Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

swerve said:

Sounds like a new hull, like the Italian PPA -
"We will also launch a concept study and then design and build a new class of lighter, flexible general purpose frigates so that by the 2030s we can further increase the total number of frigates and destroyers. These general purpose frigates are also likely to offer increased export potential."
The number of Type 26 is being cut to the number of ASW Type 23, & they'll all be ASW according to the SDSR paper.

Click to expand...

Thanks swerve (and chis)

On more detailed reading, it does look as if it is an all-new design.

So the UK, Italy, Germany and France are all planning to independently develop their own light/medium frigate in the next decade. Interesting...

40 deg south said:

Thanks swerve (and chis)

On more detailed reading, it does look as if it is an all-new design.

So the UK, Italy, Germany and France are all planning to independently develop their own light/medium frigate in the next decade. Interesting...

Click to expand...

The fixation with "light" frigates is a mystery for me. The RAN went down that path with the Anzacs and despite every intention to keep its role in step with its capability, the concept failed miserably.
I'm not suggesting the ships are failures at all, I'm suggesting the concept is, because inevitably tasking grows beyond capability, which then grows to the limits of the hull and beyond.
The concept is fine if you have skimmers in plentiful numbers but 19? Does anyone believe that they will be considered different from their brethren?

I only hope the option for a T26 with a lesser outfit is chosen and not a smaller hull because the inevitable will happen.

ASSAIL said:

The fixation with "light" frigates is a mystery for me. The RAN went down that path with the Anzacs and despite every intention to keep its role in step with its capability, the concept failed miserably.
I'm not suggesting the ships are failures at all, I'm suggesting the concept is, because inevitably tasking grows beyond capability, which then grows to the limits of the hull and beyond.
The concept is fine if you have skimmers in plentiful numbers but 19? Does anyone believe that they will be considered different from their brethren?

I only hope the option for a T26 with a lesser outfit is chosen and not a smaller hull because the inevitable will happen.

Click to expand...

That's my thought. Keep the the same hull, power pack, power trains, Mk 41 VLS, 5 inch gun and then work from there. Steel is cheap and air is free. Larger mission bay and heaps of space for upgrades. Some modular capabilities as well.

swerve said:

Sounds like a new hull, like the Italian PPA -
"We will also launch a concept study and then design and build a new class of lighter, flexible general purpose frigates so that by the 2030s we can further increase the total number of frigates and destroyers. These general purpose frigates are also likely to offer increased export potential."
The number of Type 26 is being cut to the number of ASW Type 23, & they'll all be ASW according to the SDSR paper.

Click to expand...

How does this work with the hull numbers not dropping to under 19 by 2025 as 8+6 is 14 is the remaining 5 the last of the T23 or is T26 being split into a two batches design as new light hull the nominal C2 would be arriving post 2030 rather than 2025 as I read it as the light hull would be in add-on to 19 hulls present. As it wouldn't be in service till after 2030.

Apologies for being OT

It doesn't say the new type will arrive after 2030. It says that by 2030 it will allow numbers to start increasing. That implies that it will start arriving before 2030.

Nor does it say that the light hull will be in addition to the 19. It could be, but it doesn't say that. It could just as easily be saying that the plan is to replace the GP T23s with the new type, but more than one for one, & by 2030 that could result in increasing numbers.

PS. From Cameron's speech:
“There will be eight of the Type 26s and at least another five of the new type of frigate, probably more". So the new type will definitely be in place of the GP T26.

swerve said:

It doesn't say the new type will arrive after 2030. It says that by 2030 it will allow numbers to start increasing. That implies that it will start arriving before 2030.

Nor does it say that the light hull will be in addition to the 19. It could be, but it doesn't say that. It could just as easily be saying that the plan is to replace the GP T23s with the new type, but more than one for one, & by 2030 that could result in increasing numbers.

PS. From Cameron's speech:
“There will be eight of the Type 26s and at least another five of the new type of frigate, probably more". So the new type will definitely be in place of the GP T26.

Click to expand...

I'm working from the doc which has by force 2025 as 19 hulls on pg 29 of the NSS this is further reinforced on pg 32 "we will maintain our fleet of 19 frigates and destroyers" then "by 2030 we will further increase the total number of frigates and destroyers" there seems to be a difference in the speech and the document.

ASSAIL said:

The fixation with "light" frigates is a mystery for me. The RAN went down that path with the Anzacs and despite every intention to keep its role in step with its capability, the concept failed miserably.
I'm not suggesting the ships are failures at all, I'm suggesting the concept is, because inevitably tasking grows beyond capability, which then grows to the limits of the hull and beyond.
The concept is fine if you have skimmers in plentiful numbers but 19? Does anyone believe that they will be considered different from their brethren?

I only hope the option for a T26 with a lesser outfit is chosen and not a smaller hull because the inevitable will happen.

Click to expand...

Agreed and if you look back at what was ordered, when and why, it becomes even more apparent that the ANZACs really were only ever intended as patrol frigates supporting a large force (eight) of FFG/DDG and corvettes. When the major combatant plans were messed up the ANZACs had to step up and become GP frigates.

harryriedl said:

I'm working from the doc which has by force 2025 as 19 hulls on pg 29 of the NSS this is further reinforced on pg 32 "we will maintain our fleet of 19 frigates and destroyers" then "by 2030 we will further increase the total number of frigates and destroyers" there seems to be a difference in the speech and the document.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid you're over-interpreting it.

The paper does not say anywhere that the 19 will be made up entirely of T45 & T26. You're assuming that. The number in 2025 will include Type 23, both ASW & GP - more T23 than T26. The retirement date for the last T23 was set as 2036 (St Albans) last I heard, with the last five all to retire after 2030.

The paper says that we will buy eight Type 26 to replace the ASW role of the T23. That matches the number of Sonar 2087.

All references to T26 are in the context of ASW. None are linked to GP. T26 is described as (P94) "New Royal Navy multi-role warship to replace the current Type 23 frigates in their anti-submarine warfare role".

All references to GP frigates are linked to the new 'lighter' 'general purpose' frigates..

Everything in the paper is thus entirely consistent with Cameron's speech, which is explicit: eight T26, at least five new type. Those numbers add up (with T45) to 19. The 'at least' is consistent with the 'further increase' - which is conditional, unlike the 19.

So there we have it. 19 destroyers & frigates promised, maybe more eventually. Start with 6 T45 & 13 T23. From 2020 or so T23 start being replaced in the ASW role, one for one, by 8 ASW T26. Numbers are maintained at 19, as promised. By 2030, we start getting the new type, replacing the 5 GP T23. We will get 5 of these, & maybe more if we're lucky. If we get more, total numbers will increase.

chis73 said:

1. The UK Govt has committed to 9 P-8 MPA. If they had chosen P-1 or C295 (or even C-130J), I felt that might have opened the door wider for NZ to do the same.

Click to expand...

It almost certainly kills off the Sea Herc for the ASW mission without a significant launch customer. Not so much for the other roles (closer to existing roles, less risky development). Interesting that in the last couple of days Airbus has been making noise about an ISR development for the A400.

chis73 said:

2. Now only eight Type 26 to be built (down from 13). Instead, a new class of at least 5 general-purpose "light frigates" (Type 27?) will follow the Type 26, for entry into service about 2030. The Type 26 building programme also seems to have been delayed, with 2 more OPVs (presumably Batch 2 Rivers) ordered to tide the yards over. It seems the grand shipbuilding plan has reverted back to the 2007-2009 one, with C1 (Type 26) and C2 (the new light frigate) classes. David Cameron specifically mentioned Australia & NZ as potential export customers for this new design in the parliamentary debate. I don't know if Australia would be interested in the new light frigate (their requirements seem closer to Type 26, and they want to build their own), but it may suit NZ very well.

Click to expand...

Especially with Ceptor already being in service with the RNZN (by then). And doing something different to Australia would avoid the perception of us subsiding an inefficient Australian industry. We'd get to subsidise an inefficient UK industry instead, but it's likely to be less politically charged.

chis73 said:

Finally, regarding the LOSC discussion above: is there an intention to multi-crew this vessel (say like HMS Echo)? I can't help thinking that it has way too much on it's plate for one crew (and one ship if you ask me). We may get, what, 160 sea days maximum out of this vessel per year if it is single-crewed. What backup will there be for the rest of the year?

Click to expand...

Sea days and days available for sea are different issues. Days available probably increases that to around 300. Most of the tasks are pretty discretionary. If something serious were to come up it's unlikely to be the end of the world. Having two would be better, but it's a luxury we aren't prepared to fund.

chis73 said:

We used to have HMNZS Kahu as the backup dive vessel. What are we going to do when this vessel is unavailable, or deployed overseas? Or, if we need a dive vessel and a hydrography vessel in two different places at once? The OPVs seem to have enough to do as it is, and aren't particularly suited to diving support or hydrography (they were not designed to go slow economically). I have been trying to work out exactly how many vessels this ship will be replacing. Let's see: Manawanui (thats one), Resolution (itself a replacement for both Tui & Monowai - so that's three), Kahu (four) - and maybe the old inshore hydrography boats, Tarapunga & Takapu (I don't think you could say the two small REA boats are real replacements for those, so maybe 6 ships in total).

Click to expand...

Fair call, but with tools like Remus you don't need a dedicated platform like you once did. I know Navy were very keen to acquire the larger Remus 600 to expand the toolkit, and I suspect that would be pretty capable of being a substitute for the Tarapunga and Takapu. The vessel Tangaroa does work that was previously largely done by Navy too, and that would be made available if necessary.

Out of curiosity, I did some research and went back through the NZDF Annual Reports to total up the actual sea days recorded by the RNZN fleet. I only checked the reports I could find online, which are from FY 2002/03 [1] on. The most sea days recorded by a single ship was 198 by Resolution in FY 2004/05. Some ships have managed >170 days on occasion (the ANZAC frigates during the Gulf deployments of Operation Enduring Freedom in 2003 - 2004, Endeavour & Resolution twice). Reporting for individual ships stopped in FY 2009/10, with just totals for the capability groups (ie Naval Combat Force, Offshore Patrol Force etc) up to last year, FY 2013/14, after which they have stopped reporting sea days as a metric altogether.

Sea days are not a perfect measure, covering anything from an overseas deployment to a training day in the Waitemata, but I suppose there isn't a better measure for how much the Navy is "out there, doing it".

The records for the combined littoral operations & hydrography capabilities (ie Manawanui, Resolution & Kahu) are as follows:

FY Actual Sea Days (Total)
-- -----------------------
2002/03 307 [2]
2003/04 346
2004/05 460
2005/06 339
2006/07 422
2007/08 391
2008/09 378
2009/10 344 [3]
2010/11 232
2011/12 254
2012/13 111 [4]
2013/14 118
2014/15 not reported

So the data suggests that an expectation of 200 sea days a year from one ship seems optimistic, and that the Navy could potentially require more than 400 sea days a year from the ships assigned to these capabilities (assuming the current climate of austerity eventually passes & hydrography work resumes). As always there are some caveats:

* It should also be noted that although Kahu was assigned to the Littoral warfare group, she was often used for seamanship & navigation training.

* The Navy acquired the LINZ hydrography contract under a grandfather clause (the government had decided to make the work contestable). It is debatable whether Resolution would have been purchased if this had not been the case. She usually operated over 100 sea days annually in service of the LINZ contract.

Notes:
[1] New Zealand financial reporting is for the year ending 30 June.
[2] Doesn't include Kahu (which was not counted in the Littoral operations support force at this time).
[3] Kahu decommisioned Oct 2009.
[4] Resolution decommissioned Apr 2012.

Chis73

The figures also reflect how Manawanui and Resolution were also used in patrol taskings from 04-10.

One of the things I have been trying to work out, is how the number of sea days required is determined, as well as the cost/value of those sea days, and the overall cost/value for a naval vessel.

Given that Niwa has Rv Tangaroa, Kahuroa,Ikatere,Perolus doing Hydrography, why is Nz Navy doing it? is the civilian numbers insufficient?

kiwipatriot69 said:

Given that Niwa has Rv Tangaroa, Kahuroa,Ikatere,Perolus doing Hydrography, why is Nz Navy doing it? is the civilian numbers insufficient?

Click to expand...

It has it's own hydrographic unit as part of its Little Warfare Group because the hydrographic skills are required for beach and seafloor surveying for military purposes. It's a complicated and precise skillset that is quite specialised.

Think Defence have put together a good piece on the Type 26 and an article on the proposed light frigate. With the Type 26 being delayed again and the light frigate being designed from the beginning, any NZ procurement of either vessel could become more difficult due to the end of service dates for current ANZAC FFH.

NZDF will be soon looking at its options for replacing the frigates and it will have a look, at what is available and what is going to be available. It will have determined what requirements that are necessary and desirous in the ANZAC replacements. Whilst the Type 26 GCS has been mooted, other ships such as the RANs ANZAC replacement will also be closely looked at. Even the Iver Huitfelds could be in with a chance However regardless of what's on offer, unfortunately the over riding factor will be Treasury and it's control of the purse strings. The NZG will more than likely want something that is already in the water, accepted into service and has as little risk as possible.

ngatimozart said:

Think Defence have put together a good piece on the Type 26 and an article on the proposed light frigate. With the Type 26 being delayed again and the light frigate being designed from the beginning, any NZ procurement of either vessel could become more difficult due to the end of service dates for current ANZAC FFH.

Click to expand...

Really? NZ's currently upgrading its ANZACs, & that should keep them going for quite a while. There should be plenty of time for T26 to be ready as a replacement. The proposed new light frigate's a different matter, since it looks as if that won't be available much if anything before 2030.

swerve said:

Really? NZ's currently upgrading its ANZACs, & that should keep them going for quite a while. There should be plenty of time for T26 to be ready as a replacement. The proposed new light frigate's a different matter, since it looks as if that won't be available much if anything before 2030.

Click to expand...

I've never seen an offical out of service date for the NZ ANZACs, and I'm pretty sure at this stage there isn't one. Most of the commentary around the upgrade has them continuing until about 2030, with the Minister at one point being quoted as saying they could serve 'beyond 2030'.

Unless the UK's time line blows out even further, availability is not going to be a problem for NZ. The PRICE of a UK-built warship, on the other hand.....

40 deg south said:

I've never seen an offical out of service date for the NZ ANZACs. Most of the commentary around the upgrade has them continuing until abut 2030, with the Minister at one point being quoted as saying they could serve 'beyond 2030'.

Unless the UK's time line blows out even further, availability is not going to be a problem for NZ. The PRICE of a UK-built warship, on the other hand.....

Click to expand...

Availability might still be an issue. One has to keep in mind the time required to determine specifications, RFI, RFP, RFT, etc. then actually sign the contract, have construction completed, then workups and sea trials, all to reach IOC.

I do not know how long NZ usually takes for doing this with major projects. I do recall that Oz has averaged approximately 14 years from defining Phase 1, to achieving IOC. This excludes some of the recent major purchases where the ADF was able to 'jump' production slots for US produced kit (i.e. the F/A-18F/EA-18G, C-17, etc.)

If the RNZN has anything like this time-wise, then work needs to commence on the future frigate now, or at the very least, very soon. One concern I have about the T26, is whether whatever fitout NZ wants, could be incorporated, alongside yardspace, in the timeframe between NZ deciding what it wants/needs, and the current FFH's need replacement. Given that construction of the actual ship can take between one and three years (depending on volume of work the yard has) and that fitting out and testing all systems can take another year or more...
RNZN might find itself in a bit of a pickle if any least some work does not start soon.

swerve said:

Really? NZ's currently upgrading its ANZACs, & that should keep them going for quite a while. There should be plenty of time for T26 to be ready as a replacement. The proposed new light frigate's a different matter, since it looks as if that won't be available much if anything before 2030.

Click to expand...

The late 20's is the projected end of service time. The latest upgrades are to weapons and sensors with the plan to pull then through to the next class of frigates.

So a thirty yr life span on average for the Anzacs then strip them of Sea Ceptor, Naval gun and Phalanx systems like they did similar with the last frigates decommisioned. Will that significantly reduce the cost of a new frigate for Nz? what sort of ballpark figure then for the Iver huitfelds, or t 26 frigates then i wonder.