Moving Forward with Maximizing New Zealands Defense Force Assets

[Whiskyjack]

1) what is the NZDF mission?

It seems the MRC-sealift discussion is straying into trying to find a mission to fit a platform as opposed to finding a platform to fit the mission.

IMO the mission of the NZDF is the Defend NZ's interests.

To do this the NZDF needs to be able to conduct local ops (this means have the manpower and logistics) either:

1. By itself, at an extreme, or
2. In conjunction with Australia, most likely.

This recognises that Australia for all its size in the region will always have limitations in the area of man power and logistics. Therefore NZ must be able to look after its own within the region.

Outside the region NZ must be able to make a suitable specialist contribution, that will plug into a coalition logistics chain. This contribution may be up to a battalion group for a year, or a Frigate etc...

 

[Wooki]

Wookie, A question:

Are you talking a 2000nm Range (i.e. 1000nm there and 1000nm back) or a 2000nm radius?

Cheers

WJ

2000NM radius. The USAF fact sheets on the C130J-30 quote its maximum range with 35000lbs as 2100NM.

so I just picked 2000NM as a good radii to work with.

Thats also well within the bounds of the Austal 127 or any other fast ferry (Incat). I worked on a v/l design for 10000NM range (radii) for the USN provided by Incat back in the 90's and it wasn't a real problem.

The only issue there was the bridge crossing the Derwent(?) river, as it limited beam in the design and this turned out to be unacceptable (as well as the fact that it was not a domestic manufacturer, which is phooey as you just get the guys to set up shop in the US.)

But none of that existed back then, so it died a natural death.

Anyway a 1000 metric ton lift trimaran with a range of 4000NM plus reserve is a bit of a "geme".

cheers

W

 

[Whiskyjack]

2000NM radius. The USAF fact sheets on the C130J-30 quote its maximum range with 35000lbs as 2100NM.

so I just picked 2000NM as a good radii to work with.

Thats also well within the bounds of the Austal 127 or any other fast ferry (Incat). I worked on a v/l design for 10000NM range (radii) for the USN provided by Incat back in the 90's and it wasn't a real problem.

The only issue there was the bridge crossing the Derwent(?) river, as it limited beam in the design and this turned out to be unacceptable (as well as the fact that it was not a domestic manufacturer, which is phooey as you just get the guys to set up shop in the US.)

But none of that existed back then, so it died a natural death.

Anyway a 1000 metric ton lift trimaran with a range of 4000NM plus reserve is a bit of a "geme".

cheers

W

Well at that point then I would have to go for the Austal 127 as well. To an extent it is thinking out side the square for the NZDF, but also meets the requirements of the OTS creed. Also means that the in the event of disaster either in NZ or out in the islands there is a means to respond rapidly.

At far as off loading with no port I am sure that some Kiwi ingenuity could come into play here.

One comment on the range and the -30J, 2000nm only works if it can refuel at the other end...logistics, logistics, logistics etc…

 

[Wooki]

Well at that point then I would have to go for the Austal 127 as well. To an extent it is thinking out side the square for the NZDF, but also meets the requirements of the OTS creed. Also means that the in the event of disaster either in NZ or out in the islands there is a means to respond rapidly.

At far as off loading with no port I am sure that some Kiwi ingenuity could come into play here.

One comment on the range and the -30J, 2000nm only works if it can refuel at the other end...logistics, logistics, logistics etc…

::finger

yeh, I thought the same thing (re: the range thingy) but was told the USAF quotes range as "there and back" unless it is ferry range and then it is stipulated.

So, I dunno.:unknown Either way it is a good number to use in an academic comparison. The smaller the range the smaller the immediate response window is as well. i.e. the case gets better for the fast sealift.

I would still stick to at least 3 c130's though, so you can have 2 operating and one being overhauled.

cheers

w

 

[Whiskyjack]

::finger

yeh, I thought the same thing (re: the range thingy) but was told the USAF quotes range as "there and back" unless it is ferry range and then it is stipulated.

So, I dunno.:unknown Either way it is a good number to use in an academic comparison. The smaller the range the smaller the immediate response window is as well. i.e. the case gets better for the fast sealift.

I would still stick to at least 3 c130's though, so you can have 2 operating and one being overhauled.

cheers

w

As far as range goes, I'm pretty sure that figure is 'one way' not there and back, just looking at the C-130H performance that the NZDF gets and the A400M quoted on the Airbus page. But who knows

Agree fast ship looks good, would still like to keep the C-130s at the 5 mark though as they are useful in so many ways!

 

[Todjaeger]

I just checked a Janes source I have and the range listed for the C-130H is 4,250n miles, so a range of 2,000 n miles there and back sounds right.

With regards to sealift, I wasn't thinking in terms of using the Austal MR Corvette to replace any Lo/Lo ships. A Lo/Lo ship would have much greater capacity for use in transporting company or battalion sized units.

What I was thinking of is if/how NZ would respond in situations where troop & vehicle lift and support were needed quickly in various island chains and conditions were such that a C-130 couldn't deploy the initial force. Something like a tropical cyclone cutting a swath through the Solomons, and then an earthquake/tsunami hitting Indonesia. If NZ only has one, two, or maybe three sealift vessels, then NZ could be maxed out in ability to respond, particularly if it is already involved in a troop move to or from an overseas or UN deployment. In this type of scenario, having some small vessels able to participate in troop movement might help. Though on the other hand, for situations where NZ would deploy troops for assistance, the MR Corvette might not be a large enough transport, that I don't know.

As for a larger fast transport, I would like something like the Jervis Bay, with greater range. Per the info I have, Jervis Bay had a top speed of 45 kts, with a range of 1,000 n miles at 40 kts while carrying cargo & troops. I would definately want it to have a helicopter hangar though. Might be a good idea for the NZDF to check with the ADF to find out what Australia is considered for their fast transport to replace one of the Kanimbla (Newport) class LPA. If the two countries can agree on a joint purchase, both could benefit.

I also like ideas for using the fast transport when not needed for military duties. Operating it an an auxiliary civilian ferry could help to defray costs. I was wondering, would it be possible to use the Lo/Lo vessel in a similar fashion? It might be handy for NZ to be able to use it's logistics ships to pay for themselves if it is feasible.

As for keeping the C-130s or A400M if those are acquired. Definately, while they aren't necessarily able to be used for initial deployments due to range & capacity limits they can & would be used to resupply a deployed force. To that end, I would rather NZ have more transports, 8 perhaps.

 

[Sea Toby]

From the naval-technology web site:

LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP CORE CAPABILITIES

A full load displacement draft of 10ft allows the ships to access very shallow waters. The ships will have a top speed of about 50 knots and the range at sprint speed is 1,500nm. At an economical speed of 20 knots, the range is 4,300nm.

The slender stabilized trimaran monohull proposed by the General Dynamics team has an overall length of 127.8m, maximum beam of 28.4 metres and full load displacement of 2,637t. The seaframe is based on Austal's design for the Benchijigua Express passenger / car ferry.

------------

The LCS triamaran is almost as long as the NZ MRV, and has a wider beam, to wide to fit into the RNZN's Caliope drydock at Devenport.

The price of civilian sisters of the NZ MRV ran 40-45 million Euros, yet the military version of the ferries ran twice as much, 80 million Euros. I'm sure any military version of a triamaran ferry will have similar results, with the price double a civilian version.

 

[Wooki]

Did you say you still wanted 5 as opposed to 8 C130J-30's WJ?

If you had 5 then you wouldn't be able to pay for the 2 fast ferries.

You might be able to scrape through with 4. Its all a bit of a mystery, isn't it? As the only firm figures I have are 98 dollars for direct comparison.

1998 was soooo long ago, its a wonder the USAF doesn't post more relevant figures.

cheers

W

edit: this post was supposed to be #154... something goofy going on

 

[Sea Toby]

The US Navy has chartered one of the Incat ferries, the Joint Venture, ex Incat 050, Top Cat, and Devil Cat. Its has a speed of 37.5 knots fully loaded with a crew of only 30. Its dimensions are 96m x 26m x 4m. Since the top vehicle deck has been converted to a helicopter hangar and deck, the ship only has 330 lane meters of internal vehicle deck space. It only has one vehicle ramp aft, no cranes for lift on, lift off.

While all of the above is great, its main fault is its range, which is only 1,100 nautical miles at 35 knots. Unfortunately, at its top speed this ship is unacceptable for New Zealand. To achieve a desired range acceptable for New Zealand, it will have to go slower than the new NZ MRV Canterbury. One might as well as buy another Canterbury.

Therefore, why would New Zealand purchase it? The fast ferry costs more than a regular ferry. The regular ferry has the range of 8,000 nautical miles at 16 knots, with a sustained speed capacity of 19 knots delivering 6,000 nautical miles of range.

While these fast ferries are great in the Cook Strait, they do not have the FAST ferry range required for New Zealand's defence forces.

REALITY CHECK!
I have yet to see a FAST ferry with the required range New Zealand requires.

 

[Wooki]

The US Navy has chartered one of the Incat ferries, the Joint Venture, ex Incat 050, Top Cat, and Devil Cat. Its has a speed of 37.5 knots fully loaded with a crew of only 30. Its dimensions are 96m x 26m x 4m. Since the top vehicle deck has been converted to a helicopter hangar and deck, the ship only has 330 lane meters of internal vehicle deck space. It only has one vehicle ramp aft, no cranes for lift on, lift off.

While all of the above is great, its main fault is its range, which is only 1,100 nautical miles at 35 knots. Unfortunately, at its top speed this ship is unacceptable for New Zealand. To achieve a desired range acceptable for New Zealand, it will have to go slower than the new NZ MRV Canterbury. One might as well as buy another Canterbury.

Therefore, why would New Zealand purchase it? The fast ferry costs more than a regular ferry. The regular ferry has the range of 8,000 nautical miles at 16 knots, with a sustained speed capacity of 19 knots delivering 6,000 nautical miles of range.

While these fast ferries are great in the Cook Strait, they do not have the FAST ferry range required for New Zealand's defence forces.

REALITY CHECK!
I have yet to see a FAST ferry with the required range New Zealand requires.

I would surmize that you haven't looked hard enough

"...Anyway a 1000 metric ton lift trimaran with a range of 4000NM plus reserve is a bit of a "geme"..."

Its relatively easy to construct a ferry to those parameters. You just need to ask.

cheers

W

 

[Sea Toby]

A Danish Absalon destroyer style of ship of 6000 tons displacement has only 280 lane meters of vehicle deck space and can carry 200 soldiers, but cost 180 million Euros. A German B&V Meko 200 MRV of 3900 tons displacement has only 200 lane meters of vehicle deck space (no hangar) and can carry 180 troops, but cost 70 million Euros. Both have speeds of 25+ knots, but both cost more or as much than the Canterbury, with lesser sealift capability, neither carry boats for tactical sealift.

When New Zealand chose the Merwede design, it chose from among 21 different designs. The Canterbury met, if not exceeded every specification. Unfortunately, no faster ship did for the 100 million American price, or 85 million Euro price. While the MRV is considerably larger than the OPVs, the OPVs run around 35-40 million Euros each. For twice the price of one OPV, New Zealand acquired a wonderful ship which met its specifications. The Canterbury is tough to beat for sealift at its price.

America is building one of their two styles of LCS with a triamaran hull. Its running over 250 million Euros for a 4,000 ton ship. Minus the weaponry and combat data weapons systems, with only half the sealift capacity as the MRV, the ship's hull will surely run close to the 70 million Euros of the MRV. A MEKO 200 MRV sized vessel with faster engines will surely cost near the price of the MRV. Half the sealift for the same price?

Ireland is debating the same facts. We'll know soon which way the Irish choose...

 

[Wooki]

America is building one of their two styles of LCS with a triamaran hull. Its running over 250 million Euros for a 4,000 ton ship. Minus the weaponry and combat data weapons systems, with only half the sealift capacity as the MRV, the ship's hull will surely run close to the 70 million Euros of the MRV. A MEKO 200 MRV sized vessel with faster engines will surely cost near the price of the MRV. Half the sealift for the same price?

Ireland is debating the same facts. We'll know soon which way the Irish choose...

We are talking fast ferries, right? Not an MRV. The 44million USD I mentioned was a direct fixed-firm-price quote directly from the manufacturer. If you're getting other prices greater than that, than who is the dummy?

To get the range and speed its simply a question of increasing the length of the waterline ( which in turn increases water speed and makes the v/l more efficient) and adding the powerplant to do it. It really is that simple.

As to price, yes it will increase (due to increased material and the extra powerplant), but not dramatically so. Certainly not as much as an MRV given normal market pressures.

and with regard to an MRV that is a medium to long term sealift solution as I outlined above. +6 months is not efficient to run a fast ferry. Better to use your MRV and LOLO chartered ships.

The comparison I made was fast ferry to c130, as that is what it competes against--->Not the MRV.

cheers

W

 

[Todjaeger]

yes that is the ferry range, but the range fully loaded will be less,

Completely agree with the rest, funding permitting!

D'Oh, I just checked the next page in the guide, the stats for the range of a C-130J is only 2,800 n miles, give or take :nutkick

As for the discussion of a fast transport, and the MRV and Lo/Lo... The fast transport was to augment the MRV and a Lo/Lo transport, not replace the capabilities. Granted, there would be occasions where the fast transport would be used in place of the MRV or Lo/Lo. Those times predominantly would have to deal with the need to get troops, vehicles and supplies landed somewhere quickly, or if/when the other vessels are already laden or undergoing maintenance. And then I would expect after the initial landings, the MRV would step in and take over.

Take a look at Austal's page for the Westpac Express HSV
http://www.austal.com/go/product-information/defence-products/high-speed-support-vessels
Westpac Express is only 101m in length and can carry a battalion of US Marines in one lift, as opposed to several days required to transport the same force via aircraft.

Going with a slightly different idea, has the RAN and RNZN ever considered merging their support ships? I'm thinking of something along the lines of the RFA. Something that would be jointly funded since and could be used by both. I would expect there to be times when either the RAN or RNZN has either excess support capacity or a shortfall. Does anyone think something like this could work?

 

[Whiskyjack]

I just checked a Janes source I have and the range listed for the C-130H is 4,250n miles, so a range of 2,000 n miles there and back sounds right.

yes that is the ferry range, but the range fully loaded will be less, from the USAF website.:

Maximum Normal Payload:
C-130E, 36,500 pounds (16,590 kilograms)
C-130H, 36,500 pounds (16,590 kilograms)
C-130J, 34,000 pounds (15,422 kilograms)
C-130J-30, 36,000 pounds (16,329 kilograms)
Range at Maximum Normal Payload:
C-130E, 1,150 miles (1,000 nautical miles)
C-130H, 1,208 miles (1,050 nautical miles)
C-130J, 2,071 miles (1,800 nautical miles)
C-130J-30, 1,956 miles (1,700 nautical miles)
Range with 35,000 pounds of Payload:
C-130E, 1,438 miles (1,250 nautical miles)
C-130H, 1,496 miles (1,300 nautical miles)
C-130J, 1,841 miles (1,600 nautical miles)
C-130J-30, 2,417 miles (2,100 nautical miles)

Lets remember that the C-130 is a tactical airlifter.

Completely agree with the rest, funding permitting!

 

[Sea Toby]

A Hercules should average 300 mph, covering a distance of 1200 miles should take 4 hours. The Canterbury's top speed is 19 knots, covering a distance of 1200 miles should take 63 hours at 19 knots. The OPVs top speed is 22 knots, covering a distance of 1200 miles should take 55 hours, the Danish Absalon's top speed is 25 knots, covering a distance of 1200 miles should take 48 hours.

In a natural disaster type of sealift mission, the army would at best load a ship the next day, and embark that evening, we'll speculate at 6 PM. At the MRV's speed of 19 knots it would arrive at its destination 1200 miles away at 9 AM in two and a half days. The OPV would arrive at its destination at 1 AM in a quarter more than two days. The Danish Absalon would arrive at its destination at 6 PM in exactly two days, similar to an Anzac frigate. Even though the other ships arrived earlier than the MRV, they would probably not start operations until daybreak, so there is no gain. For a ship to arrive 24 hours earlier than the MRV, a ship would have to average 31 knots, not many commerical ships achieve this speed. The scenario above maintains that the ships can sustain their top speed for a few days, weather and sea conditions can extend these times.

As I mentioned before, fast ferries can go twice as fast, but at their top speed of 40+ knots their range shortens significantly to 1100 nautical miles. To achieve the range necessary to reach futher distances with the ability to return without refueling, they have to reduce speed significantly, down to around 20 knots.

Most of the army and most civilians in peacetime sleep at night. If a natural disaster happened in the early morning, the army and government could react that day, but that may be moving too fast. On the other hand if the natural disaster happened in the evening hours or at night, the army and government would react the next day.

Its about 1200 to 2500 miles to different South Pacific island nations, its 1900+ miles to Cairns from Auckland, and its 1100+ miles to Fiji. We know the Hercules can travel to Cairns, that's the airport they used to refuel on their journey to Darwin and East Timor. Obviously the Hercules can use Fiji's airport or others in the South Pacific to refuel as well. Therefore, the air force can respond within a day.

The air force can move the emergency supplies swiftly, but when the navy's MRV arrives, the army should be able to start the rebuilding process and with its helicopters reaching out to the smaller communities.

 

[Whiskyjack]

A Hercules should average 300 mph, covering a distance of 1200 miles should take 4 hours. The Canterbury's top speed is 19 knots, covering a distance of 1200 miles should take 63 hours at 19 knots. The OPVs top speed is 22 knots, covering a distance of 1200 miles should take 55 hours, the Danish Absalon's top speed is 25 knots, covering a distance of 1200 miles should take 48 hours.

In a natural disaster type of sealift mission, the army would at best load a ship the next day, and embark that evening, we'll speculate at 6 PM. At the MRV's speed of 19 knots it would arrive at its destination 1200 miles away at 9 AM in two and a half days. The OPV would arrive at its destination at 1 AM in a quarter more than two days. The Danish Absalon would arrive at its destination at 6 PM in exactly two days, similar to an Anzac frigate. Even though the other ships arrived earlier than the MRV, they would probably not start operations until daybreak, so there is no gain. For a ship to arrive 24 hours earlier than the MRV, a ship would have to average 31 knots, not many commerical ships achieve this speed. The scenario above maintains that the ships can sustain their top speed for a few days, weather and sea conditions can extend these times.

As I mentioned before, fast ferries can go twice as fast, but at their top speed of 40+ knots their range shortens significantly to 1100 nautical miles. To achieve the range necessary to reach futher distances with the ability to return without refueling, they have to reduce speed significantly, down to around 20 knots.

Most of the army and most civilians in peacetime sleep at night. If a natural disaster happened in the early morning, the army and government could react that day, but that may be moving too fast. On the other hand if the natural disaster happened in the evening hours or at night, the army and government would react the next day.

Its about 1200 to 2500 miles to different South Pacific island nations, its 1900+ miles to Cairns from Auckland, and its 1100+ miles to Fiji. We know the Hercules can travel to Cairns, that's the airport they used to refuel on their journey to Darwin and East Timor. Obviously the Hercules can use Fiji's airport or others in the South Pacific to refuel as well. Therefore, the air force can respond within a day.

The air force can move the emergency supplies swiftly, but when the navy's MRV arrives, the army should be able to start the rebuilding process and with its helicopters reaching out to the smaller communities.

A good analysis Sea Toby, however I agree with Wooki, that it is not a major task to increase the range of a fast Cat or Tri. And based on that I think that one such ship would be an asset to the NZDF/NZ govt.

 

[icelord]

Most of the army and most civilians in peacetime sleep at night. If a natural disaster happened in the early morning, the army and government could react that day, but that may be moving too fast. On the other hand if the natural disaster happened in the evening hours or at night, the army and government would react the next day.

not really, most defence forces could have a reaction by 6'oclock news...as in AM. People can wake up and get out of bed if something were to happen, we do it quite a lot, bali airlift was up and running in a matter of hours, and it occured early sunday morning time here.

Also, what if their was no place to land a herc? The pacific is all small islands, and some of the most at risk are covered in trees and have no landing strips, how do you rescue them? And a Herc would no be able to swoop in as stated heavy equipment for rebuilding.
As for range, stratergy could have a fast ferry race to the disaster zone, and a refuel ship could be at a staging point by the time it gets half way back, covering that issue.

Ps, not attacking, stratergising

 

[Sea Toby]

Yes, Hercules can fly to airports closer to army bases, something a MRV cannot do quickly. A MRV has to sail to a port close to an army base, or wait for the army's equipment to arrive at her home port before boarding. It only takes half an hour at most to load a Hercules, while it can take a few hours to load a MRV. Speed will always be won by cargo aircraft.

I thought I left it very clear that if a disaster happened in the evening hours the reaction would wait until the next day, as the government and its army are more than likely sleeping. Its been my experience that the government doesn't really know the true damage until after daybreak the next morning.

In America it takes a few hours to call up the National Guard, a few days to call up the Reserves. Yes, Delta Force is ready to move within a few hours, the Hercules at an air force base next door to an army base. Fortunately Burns isn't far from Linton, but the naval base in Auckland is a bit further.

I have read through my Janes, did another research of ship-technology's website, and I have yet to find a 40 knot ferry or cargo ship that has a range further than 1200 nautical miles at its top speed. Since no one has built a fast ferry to go further faster, with ships the size similar to the Canterbury in length and beam, I wonder whether its doable. Catarmans, triamarans, deep-vee, or monohull. Every one built today will go further at slower speeds, but that slower speed is similar to the Canterbury's, not more.

If I missed this vessel, please inform me which fast 40 knot capable vessel has a range of 4,000 nautical miles at 40 knots? As I noted while Fiji maybe 1100+ miles away, Samoa is 1800+ miles away. Any ship sent without a tanker should be able to return without refueling.

Yes, the closest ship I could find was the SS United States, she won the Blue Ribband during 1953 running close to 37 knots. Its been claimed that she won the trophy without firing her last two boilers. Of course, her displacement was over 50,000 tons and today she'll run over $1 billion in NZ dollars, probably more. I don't think New Zealand wishes to acquire her, she is much too big for the required task.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Yes, Hercules can fly to airports closer to army bases, something a MRV cannot do quickly. A MRV has to sail to a port close to an army base, or wait for the army's equipment to arrive at her home port before boarding. It only takes half an hour at most to load a Hercules, while it can take a few hours to load a MRV. Speed will always be won by cargo aircraft.

Yes you are correct in general, but a Herc will carry a load of 10-12 tons, a MRV/Ferry will carry 500-1000 tons. Army equipment would come by Road/Rail to Auckland. For military operations it will take longer as each military operation will be tailored differently. For Disasters it will most likely be different as much of the equipment, tents, food etc…can actually be pre packed in containers ready to go (I believe that this is done by many agencies already).

A ship that is tailored to offload over a beach will always be able to do so, an aircraft may not be able to operate into an airport as the runway may be damaged.

I thought I left it very clear that if a disaster happened in the evening hours the reaction would wait until the next day, as the government and its army are more than likely sleeping. Its been my experience that the government doesn't really know the true damage until after daybreak the next morning.

Depends on the disaster, a cyclone will always be known about in advance allowing for things to be readied, n earthquake/eruption is a different kettle of fish, but is also the most likely to leave the airfield inoperable.

In America it takes a few hours to call up the National Guard, a few days to call up the Reserves. Yes, Delta Force is ready to move within a few hours, the Hercules at an air force base next door to an army base. Fortunately Burns isn't far from Linton, but the naval base in Auckland is a bit further.

In the event of a military operation you are looking at 72-120 hrs before any response is made at any rate and logistics dictates that most of it will come by the sea.

I have read through my Janes, did another research of ship-technology's website, and I have yet to find a 40 knot ferry or cargo ship that has a range further than 1200 nautical miles at its top speed. Since no one has built a fast ferry to go further faster, with ships the size similar to the Canterbury in length and beam, I wonder whether its doable. Catarmans, triamarans, deep-vee, or monohull. Every one built today will go further at slower speeds, but that slower speed is similar to the Canterbury's, not more.

Cats and Tris are new to the military, but my basic skills do lead me to suggest that if a Tri has a high speed range of 1100nms with 1000 ton payload and you knock that payload down to 750 and put an extra 250 tons of fuel on board you will increase the range. If you leave it as is and knock the speed down to 30 knots you will increase range again.

Just because it isn’t there now doesn’t mean it is not possible, its just that no one has specified the need.

If the RAN or RNZN goes to Austal and says we want a Cat/Tri that can lift a 500-750t payload out to x miles and return empty without refuelling, they will come up with something. I hope

If I missed this vessel, please inform me which fast 40 knot capable vessel has a range of 4,000 nautical miles at 40 knots? As I noted while Fiji maybe 1100+ miles away, Samoa is 1800+ miles away. Any ship sent without a tanker should be able to return without refueling.

My other suggestion, which has been made in another thread is that the ADF/NZDF need a base with airfield/port (at a basic level) out into the pacific, I believe Niue was a mentioned. this base would be used as a hub for pacific patrols and a military/disaster logistics hub..

 

[gf0012-aust]

Cats and Tris are new to the military, but my basic skills do lead me to suggest that if a Tri has a high speed range of 1100nms with 1000 ton payload and you knock that payload down to 750 and put an extra 250 tons of fuel on board you will increase the range. If you leave it as is and knock the speed down to 30 knots you will increase range again.

Just because it isn’t there now doesn’t mean it is not possible, its just that no one has specified the need.

If the RAN or RNZN goes to Austal and says we want a Cat/Tri that can lift a 500-750t payload out to x miles and return empty without refuelling, they will come up with something. I hope


My other suggestion, which has been made in another thread is that the ADF/NZDF need a base with airfield/port (at a basic level) out into the pacific, I believe Niue was a mentioned. this base would be used as a hub for pacific patrols and a military/disaster logistics hub..

I've got a series of schemers sent to me by austal when I was contracted to find a fast hauler for a "customer".

without dragging out the book and confirming, I'm pretty sure that there was a 120m flat packer capable of shifting 1000+ tonnes at 1000km and high speed. It was able to support 2 small helos. It always struck me as being an ideal RRF/RDF vessel due to shallow draft, driveway access etc....

i've argued in the past that the 75metre version would make a good interceptor in places like Ashmore Reef etc as it could play "blue heeler" amongst the illegal poachers etc + double up as a fast strike team unloader if necessary. the 75m was also helo friendly and had a big-arse ramp for rapid unloads/loads.