|
|
Post by macnz on Aug 24, 2015 13:28:52 GMT 12
RAND report commissioned by AU govt makes "..clear that it would be 'cheaper' for [AU] taxpayers to buy their naval ships from foreign producers. The incentives for the Australian government to purchase vessels from domestic shipyards would be founded on political and strategic concerns. The primary strategic benefit would be avoiding dependence on foreign countries for Australian maritime security." ..."Our examination concludes that domestic production of naval ships in Australia currently carries a price premium — estimated to be between 30 to 40 percent compared with similar ships built abroad." source: www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1093.htmlThe UK Govt are now evaluating an 'incremental production design' to the Type 26. Couple this with AU desire to naturally bespoke any design to AU needs should they domestically build, then the frigate procurement and delivery risk to NZ, along with the price per unit multiplies quickly. I think NZ can still preserve our strategic and interoperability commitments with AU without buying into another ANZAC program irrespective of the last one being successful. If we take note of RAND and we want to get more vessels for our own buck then NZ should be prepared to procure our Frigate replacements independently and elsewhere. Sure AU would prefer NZ to be ready to offer 3 or more new Frigates than just 2 legacy ANZACs to support them (in the 2020s). NZ Govt could more easily sell the procurement by showing the taxpayer how much more NZ was getting for the spend. Still think an Iver H design, built somewhere like South Korea, is probably the most economic (and least risk) proposition for NZ. The recycling of kit from our legacy vessels to outfit them hopefully could be handled regionally in either SG or AU? re: OPV replacement? If we are talking 2025, maybe that might be a plausible candidate with AU - see below - as hopefully they might have better economies of scale domestically at the tail end.  |
|
|
|
Post by richard1098 on Aug 24, 2015 14:54:06 GMT 12
RAND report commissioned by AU govt makes "..clear that it would be 'cheaper' for [AU] taxpayers to buy their naval ships from foreign producers. The incentives for the Australian government to purchase vessels from domestic shipyards would be founded on political and strategic concerns. The primary strategic benefit would be avoiding dependence on foreign countries for Australian maritime security." ..."Our examination concludes that domestic production of naval ships in Australia currently carries a price premium — estimated to be between 30 to 40 percent compared with similar ships built abroad." But look at the current AUD/USD (or NZD/USD) exchange rate compared to its value in late 2014 or early 2015, along with taxation receipts from a domestic build. |
|
|
|
Post by macnz on Nov 24, 2015 12:17:40 GMT 12
Update: UK released their SDSR Monday and looks like the Type 26 cost is spiralling so much so that they are reverting to back their “C1 and C2” approach to production build. That is 8 “high-end” ASW in C1 (orig. plan 10) and 5 cheaper and lighter General Purpose (GP) frigates for C2 (orig.plan 8) First service entry for ASW version Type 26 Frigate now pushed back to 2025 from 2022. Reads like Brits hoping that by the time they start producing the GP configuration in C2, they will have production economics to sell a competitive cheaper export version that allows RN to order more than 5 to properly replace remaining Type 23s. At the DSEI in September the program was cited to cost approx. GBP£11.5-12b for 13 warships. Crudely approximating the 7,000-ton ASW configured vessels might will consume two-thirds of the budget (GBP£7.2b) and so cost approx. GBP£900m plus a piece, then optimistically provisioning GBP£4.3b for the 5 lighter GP versions in C2 will probably mean GBP£860m a piece. Based on the fact that the high tech Type 45s exceeded GBP£1b a piece, then not all that improbable. At today's exchange rate, that certainly puts the Type 26 ASW design out of RNZN's reach, putting aside the delivery timeframe and even if an Australian C2 export version could be agreed with BAE and RAN in the next 3 years. Too many cooks in this kitchen to make this an affordable option for NZ Frigate replacement. Here's the latest update from Defense News on the SDSR. www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/ships/2015/11/23/royal-navy-reduce-frigate-buy-design-lighter-warship/76266560/ |
|
|
|
Post by jimit on Dec 8, 2015 19:37:25 GMT 12
I Think RNZN could look to Damen Shipyard (NL). A good company with very interesting project. About New Zealand Maritime Force could be right the "Crossover Project" Damen Crossover |
|
|
|
Post by futurenz on Feb 7, 2016 1:37:45 GMT 12
There will probably be Type-26's built in both Brazil and India, I don't think theres any reason for NZ to buy direct from Britain. Weapons and systems fitouts can also be done in the most appropriate country.
|
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on Feb 9, 2016 19:31:14 GMT 12
There will probably be Type-26's built in both Brazil and India, I don't think theres any reason for NZ to buy direct from Britain. Weapons and systems fitouts can also be done in the most appropriate country. IMO your spot on about NZ sourcing the design from a UK shipyard. The NZ government is pacifist so they would most likely buy vessels build for but not with like the Anzac Class Frigates. They would than equip the vessels with the same kind of armaments as the RNZN's current frigates. I don't think the RN/UK Government will order a sufficient number of Type 26 Frigates that the cost per unit will go down. So in other words NZ won't be able to tact on a order for a couple of vessels at a good price. |
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Feb 10, 2016 13:55:01 GMT 12
If the Type 26 gets up for the RAN future frigate that may offer the RNZN an opportunity to tack onto a larger order. The same could be said about whatever vessel the RAN decide on.
|
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on Feb 16, 2016 22:18:02 GMT 12
If the Type 26 gets up for the RAN future frigate that may offer the RNZN an opportunity to tack onto a larger order. The same could be said about whatever vessel the RAN decide on. If that prove to be the case timing would be important. The government could have to bring forward the replacements of HMNZS Te Mana and Te Kaha to around 2025-27. It would depend on the production schedule of the Australian shipyards. Usually NZ government's try to extend the shelf of life of existing military hardware so they can avoid buying new equipment. |
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Feb 17, 2016 9:10:50 GMT 12
Another project to buy multiple big holes in the ocean is in the news for lack of progress, this time the Canadian Surface Combatant program which will replace all there ships - 18 hulls or 17 or 16 or possibly just 15 are now being suggested all the the fixed budget can buy.
|
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on Feb 17, 2016 20:02:43 GMT 12
Another project to buy multiple big holes in the ocean is in the news for lack of progress, this time the Canadian Surface Combatant program which will replace all there ships - 18 hulls or 17 or 16 or possibly just 15 are now being suggested all the the fixed budget can buy. Canadians may well have elected a government that is unfriendly towards the military. Kiwi have and continue to this with no understanding of what the consequences will be not too far down the road. Coming back to the focus of the topic. I think the way successive governments have neglected defence ties with our allies and partners is now coming to the forefront. The thing to do would have been to start a phrased RNZN modernisation/capability upgrade program. A part of the program would have been the replacement of the Navy's combat arm and a whole host of other issues could have been addressed. |
|
|
|
Post by foxcover on Mar 14, 2016 21:46:20 GMT 12
Can NZ afford to replace the frigates like for like?
My opinion would be to:
Replace the frigates with 2-3 Svalbard class
Replace the OPV with 2-3 KV Harstad class
Replace the IPV with several NZ built cats.
Upgrade Canterbury
1 New multi role replenishment ship
1 New survey/dive support/mine hunter
1 New Robert T Kuroda class
Lower procurement and running costs, more useful for missions other than out and out war.
Or, just spend billions on highly armed ships you might never use that aren't much use in helping clear up after an earthquake.
|
|
|
|
Post by futurenz on Mar 20, 2016 16:04:34 GMT 12
The Type 26 is supposed to be quite versatile, and in addition to the core ASW version there was proposed a "general purpose (GP) variant". I suspect the theory behind this is that some of the below deck space would have a modular configuration and a way of launching assault boats or unmanned vessels as with the Danish one. Potentially quite a useful capability but means you then need extra ships on top of your ASW capability. Militaries aren't getting cheaper...
|
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on Mar 21, 2016 20:00:24 GMT 12
The Type 26 is supposed to be quite versatile, and in addition to the core ASW version there was proposed a "general purpose (GP) variant". I suspect the theory behind this is that some of the below deck space would have a modular configuration and a way of launching assault boats or unmanned vessels as with the Danish one. Potentially quite a useful capability but means you then need extra ships on top of your ASW capability. Militaries aren't getting cheaper... I take the view that its better to have vessels that can upscale their combat capabilities in a pinch. The RAN's Anzac Class frigates have been successfully used to inject drug smuggling operations in places like the Indian Ocean. If they had to they could switch to say a ASW role. Following this line of logic the RNZN isn't able to upscale OPV's to a MCW/ASW role. Heck in likely hood the RNZN wouldn't even be able to supply a frigate in the event a oil tanker headed for NZ needs escorting. |
|
|
|
Post by futurenz on Jun 11, 2016 20:28:01 GMT 12
Can NZ afford to replace the frigates like for like? My opinion would be to: Replace the frigates with 2-3 Svalbard class Replace the OPV with 2-3 KV Harstad class Replace the IPV with several NZ built cats. Upgrade Canterbury 1 New multi role replenishment ship 1 New survey/dive support/mine hunter 1 New Robert T Kuroda class Lower procurement and running costs, more useful for missions other than out and out war. Or, just spend billions on highly armed ships you might never use that aren't much use in helping clear up after an earthquake. Norwegian Coast Guard icebreaker and offshore patrol vessel KV Svalbard (W303) isn't an ASW combatant like the frigates, we would need a serious debate about gutting RNZN's combat capability before we go down that road — especially since we already have 2 OPVs that meet a completely different need from surface combat. Whether there is any need for an icebreaker cannot be related to frigate replacements, so thats a debate to be had about EEZ surveillance (currently filled by OPVs and Orions). "Harstad was built as a multipurpose vessel, but optimised for emergency towing of large oil tankers" according to Wikipedia. NZs OPV requirements are more to do with endurance and ability to take on the Southern Ocean. Replacements for IPVs is a bit murky at the moment, what actually are the problems with them? Plenty of choices if they do come up for replacement, but perhaps we should debate whether they get run by Police or a CoastWatch organisation instead of RNZN Volunteer Reserve. I'm not sure if there is any possible upgrade that can fix the compromises that are RNZS Canterbury. There are some Singaporean built logistics ships that would fit the role so much better than reworked RORO ferries. To start with they have a welldeck for launching landing craft etc in rough weather. Kuroda appears to be essentially a modernised LSH tank landing ship run by the US Army, a format both NZ and Australia have moved away from due to being suitable for only a very narrow range of roles. Proper logistics ships now meet that need as well as being configurable for hospital and disaster relief functions, so the main issue is how many helos and troops need to be supported. And do we need a couple of heavylift helos. Replenishment is not a multi-role job if you put fuel and stores in the same category, it's basically a combined tanker/cargo ship optimised for at-sea replenishment. Has to happen pretty quickly too since single skinned tankers like RNZS Endeaver have become obsolete and internationally banned from major ports. I reckon bigger is better since we could end up replenishing an allied fleet as well as our own ships. Mine Countermeasures replacement has also already started. Not sure if this can be combined with the survey requirement since Mine Countermeasures tends to evolve into a littoral combat role if containerised mission modules make it a true multi-role vessel. It seems to be a common function of small to large corvettes with the Dutch Sigma class looking like its already made to fit. I think this potentially could also share the EEZ surveillance job for the Pacific Ocean, leaving the OPVs to patrol Southern Ocean. As the strategic environment gets more conflict-prone, we should also look at whether 2 frigates is enough for a surface combat force. I wonder if 4 frigates in 2 variants make more sense: 2 ASW frigates, and 2 setup more as general purpose and air defence. Air defence implies more powerful radar, longer range missiles, space available for containerised modules and an aft launching/recovery ramp for UUVs and an assault boat. My idea is that 2 variants of the same hull would complement each other if deployed in pairs, maybe also having CEC capability so that one ship can light up a target while the other ship (or a nearby US ship) fires a spare missile. I know NZ doesn't like spending on defence but things happen. |
|
|
|
Post by shorty on Jun 11, 2016 21:22:00 GMT 12
I think they should replace the frigates etc with C-130s and P-3s- they last much longer!
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jun 11, 2016 21:25:54 GMT 12
And do much more that is worthwhile to the nation.
|
|
|
|
Post by isc on Jun 12, 2016 23:59:34 GMT 12
I think the most important thing before ship replacement is done is to get enough personal to man/sorry person the ships they have at the moment, so that when new ships are acquired, their grandsons/daughters can sail the things. isc
|
|
|
|
Post by macnz on Nov 17, 2016 18:57:29 GMT 12
The Next Gen European Frigate - Belharra Class Frigate from DCNS ... another replacement contender? The 4,000-tonne Belharra design is positioned between the 6,000-tonne FREMM multi-mission frigate segment and that of the 2,500- to 3,000-tonne GOWIND corvettes. This size class is suitable for navies looking for a compact frigate, capable of ensuring long-range ocean-going missions, operating alone or embedded in a naval force on the high seas, or as part of coastal surveillance missions in a dense and hostile environment. Read More : defense-update.com/20161018_belharra.html |
|
|
|
Post by macnz on Dec 18, 2016 23:45:14 GMT 12
Anyone hear why the Iver Huitfeldt frigates missed out on being shortlisted by the RAN for their ANZAC frigate replacement? Read the Type 26, F-100, and FREMM made the cut. Source: www.defensenews.com/articles/italy-sends-fremm-frigate-on-promotional-tour-of-australiaI am still partial to the Iver Huitfeldt design for our frigate replacement. So curious to understand what the Aussies didnt like about them. Recently came across this video that discusses the performance and design of the Iver Huitfeldt if anyone interested |
|
