Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[MrConservative]

That's not an issue. In some ways it's a good thing. The RDN Absalon and Iver Huitfeld Classes were built to commercial specs using commercial methods. The only difference was that they have been armoured in certain areas.

This article in Navy Outlook discusses that very thing.

In focus – the Arrowhead 140 Type 31e frigate candidate - Navy Lookout

Derived from the Danish Navy's Iver Huitfeldt class frigate, the Arrowhead 140 is the Babcock/Thales concept for the Type 31e frigate competition. Here we look at the Danish parent design and the Arrowhead proposal in detail. Doing it differently in Denmark The Absalon class Logistic support...

www.navylookout.com

Their commercial ship design heritage had given rise to a myth that the Huitfeldt does not meet full warship survivability standards. This is not the case and the design meets NATO shock protection certification (STANAG 4142, 4137 and 4549), nuclear, biological and chemical protection (STANAG 4447) and vital area armour protection (STANAG 4569). The ships have also passed the Royal Navy’s stringent FOST assessments and sea riders with expertise in damage control say the Huitfeldt class fully meet their high standards.

(The Arrowhead 140 conforms with Naval Ship Code (ANEP-77)

https://www.ft.dk/samling/20141/almdel/FOU/bilag/20/1417702.pdf

 

[swerve]

IIRC the Absalons & their Iver Huitfeldt sisters were some of the first ships to be built to rules of a commercial classification society (Den Norske Veritas in their case), & this led to the idea that they were built to the same standards as commercial shipping. Nowadays, I think it's normal for navies to have their ships classified by commercial societies - under their naval ship rules, i.e. naval construction standards. Lloyd's Register is the classification society for the Hunter class, for example.

As said in the OMT document you link to, Mærsk (the owners of the builder, Odense Staalskibsværft, at the time) applied commercial methods to the construction, but that didn't mean commercial standards in every respect, any more than the wartime application of mass production methods from makers of cars, vans & lorries meant that the tanks, aircraft etc. thus produced were built to the same standards as passenger cars or delivery vans.

In that wartime case, one of the things it meant was greater precision in the manufacture of components (less file to fit), for example: an upgrading of standards, not lowering. I've read that among the commercial elements of the Iver Huitfeldts were, apart from more efficient (& thus cheaper) construction methods, more attention being paid to the building process in design than was normal for warships (so easier & thus cheaper to build), & better optimisation of internal spaces for use than in most naval designs - but without sacrificing survivability, of course.

 

[JohnJT]

The current 9 vessel fleet provides very limited options to the government for response, as we saw with the Kaikoura earthquake, but the cost of developing maintaining a quality fleet means some limitations on fleet size. More capable vessels balance the quantity vs quality issue. I've come to the view that 12 vessels would be the max: 3FFG (this addresses the current deficit in hull numbers), 6 Enhanced Multi Role OPV (provides the flexibility to changing strategic / HDAR requirements), 1 SOPV, 1 LPHD, 1 AOR. The are other reasons for limiting the fleet size

• Personnel issues the RNZN has traditionally had at various time over the years. Under the current fleet sea going personnel are around 667. The above 12 vessel fleet bumps that upto 1,350 - this is higher than the sea going personnel numbers in the min 80's if you take into account a frigate in refit had a crew of around 100 (Stores, Writers, maintainers and a few people on deck).
• The cost associated with an increase in aviation capability (You're effectively acquiring 11 aviation capable ships, with an enhanced aviation capability in the LPHD the additional airframe costs are starting to get up there)
• Costs associated with acquiring more than a basic OPV. For the enhanced OPV I see something like the Damen Fast Security as been closer to ideal, but at the expense of the some of the current capabilities inherent in Manawanui (i..e crane capability etc.). We could debate this point forever. The fast security would also just fit into the current drydock.
• The development of UAV / UUV and other modules should be something the RNZN embraces, but not on front line ships (let the Mk41 VLS do that). If some of the larger proposed UUV designs are adopted they won't be cheap (nor popular with the left).

At a practical level NZ can meet its wider international obligations with 3 frigates if they are designed for operations away from NZ for more than 2 years like the F125. Six enhanced OPV would allow for sustained and continuous deployment of at least 1 ship into the South Pacific, 3 operating around NZ permanently on EEZ patrol (effectively one OPV and and two IPV), one in refit and the two remainder supporting wider NZDF / whole of Government needs. It also would allow for a surge capability into the South Pacific of 2 or three ships to meet medium intensity threats / HDAR. In many ways the are similar in some respects to the original patrol ship specifications before the ANZAC's appeared as the Leander replacement (but with an Ampib capability).

I'm sure the Koreans would be happy to come up with a NZ multi-role OPV bespoke design that wouldn't break the bank. It would be a good way to leverage the existing relationship from the Aotearoa build and foster closer defence ties with SK.

As to the need for increased aviation assets, one option could be the new military version of the AW169. It's basically a bigger A109, but with a wide range of multi-role capabilities. It can carry 10 troops and a 1500kg underslung load. It's also marine compatible with folding blades, float gear and tie downs. The civilian version costs about US $8 million. You could keep the NH90s and ASW helos for the amphibs and frigates, and use the AW169s for the OPVs, SOPV, etc. Not to mention all the land based roles they could perform.

https://www.leonardocompany.com/documents/20142/3151253/BROCHURE+AW169M.pdf

 

[Nighthawk.NZ]

I have always said we have needed to increase our number of naval aviation assets. Especially if we do end up with two ESV's which going by the DCP are going to be fairly sizable vessels, they are wanting the ESV to carry similar helo compliment to the MRV HMNZS Canterbury... but reading between the lines they are also wanting more capability have multiple helo operations at once and not sending them off to a FOB.

Also if we do get a 3rd (preferably a 4th as well) frigate as replacements for the ANZAC's as well as the SOPV we start coming up short on operational helo's. 3 or 4 frigates? maybe only 2... x2 OPV's, x1 SOPV, x1 AOR, x2 ESV, and The DHV also able to do helo operations her replacement will probably have a hanger.

Ten helo capable vessels with the 2 ESV's being able to take more as the task requires... we do start to run short if we replace like for like and only get 8 or 9 one for spares and only having 4 or 5 air worthy at any one time. Even if it is 9 vessels (2 frigates) it is still pushing the workload on the operational helo's...

 

[ngatimozart]

I'm sure the Koreans would be happy to come up with a NZ multi-role OPV bespoke design that wouldn't break the bank. It would be a good way to leverage the existing relationship from the Aotearoa build and foster closer defence ties with SK.

As to the need for increased aviation assets, one option could be the new military version of the AW169. It's basically a bigger A109, but with a wide range of multi-role capabilities. It can carry 10 troops and a 1500kg underslung load. It's also marine compatible with folding blades, float gear and tie downs. The civilian version costs about US $8 million. You could keep the NH90s and ASW helos for the amphibs and frigates, and use the AW169s for the OPVs, SOPV, etc. Not to mention all the land based roles they could perform.

https://www.leonardocompany.com/documents/20142/3151253/BROCHURE+AW169M.pdf

View attachment 48546

Yes but I think that the AW139M would actually be better. It can lift more and would definitely take the strain off the NH90s.
Download the AW139M brochure (leonardocompany.com)

 

[MrConservative]

The 139/149 are both impressive aircraft and would be very useful and a cost effective way to boost our maritime rotary footprint. Both are offered in similar military configurations - including shipboard capability, with not a huge difference in price between the two, but NG makes a good point about the AW139M/MH-139A/HH-139B range in that it is just that little bit bigger in the 7 tonne class and nicely straddles the AW109LUH and NH90.

Likewise Nighthawk makes an excellent point about the lack of depth in rotary numbers, especially in the context of future vessels and indeed the lack of numbers with respect to land support. A further mitigation of that is to upgrade the the MH90 TTH or Maritime MTTH standard with uprated landing gear, folding rotors, deck capture systems et al (Note this is not full monty navalisation per the NHF90 - it just allows them to visit a Canterbury type vessel a bit better and be there a bit longer when embarked or occasionally operating from even though they do have the great advantage of having a composite airframe).

 

[JohnJT]

I notice the Babcock rep in this video specifically mentions New Zealand as showing interest in the Arrowhead 140:

It would certainly be a cost effective platform for NZ.

Thinking about the various configurations such a vessel could have, one of the offerings from LockheedMartin for the Greek frigate bid was an 11 cell VLS made up of an 8 cell mk41 and a 3 cell ExLS. It was stated that this VLS can quad pack CAMM and CAMM ER. Since CAMM and CAMM ER don't need big, heavy, expensive radar installations for guidance, I was thinking this could be a great option for a NZ Arrowhead 140. With just two of these installed you could have a potential CAMM/CAMM ER load of 88 missiles! The advanced, but lightweight Thales NS110 AESA 4D radar selected for the Type 31 is all you'd need to provide an AD umbrella out beyond 40km. And, of course, the 16 mk41 cells could be used to house other missile systems, like VL ASROC or *ahem* Tomahawk, or any future VL missile like NSM of LRASM.

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/rms/documents/lcs/HF2_Brochure_070121.pdf

 

[Nighthawk.NZ]

You really think the nzg will will pay for things that go wiz swoosh bang boom... and 88 of them per ship...

My guess is that like all the other mentions of nz being interested in platform A or platform H... is the MoD are just keeping eye on all programs so all options with the latest info on said platforms are on the table when a decision is to be made...

 

[ngatimozart]

The RNZN will be looking at more than just the Type 31. This interest will be part of their scoping for the start of their Future Frigate Project. 16 + 6 VLS isn't clearly enough VLS, and 32 Mk-41 VLS would be the optimal VLS system. NZ most likely would not acquire Tomahawk because it wouldn't be politically acceptable in peacetime. In wartime such an acquisition would most likely be more acceptable.

 

[swerve]

I notice the Babcock rep in this video specifically mentions New Zealand as showing interest in the Arrowhead 140:

It would certainly be a cost effective platform for NZ.

Thinking about the various configurations such a vessel could have, one of the offerings from LockheedMartin for the Greek frigate bid was an 11 cell VLS made up of an 8 cell mk41 and a 3 cell ExLS. It was stated that this VLS can quad pack CAMM and CAMM ER. Since CAMM and CAMM ER don't need big, heavy, expensive radar installations for guidance, I was thinking this could be a great option for a NZ Arrowhead 140. With just two of these installed you could have a potential CAMM/CAMM ER load of 88 missiles! The advanced, but lightweight Thales NS110 AESA 4D radar selected for the Type 31 is all you'd need to provide an AD umbrella out beyond 40km. And, of course, the 16 mk41 cells could be used to house other missile systems, like VL ASROC or *ahem* Tomahawk, or any future VL missile like NSM of LRASM.

View attachment 48550

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/rms/documents/lcs/HF2_Brochure_070121.pdf

Where does it say it can quad-pack CAMM-ER? Not in the brochure. The missile shown being launched looks like a standard CAMM. It lacks the fattened mid-section & longitudinal fins of CAMM-ER (CAMM-ER | Ground Based Air Defence, CAMM SOLUTION | MBDA). Is it in the video?

I've looked at LM brochures for EXLS, & while they definitely say it can quad pack CAMM, I've not seen any mention of CAMM-ER, & from the cutaway image in one showing standard CAMM in a launcher it looks as if CAMM-ER is too long. It'd need a taller version of EXLS to accomodate both the missile & the gas thingy for launch. I've put the links here before, IIRC.

 

[John Fedup]

The RNZN will be looking at more than just the Type 31. This interest will be part of their scoping for the start of their Future Frigate Project. 16 + 6 VLS isn't clearly enough VLS, and 32 Mk-41 VLS would be the optimal VLS system. NZ most likely would not acquire Tomahawk because it wouldn't be politically acceptable in peacetime. In wartime such an acquisition would most likely be more acceptable.

More acceptable in wartime but likely unavailable due to peacetime customers having preference.

 

[KiwiRob]

That's not an issue. In some ways it's a good thing. The RDN Absalon and Iver Huitfeld Classes were built to commercial specs using commercial methods. The only difference was that they have been armoured in certain areas.

The also have a lot of commercial land market systems like the HVAC is not a marine specific system, a lot of the lighting is commercial land market, those vessels were built to a very low cost, they also used the ships crews to outfit many of the areas like the galley, crew rooms, accommodation, bathrooms.

 

[JohnJT]

Where does it say it can quad-pack CAMM-ER? Not in the brochure. The missile shown being launched looks like a standard CAMM. It lacks the fattened mid-section & longitudinal fins of CAMM-ER (CAMM-ER | Ground Based Air Defence, CAMM SOLUTION | MBDA). Is it in the video?

I've looked at LM brochures for EXLS, & while they definitely say it can quad pack CAMM, I've not seen any mention of CAMM-ER, & from the cutaway image in one showing standard CAMM in a launcher it looks as if CAMM-ER is too long. It'd need a taller version of EXLS to accomodate both the missile & the gas thingy for launch. I've put the links here before, IIRC.

The original LockheedMartin page I got the detailed info from has been taken down (probably because they lost the bid), but it's mentioned in this video at around 8:20:

 

[swerve]

He says CAMM-ER in Mk 41. Doesn't say in EXLS.

It'd need to be integrated, but shouldn't be a physical fit problem.

 

[Nighthawk.NZ]

CAMM-ER is physically bigger than CAMM so I doubt it could fit as a quad pack.

 

[Aluminium Hail]

I have looked around quite a lot for detail on CAMM-ER and exls. The one thing I found is this image from the LM brochure showing possible load outs. The CAMM image appears to be an ER model. (attachments are of whole brochure and screen shot zoomed in)

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/rms/documents/naval-launchers-and-munitions/VLS_Host_ExLS_Launcher_Product_Card_8.5x11_042419.pdf

 

[swerve]

Longitudinal fins like ER, but too far back & it lacks the fat central section. And the ratio of length to the RAM Blk 2 doesn't look right, either. If it's ER, that CAMM should be over 40% longer than the RAM, & would be taller than the canister.

Compare to this actual photograph from MBDA - https://www.naval-technology.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2021/06/Navy1-MBDA.jpg

More from MBDA -
https://www.edrmagazine.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/MBDA-Albatros-NG_06.jpg

https://www.edrmagazine.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/MBDA-Albatros-NG_08.jpg

https://www.edrmagazine.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/MBDA-Albatros-NG_02.jpg

 

[MrConservative]

IIRC the Absalons & their Iver Huitfeldt sisters were some of the first ships to be built to rules of a commercial classification society (Den Norske Veritas in their case), & this led to the idea that they were built to the same standards as commercial shipping. Nowadays, I think it's normal for navies to have their ships classified by commercial societies - under their naval ship rules, i.e. naval construction standards. Lloyd's Register is the classification society for the Hunter class, for example.

As said in the OMT document you link to, Mærsk (the owners of the builder, Odense Staalskibsværft, at the time) applied commercial methods to the construction, but that didn't mean commercial standards in every respect, any more than the wartime application of mass production methods from makers of cars, vans & lorries meant that the tanks, aircraft etc. thus produced were built to the same standards as passenger cars or delivery vans.

In that wartime case, one of the things it meant was greater precision in the manufacture of components (less file to fit), for example: an upgrading of standards, not lowering. I've read that among the commercial elements of the Iver Huitfeldts were, apart from more efficient (& thus cheaper) construction methods, more attention being paid to the building process in design than was normal for warships (so easier & thus cheaper to build), & better optimisation of internal spaces for use than in most naval designs - but without sacrificing survivability, of course.

This is a good read about the Iver Huitfeldt Class by retired Commodore Niels C. Borck RDN.

https://www.logimatic.dk/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/SeenSailed_Enkeltsider_Www.pdf

Interesting you draw upon the car makers analogy and Mærsk. There is a good degree of "The Toyota Way" in how they have approached the whole Absalon - Iver Huitfeldt project process from conception to execution to product to evaluation and loop-back with respect to systems engineering, which is not surprising because those two companies have had a long history of studying each other, learning and adapting from each other for nearly 60 years.

 

[MrConservative]

South Korean shipyard confirmed to build two new InterIslander ferries

KiwiRail has signed an agreement with Hyundai Mipo Dockyard to deliver two ships, for a price $150 million above funds set aside in the Budget.

www.rnz.co.nz

Not Navy but the government owned Interislander Ferry company has recently ordered two new 230m Vehicle / Train rolling stock Ferries for $550m from HHI. That is quite a lot of ship for the money.

 

[ngatimozart]

South Korean shipyard confirmed to build two new InterIslander ferries

KiwiRail has signed an agreement with Hyundai Mipo Dockyard to deliver two ships, for a price $150 million above funds set aside in the Budget.

www.rnz.co.nz

Not Navy but the government owned Interislander Ferry company has recently ordered two new 230m Vehicle / Train rolling stock Ferries for $550m from HHI. That is quite a lot of ship for the money.

They're somewhat larger than the three vessels they are replacing too.