just be me.

 

[alexsa]

Can you please explain how Babcock partnering with a SK yard to build A140s for NZ is different to Babcock partnering with PT PAL to build A140s for Indonesia?
HMNZS Aotearoa was a Rolls-Royce design built in a SK yard.
Thanks!

No different but that partnership cannot be assumed. Babcock and co are marketing the A140 on the basis of the user can build. This will be backed up with support in the built process and ongoing logistics support… which provides income. Unless they decide to allow SK to build the vessels then it is not going to happen. Why would they when there is interest in signing up to build under the arrangements offered by Babcock and Co. I would expect they will make you pay for that arrangement noting IP is protected aggressively.

Yes HMNZS Aotearoa was built in an SK yard with the agreement of the owners of the design noting that the RN had source vessels from SK on this basis.

 

[swerve]

The Koreans would also be pushing their own design hard in this project, the Chungnam class, so how keen would they be to agree to building a competitors product?

Chungnam is significantly smaller. Would the RNZN want a ship not much bigger than an ANZAC? The Korean yards would probably prefer to build a foreign design than not to get a contract at all, & if they pushed a ship which the RNZN didn't want, they could end up with nothing.

 

[Redlands18]

Chungnam is significantly smaller. Would the RNZN want a ship not much bigger than an ANZAC? The Korean yards would probably prefer to build a foreign design than not to get a contract at all, & if they pushed a ship which the RNZN didn't want, they could end up with nothing.

That is the $64 question that we don't have an answer for at this stage, I would have little doubt that the RNZN would like a larger more capable Frigate but they are going to have to convince a Government of the need. The Koreans would be in a position to offer NZ, Chungnams off a warm production line.

 

[ngatimozart]

It is important to remember that if you go to SK then you will have to buy a SK product. Yards do not simply hand over designs for which they own the IP. This may mean the NZ would rely on a logistics train based overseas which may complicate issues, however, NZ are in that position now so it is really not a change fromt the current position.All of this may not be sufficient for NZ to see this a value for money, however, I suggest all factors should consider before writing off potential solutions. Personnally, I do not see NZ going with the Hunter as it appears to be seen as too much. I am at a loss as to what NZ may select noting the RNZN have many of the same geographical issues to address necessitating reasonable endurance (something at, or in excess of 6000nm). The Arrowhead 140 appears to be, potentially, a good fit but you will not get that built in SK.

Rubbish, the Arrowhead 140 is being built under licence by other countries. The shipbuilders in SK still get their slice of the pie.

As an aside, the Sejong the Great (noting this appears attractive to many posters) has a range of 5500 nm and a crew of 300 both of which may be a challenge in the current climate. It will be expensive to operate and arm. Just filling the VLS will cost a great deal.

I chucked that in as a joke.

 

[Nighthawk.NZ]

It is important to remember that if you go to SK then you will have to buy a SK product. Yards do not simply hand over designs for which they own the IP.

Isn't Poland and Indonesia both building the Arrowhead 140 under license in their own ship yards... So why wouldn't NZ be able to get a South Korean yard of even a Singapore to build for us??? The Arrowhead was design for export and therefore getting built in other yards would be part of the process. Purely because you can not expect the country to always just wait till BAE Systems have free spot to build in 2040 when it was ordered in 2000 because other countries ordered first and your have to wait your turn.

If ship yards didn't build other yards IP's we would have never been able to build the ANZAC's in Aussie... the Type 26 would only be built in the UK not Aussie and Canada... (most of the Aussie fleet is built under license)

One of my questions about the 140 is the CMS we currently use CMS330 and Arrowhead has been designed "around" the TACTICOS combat management system while I am sure we could get the latest version 330 installed but this would simply add to the cost... but so would TACICOS due to retraining and reequipping the training school etc

 

[spoz]

[QUOTE="ngatimozart, post: 429768, member: 2571]

I chucked that in as a joke.
[/QUOTE]

Maybe, but the cost would probably be somewhere between USD 200 and 500 million depending on actual load out; a not insignificant sum!

(SM6 about $5m each, SM2 about $2 million, ESSM about $1million. If you wanted to add some SM3, they’re something like $11 million each)

 

[alexsa]

Isn't Poland and Indonesia both building the Arrowhead 140 under license in their own ship yards... So why wouldn't NZ be able to get a South Korean yard of even a Singapore to build for us??? The Arrowhead was design for export and therefore getting built in other yards would be part of the process. Purely because you can not expect the country to always just wait till BAE Systems have free spot to build in 2040 when it was ordered in 2000 because other countries ordered first and your have to wait your turn.

If ship yards didn't build other yards IP's we would have never been able to build the ANZAC's in Aussie... the Type 26 would only be built in the UK not Aussie and Canada... (most of the Aussie fleet is built under license)

One of my questions about the 140 is the CMS we currently use CMS330 and Arrowhead has been designed "around" the TACTICOS combat management system while I am sure we could get the latest version 330 installed but this would simply add to the cost... but so would TACICOS due to retraining and reequipping the training school etc

Firstly I did not say that NZ cannot get SK to build the A140 ..... I said that unless there is agreement with the IP owners .... they cannot. If the IP permit it NZ could look at options. I don't know how practical this is as I suspect SK would prefer to offer one of ther designs.

I did also note that MNZS Aotearoa was built in an SK yard with the agreement of the owners of the design IP (along with a number of RFA vessels) .... so I am not sure how you arive at the conclusion that I claimed that NZ could not look at this option. Yes, Poland is building parts of their A140 under license .... as far as I can tell (happy to be corrected) while Indonesia have a license to build them with Babcock and Co.

Babcock will be involved in this these build processes in a support role and will asssist in setting up the logisitics support. This and the licence costs are a source of income that I suggest Babcock and co would be keen to protect. If NZ can negotiate that on behalf of a SK yard all well and good. But the fact remains that SK do not have an agreement with anyone to build this vessel. It is a non-starter unless that changes.

The other regional choice is NZ could they piggy back on the Indonesian build if the parties agree to that (not sure that would be acceptable).

 

[alexsa]

Rubbish, the Arrowhead 140 is being built under licence by other countries. The shipbuilders in SK still get their slice of the pie.

I chucked that in as a joke.

I know, hence the comment that Yards do not simply hand over designs for which they own the IP. If SK get a license then they can build them in the same manner as the UK built the RFA's in SK.

 

[Redlands18]

Any competition run for a future RNZN Frigate in the next few years, is going to be very competitive with most, being able to offer hot production lines.
Australia and Canada: Type 26*
UK: Type 26*/Type 31*/Type 32*
France: Belharra*/FREMM
Spain: F-110*/F-105
Italy: de Revel*/FREMM
Dutch: New Dutch/Belgian Frigate*, de Seven Provincial
ROK: Chungnam*/DDXIV*
Japan: Mogami Blk 2*
Germany: A200/A300/F126*
*Production lines that would fit, in the timetable.

 

[ngatimozart]

I know, hence the comment that Yards do not simply hand over designs for which they own the IP. If SK get a license then they can build them in the same manner as the UK built the RFA's in SK.

Actually if NZ acquired these ships then I believe that the licence would belong to NZ, not SK. It depends upon how we negotiate any such deal.

 

[kiwi in exile]

The RN has recently acquired a new vessell that has some similarities to HMNZS Manawanui. RFA Proteus is tasked with monitoring of subsea infrastructure (cables, pipelines etc- think damage to Nord Stream pipeline). does the Manawanui have the capabilities to monitor NZ and the Pacifics undersea comms cables/ and will it likely be tasked with this mission?

 

[swerve]

The RN has recently acquired a new vessell that has some similarities to HMNZS Manawanui. RFA Proteus is tasked with monitoring of subsea infrastructure (cables, pipelines etc- think damage to Nord Stream pipeline). does the Manawanui have the capabilities to monitor NZ and the Pacifics undersea comms cables/ and will it likely be tasked with this mission?

I think your link's a bit off. Perhaps this - RFA Proteus - Wikipedia