Future options for the RNZN

[EnigmaNZ]

There are a lot of second hand DS etc ships around.

Older but has all equipment including sub as Diver Support vessel.
http://www.ships-for-sale.com/dive_support_ship.htm

Modern tanker for $8.3M, 114,000 DWT probably a little large to replace Endeavour.
http://shipexpo.com/sales/vessel_detail.asp?FileNo=2317

Would have been a nice replacemnt for the Resolution. Big, modern, well equiped.
http://shipexpo.com/sales/vessel_detail.asp?FileNo=2198

A couple of these instead of the LCM8's on the MRV could have proved handy, 60 ton payload and amphibious, but without the huge price tag of the LCAC.
http://shipexpo.com/sales/vessel_detail.asp?FileNo=2174

 

[Super Nimrod]

While on the subject of second hand, would the NZ navy consider ex-RN type-23's ? These are after all modern and very new and were designed for global use so would be okay in the South Pacific or Southern Ocean. The Chileans have just been sold two (or was it 3?) at what appeared a very cheap price and I am sure when some more become available the UK govt would look on a NZ request for information very favourably.

 

[Sea Toby]

A Labour government no, a National government maybe. The British frigates are larger and have different weapons systems than their Anzacs. If New Zealand were to acquire a used vessel, they would prefer to purchase a used Anzac from Australia. Australia may sell a used one to New Zealand using the proceeds to help acquire a fourth AWD. I don't see Australia building another Anzac, I am sure they would rather build another AWD.

 

[Rocco_NZ]

Third frigate

Having tenix build a one-off ship similar to an Anzac wouldn't present any major problems. Tenix are happily working away on OPV modules and preparing to fit out the MRV shortly. In fact, Tenix NZ has the capacity to produce all the hull and superstructure modules itself. There is nothing unique or challenging about the equipment fitted to the current ships that precludes a one-off delivery.

Another option would be to use the hull and machinery from the AWD and give it a FFH equipment fit.

 

[alexsa]

There are a lot of second hand DS etc ships around.

Older but has all equipment including sub as Diver Support vessel.
http://www.ships-for-sale.com/dive_support_ship.htm

Modern tanker for $8.3M, 114,000 DWT probably a little large to replace Endeavour.
http://shipexpo.com/sales/vessel_detail.asp?FileNo=2317

Would have been a nice replacemnt for the Resolution. Big, modern, well equiped.
http://shipexpo.com/sales/vessel_detail.asp?FileNo=2198

A couple of these instead of the LCM8's on the MRV could have proved handy, 60 ton payload and amphibious, but without the huge price tag of the LCAC.
http://shipexpo.com/sales/vessel_detail.asp?FileNo=2174

Unlike old soldiers age does weary ships. One thing about old ships is the engineering sytesm are usually completley clapped out and the structuaral fire protection is less than ideal. I know of one operator trying to bring an old ship in a specilaised trade up to a 25 year old regulatory requirement of SOLAS (i.e. nowhere near the most current) and they are forking out about 15 million USD, half of which is going on structral fire protection.

The dive reaseach vessel was built in 1977 and subsequently rebuilt. The navigation equipment it carries is nothing to write home about (Decca in this day and age, what the!!!) and the radio equipment is very antiquated. I would hate to think what it is like under the paint.

A tanker of 114 odd thousand tonnes is a very large vessel displacing more that a US carrier at full load. A draft of 15.6m is pretty deep for a lot of ports and it is old for a tanker being built in 1984. This thing will be very well worn.

The research vessel was built in 1972 and it is interesting to note the GL class runs out this year. Bit curious about that, could be a bit long in the tooth for a credible classification society to continue with.

Now the large LARC is interesting but again built in 1969 and is one of a kind (in other words and orphan), surely the new ADI watercraft would be a better option.

I don't mean to sound harsh but old commercial tonnage (over 10 years buyer beware, over 15 it had better be cheap) is really going to be expensive to convert to anything useful. More to the point anything built before the 1st of September 1984 is have pretty ordinary strutural fire protection. Finally if your government decide your navy will conform to SOLAS and MARPOL the bring the vessl up to that standard will probably cost you more than a new hull which would more efficient to operate.

 

[Sea Toby]

While the Endeavour maybe a small replenishment ship for the American Navy, she is ideal for the small New Zealand navy and useful for the Australian navy. The only thing not ideal is her slow speed. It was built to last 30 years or so, and she is less than 20 years in age. New Zealand probably won't purchase a replacement for another ten years, a replacement could probably be built in two years.

However, New Zealand's diving tender is 27 years in age, her end of life is upcoming. She could be replaced with another oil field support vessel, or possibly a salvage vessel, useful for towing and diving which has been mentioned above. It appears New Zealand could use a towing capability.

If one is going to purchase a used ship, I prefer to purchase such before or at its mid-life refit. Acquiring a used ship past its mid-life point is not ideal, although such a ship maybe very cheap.

 

[Rocco_NZ]

second hand ships

I would need a lot of convincing to support a second hand ship purchase. There are only a limited number of circumstances where it seems like a good idea. Resolution was a rare and good find. I'm struggling to think of a recent purchase of frigates from the RN that didn't cause problems for the RNZN. The goverment is enjoying large surpluses, there simply isn't any need to be penny wise.

 

[Lucasnz]

I would need a lot of convincing to support a second hand ship purchase. There are only a limited number of circumstances where it seems like a good idea. Resolution was a rare and good find. I'm struggling to think of a recent purchase of frigates from the RN that didn't cause problems for the RNZN. The goverment is enjoying large surpluses, there simply isn't any need to be penny wise.

I agree. There is no need at present for New Zealand to penny pinch. NZ should buy 2 new vessels - One to replace Manawanui and the Kahu. Both would be diving capable and carry out the MCM roles currently assigned to Manawanui.

The purchase of Wellington and Southland by the Muldoon Government (National) was a short sighted one that reflected the state of the economy at the time. While there have been clear exceptions (Monawai, Resolution, Manawanui) I think NZ should avoid purchasing 2nd hand ships, where there is a requirement for significant modification/ refit (over and above activation costs) or the cost (both initial and operating) to the taxpayer is disproportionate to the life of the vessel when compared to a new ship.

 

[EnigmaNZ]

I remember looking at the Hyundai site a few years ago, they had several tankers, the class of which the Endeavour is part of was the largest, and slowest. Can she be re-engined, I realise to get another 4-5 knots will mean doubling the horsepower, they should have specified an 18 knot cruise when they brought her. Prosumably the rest of the drive train would need to be modified as well. Apart from her speed and being light in the self defence department, she does the job.

There are a lot of big ticket items coming up in future years, This decade has been the LAVs and LOVs, varioue AD AT Coms etc for the Army, the Anzacs and Project Protector for the Navy, life extension and upgrades for the C-130s and Orions, the NH90s and light helos. A big shopping list. Add to that all the bases need a serious rebuilding program, there are still a lot of WW2 and prior buildings and '50s type state houses in the inventory. Next decade there is the Navies Anzac upgrade, replacement of the Endeavor, Manawanui, Resolution, the Armies light weapons and howitzrer replacements, the inshore maritine surveilance aircraft, I prosume something like the Kingair 350ER, and from the end of the decade the replacements for the Orion and Herc. I did hear rumours of another Army battlion as well for the future, I think it was Helen, due to the current workload with peacekeeping.

So the kitty is pretty much accounted for until the end of the next decade or 2, in fact, if we go with the A400 and Boeing MPA, the kitty is accounted for until about 2030, as the last 2 programs alone in todays money would run into the $NZ3 to 4 billion+ level, unless we downsize to the C130J / Casa 235 MPA level. Then from 2030, the replacement / upgrade cycle needs to restart as everything brought in the last few years reaches it's use by date. To get anywhere, we really could do with a increase in the Defence budget, or consistently high real GDP growth with Defence not falling under the 1% GDP level.

 

[alexsa]

The bad new with tankers is that not many commercial tankers are designed with speeds up to and beyong 18 knots. the Power requried is not double but the fuel burn for the additional speed cannot be justified commerically as the cargo is not that time critical (unlike main line container trades).

The good new is that many owners have rushed in late for the current rate boom and have ordered at the top of the market (the smart guys have money and order when the marklet is on its back - and then sell some of the slots the the not so smart ones at inflated prices when the market lifts). Orderbooks are now full and there is a growing feeleing in the market that it is going to over suscribed again so there may be some good qualtiy new tonnage about at knock down pricies in the next 5 years.

DMO got a very good deal on the Delos/Sirius as far as I can tell. I understand they were offer more than they paid for the vessel to buy it back after the deal was done.

 

[Rocco_NZ]

I remember looking at the Hyundai site a few years ago, they had several tankers, the class of which the Endeavour is part of was the largest, and slowest. Can she be re-engined, I realise to get another 4-5 knots will mean doubling the horsepower, they should have specified an 18 knot cruise when they brought her. Prosumably the rest of the drive train would need to be modified as well. Apart from her speed and being light in the self defence department, she does the job.

There are a lot of big ticket items coming up in future years, This decade has been the LAVs and LOVs, varioue AD AT Coms etc for the Army, the Anzacs and Project Protector for the Navy, life extension and upgrades for the C-130s and Orions, the NH90s and light helos. A big shopping list. Add to that all the bases need a serious rebuilding program, there are still a lot of WW2 and prior buildings and '50s type state houses in the inventory. Next decade there is the Navies Anzac upgrade, replacement of the Endeavor, Manawanui, Resolution, the Armies light weapons and howitzrer replacements, the inshore maritine surveilance aircraft, I prosume something like the Kingair 350ER, and from the end of the decade the replacements for the Orion and Herc. I did hear rumours of another Army battlion as well for the future, I think it was Helen, due to the current workload with peacekeeping.

You're back to front with your assumptions. Most, if not all, of the big ticket items have been paid for already (Protector, LAVs, LOVs, Orions, Hercs, NH90). The next 15 years is a relativley low cost period in terms of capital injections. By 2020 the Orions and Hercs will have reached the end of their extended service lives and both frigates will require replacement. Forget about rumours of another battalion - Army can't staff the two it has at the moment.

 

[abramsteve]

Just a question, and I have no idea if what Im about to say is stupid!

Does the speed of the tanker matter that much? If shes not going to have to group up with other surface warships on an operational deployment (especially in the case of New Zealand) then so long as the tanker can intercept the ship that needs replenishment at a pre-determined location then its all good right?

 

[EnigmaNZ]

They haven't all been paid for, as this treasury site shows. Notice the multiyear funding of larger items.

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget2005/estimates/est05defen.pdf

The Endeavour does appear to travel on it's own, shuttling back and forth from fueling depots to the vessel it is shadowing. If there is no hurry, I imagine them traveling together at 14 knotts, but if the Anzac is sent somewhere, then it would leave the tanker behind, as long as the tanker gets there before the Anzac gets to low on fuel, no problem i suppose. The MRV can cruise at 19.5, the Anzac at 18+, a future replentishment vessel 18+

The ROK AOE would be a suitable replacement for the Endeavour, at a better price than a european alternative, 20 knot, 9000 ton.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/rok/aoe-57.htm

 

[Rocco_NZ]

They haven't all been paid for, as this treasury site shows. Notice the multiyear funding of larger items.

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget2005/estimates/est05defen.pdf

Just what is that link supposed to illustrate? If you refer to the Defence Capability and Resourcing Review you will see that it reiterates my point.

 

[Rocco_NZ]

Speed

Does the speed of the tanker matter that much? If shes not going to have to group up with other surface warships on an operational deployment (especially in the case of New Zealand) then so long as the tanker can intercept the ship that needs replenishment at a pre-determined location then its all good right?

The top speed doesn't matter so much. What matters is the economical cruising speed. It is certainly possible to send the AO ahead of the main body on deployments, but some situations will mean this is less than ideal. If we could deploy an 18kt AO it could cruise in company with the various frigates we operate with around the region much more easily. Of course the other advantage is simply that less time is taken to resupply away from the operational area.

For what it is worth I think we should be looking at an AO design that can embark, maintain and operate at least 4 medium sized helicopters. Having a capability to refuel helicopters of other ships is fine, but with the limited size of the RNZN the flexibility afforded by a larger helicopter capacity is a force multiplier.

 

[Lucasnz]

I think speed does have some importance. At the start of East Timor Endeavour and a ANZAC were up in SEA. The ANZAC came back alone, while Endeavour sailed back with Indonesian warships shadowing it. The ideal would have been both coming back together at 18kts (Dash speed for a ANZAC). Given the importance Endeavour played later in supplying fuel to deployed forces, the slow speed was a vunerability in the intial stages of the operations.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Its also not just about the fuel off-load, any new ship should be able to carry stores and ammunition mainly for RAS, but also for sustaining forces ashore and a role as a disaster relief ship.

A far as speed goes there is transit to consider, but also as Lucasnz says above, the replenishment ship is an important asset in its own right and may have to operate at the forward edge, which means it must be capable of keeping up with frigates, destroyers etc for its own protection.

 

[Sea Toby]

As I recall, HMNZS Endeavour refueled the ships, HMNZS Te Kaha and HMS Glasgow before they departed Singapore, and caught up with them a few days later off East Timor. I didn't know that the Endeavour was being tracked by Indonesian warships.

Its not the end of the world having a slow replenishment ship, but a faster ship is nicer and worth the extra expense for a second diesel and propeller. The key is being in the same neighborhood with the rest of your deployed ships, either staging before or after the other surface warships.

Lucky for New Zealand, its Anzacs, the MRV, and the OPVs have excellent range and can steam for a long time between replenishments. Both the Australians and the New Zealanders have done well acquiring ships with long range, especially considering the distances in the Pacific.

When you consider that an Anzac frigate carries only 423 tons of fuel, the Endeavour's 7500 tons of fuel comes in handy not only for one or both of New Zealand's frigates, but for many other ships in a task force as shown by its endeavours at East Timor

With the new MRV coming very soon, by the end of the year, this ship will be very useful for disaster relief operations, being able to carry tons of supplies on its vehicle deck.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

RNZN? One for one replacements is what is needed, allthough I would want a salvage tug type vessel, as has been mentioned in this thread; Its worth remembering the Brit destroyer that had a wee accident a couple of years back.
The ANZACS need to have that upgrade and they need to get Harpoon.

I would want an extra two frigates, with similar/same plant systems and weapons as the ANZAC's, but that is a political choice that wont get a look in with any Labour government, and the Nats havent got their act together on defence policy {or many others, truth be known}

 

[Sea Toby]

I have noticed that Estonia has purchased three new Sandown class minehunters from the United Kingdom today, April 7, 2006 for American $62.5 million. New Zealand could do the same, which would run around NZ $100 million for three minehunting ships. Sandown class ships have small crews, and would give New Zealand a better minehunting capability.