New Zealand awards contract for $500 Million Dollar Project "Protector".

[Supe]

What was the rationale for purchasing the OPV's? It's got a popgun up front... bloody hell. These ships would be useless in any deployment.

Some decent sized pics of what they will look like.

http://www.defencemodels.com.au/Projects/OPV.asp

Here is the MRV.

http://www.defencemodels.com.au/Projects/MRV.asp

Both are mockups commissioned by Tenix?

Edit: Ahh, here we go. On the OPV's.

http://www.navy.mil.nz/visit-the-fleet/project-protector/default.htm

Two ships are required to conduct maritime surveillance, in conjunction with maritime air patrol assets to the limit of New Zealand's EEZ, in the South Pacific and in the Southern Ocean for a total of about 420 days annually. Tasks in the southern half of the EEZ are mostly offshore, but activity in the south almost doubles during winter, coinciding with the worst sea states.

The Tenix Offshore Patrol Vessels are based on a design already in service with the Irish Navy.

 

[Sea Toby]

At least New Zealand didn't waste $400 million in cost overuns on two 20 year old ships, now 25 year old ships, as the Australians did to get approximately the same capability as the New Zealand MPV. Furthermore the Australian Newport LPAs don't have a larger gun than the MPV either.

The New Zealand OPVs, think of them as extended range IPVs, they have a similar armament as the Australian Armidales' IPVs. At least the New Zealand's OPVs have a range of 6,000 nautical miles, double the range of the Armidale IPVs. The OPVs carry a helicopter and they are ice strengthened too. Why can Australia build undergunned naval ships and New Zealand can't?

Do you really need a larger gun to overwhelm illegal fishing vessels or to straf a beach?

 

[Supe]

Do you really need a larger gun to overwhelm illegal fishing vessels or to straf a beach?

I agree with your sentiment. My edit reflected that even if not explicitly.The reason for the procurement of the OPV's and it does fit RNZN doctrine. They would be useless deployed outside its mandated roles (as would the Armidales).

I think the Armidales armament too light given that is possible (even if unlikely) that these could be deployed elsewhere in the near region. There's a bit of local hype PR on the Armidale's and I keep wondering what the fuss is about.

Edit: Australian defence related purchases are infamous for cost overruns and mismanagement. It's a disgrace when you think what that money could have been used for. Just thinking about it pisses me off. It's the sort of thing you'd expect in some banana republic.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I've got a question to ask you all with regards to New Zealand and also other countries around the world.

Why can't New Zealands Top defence analysts and head men eg- the head of nz navey, army and airforce (im not sure what they are called in New Zealand Generals?) decide what we need and let them do what is needed with regards to purchasing gear instead of politicans saying what they think is right for each force.

Is it possible for defence to work completly seperate from the government but still get its funding each year and participate in the direction that the government is heading in.

What im trying to say is do and buy what it wants but still operate how the government wants it to.

that way i think nz's army navy and airforce can decide for themselves what they want and the kind of capability that they thimk is needed to operate in theatre (peace keeping etc)



???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Because politicians hold the purse strings, that's why. They military of any democracy is subordinate to the elected Government, just like any other public service. The Government however doesn't simply pick what it wants off the top of it's head. It acquires military capability based on recommendations from it's military services.

 

[Sea Toby]

You forgot to mention that governments change. In Australia Labour seemed to be quite happy with the Anzacs as is, whereas the first thing on Liberal's agenda was to upgrade the Anzacs. In New Zealand, National wanted at least a third frigate but never got around to acquiring it, whereas Labour wished to go in a different direction, a direction of acquiring a multi-role ship along with a few OPVs, new IPVs weren't even on the table. After the bids arrived, suddenly new IPVs could be acquired within the proposed budget too.

From what I have been reading on the worldwide web, it appears in Australia Liberal wants to acquire two LHDs along with some sort of logistic ship (not necessarily an LPD) whereas Labour would be satisfied with two or three smaller LPDs. The LHD programme started a few years ago, last year the program should have awarded a contract. The programme was delayed a year to give Australian shipyards a better chance as their bids were far above the foreign shipyard's bid, allowing them to make arrangements with either or both of the two winners. The first ship won't be commissioned until 2012, 6 years away.

On the other hand, New Zealand acquired a ferry design thats been around for five years, four ferries are very similar and they are smaller versions of other ferries this shipyard has built. Notice the new Interislander ferry is a larger version of the MPV. Of course there were some design changes, but the engine plant and basic layout of the ship is very similar. After a review of the maritime forces, the bidding and awarding process, this ship is being delivered 27 months after the order was placed. It seems the government maritime review took longer than the construction time, having to scrutinize 21 different bids. Instead of a ten year programme to build such a ship for the Australians, New Zealand is getting a ship in seven years.

If Australia awards the contract next year, 2007, and won't expect delivery until 2012, that is a five year construction time, whereas New Zealand was able to get delivery in 27 months, a bit more than two years. In my book:THAT'S IMPRESSIVE! The only quicker route is to acquire vessels used, already built. Somehow Australia messed this process up with the Newport LST's.

Of course in wartime environment these events don't take anywhere near as long, especially the government's evaluation process. But these events show how long it takes to build a ship, and shows that every military fights the next conflict with assets ON HAND!

 

[Lucasnz]

NZ Naval Purposes

There are a whole range of factors are driving the Protector project, this is my take...

I think under a Labour government's, Naval purchases are been driven, to a degree, by Labour's past experiences. For example in the 1970's NZ sent a frigate to protest Anti Nuclear Testing, but had to rely on Australia for fuel (from HMAS Success). The next time Labour got into power - NZ purchased a tanker (HMNZS Endeavour). In the 1980's Labour had to deal with the Fiji Coup, but could only Land a limited number of forces via C-130 and HMNZS Monawai. While National attempted to rectify the short comings through the purchase of HMNZS Charles Upham, Labour wanted something more capable (Which the MRV really is), plus it was politically expedient given the ravings of the defunct Alliance party. It should be noted that in that in the early 1970's the navy asked for 6 patrol craft for resource protection to the then 12nm EEZ, of a certain size, but got 4 smaller ones that lasted 15 years and were more submarine that patrol craft in bad weather. I think that the rationale behind the OPV and IPV's is simply a reflection on past thinking in modern terms (even if it did take 4 other government departments to come to the same conclusion as the navy did 30 year before).

The final selection process was run by treasury in conjucton with the MOD, so even though the navy wanted 76mm (stated as a perferred not 'shall'), in the RFP, it got 25mm, because the need to replace the IPV's chewed up funds, which the government wasn't prepared to increase. (Side NoteInteresting that the operating cost of the aircombat force (excluding wages was about 80milion), which happen to be the same amount as the increase in the Arts budget in the year the air combat force was scrapped, from a goverment who said we couldn't afford combat aircraft. Back to the topic That same RFP specified that that there was no requirement for an air weapons magazine (I suppose the container space in the MRV and OPV would allow a modular one to be carried), but this as reduced the Sea Sprite to a survellience role - clearly the government does not intend these vessels to have a real military role, having said that the RN OPV's during the Falklands War acted as dispatch vessels, in a medium level conflict, though I would admit that the naval opposition wasn't much.

Sorry about the history, but hopefully it gives a new perspective as to where NZ is coming from. The need for speed in building reflected the need to replace Canterbury ASAP, and I would'nt be suprised if Tenix won on the delivery time as much as cost.

 

[Aussie Digger]

You forgot to mention that governments change. In Australia Labour seemed to be quite happy with the Anzacs as is, whereas the first thing on Liberal's agenda was to upgrade the Anzacs. In New Zealand, National wanted at least a third frigate but never got around to acquiring it, whereas Labour wished to go in a different direction, a direction of acquiring a multi-role ship along with a few OPVs, new IPVs weren't even on the table. After the bids arrived, suddenly new IPVs could be acquired within the proposed budget too.

From what I have been reading on the worldwide web, it appears in Australia Liberal wants to acquire two LHDs along with some sort of logistic ship (not necessarily an LPD) whereas Labour would be satisfied with two or three smaller LPDs. The LHD programme started a few years ago, last year the program should have awarded a contract. The programme was delayed a year to give Australian shipyards a better chance as their bids were far above the foreign shipyard's bid, allowing them to make arrangements with either or both of the two winners. The first ship won't be commissioned until 2012, 6 years away.

On the other hand, New Zealand acquired a ferry design thats been around for five years, four ferries are very similar and they are smaller versions of other ferries this shipyard has built. Notice the new Interislander ferry is a larger version of the MPV. Of course there were some design changes, but the engine plant and basic layout of the ship is very similar. After a review of the maritime forces, the bidding and awarding process, this ship is being delivered 27 months after the order was placed. It seems the government maritime review took longer than the construction time, having to scrutinize 21 different bids. Instead of a ten year programme to build such a ship for the Australians, New Zealand is getting a ship in seven years.

If Australia awards the contract next year, 2007, and won't expect delivery until 2012, that is a five year construction time, whereas New Zealand was able to get delivery in 27 months, a bit more than two years. In my book:THAT'S IMPRESSIVE! The only quicker route is to acquire vessels used, already built. Somehow Australia messed this process up with the Newport LST's.

Of course in wartime environment these events don't take anywhere near as long, especially the government's evaluation process. But these events show how long it takes to build a ship, and shows that every military fights the next conflict with assets ON HAND!

You're right 27 months isn't bad, however it hasn't even finished preliminary construction yet. It still has to be delivered to Tenix in Melbourne for final fit out. It is supposed to be delivered in November this year (I think) but we'll see. Tenix (and indeed MOST Australian Defence Industry) has a magnificent history of running late with projects...

On top of this, NZ chose an essentially off the shelf vessel of extremely modest size and capability. It is not as capable as either of the 2 LPA's (LST's as they were known in US service) Australia already operates. It is nothing compared to the 2x 20,000+ LPH's Australia IS acquiring. If you study defence acquisitions as you say, you'd know that the more sophisticated and greater the capability required, the longer it takes to get into service.

Australia COULD decide now to build one of the 2 competing ship designs "off-shore" and this would no doubt speed up the acquisition time. However this would no nothing for Australian Industry, just as building the MRV in the Netherlands has done nothing for NZ's defence industry. Building up a strategic ship building industry in your Country will do more for your long term defence capability than cheap, rapid "off-shore" acquisitions...

 

[seantheaussie]

Building up a strategic ship building industry in your Country will do more for your long term defence capability than cheap, rapid "off-shore" acquisitions...

Unless a country produces every component & munition, a ship building industry is meaningless. If the Department of Education, Science and Training etc. covers the excess we should build in Australia. If it all comes out of Defence we should take the best offer.
In my perfect world Australia would pay for major acquisitions by performing maintainance on the building countries sister ships/aircraft as maintainance has definite defence advantages.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Unless a country produces every component & munition, a ship building industry is meaningless. If the Department of Education, Science and Training etc. covers the excess we should build in Australia. If it all comes out of Defence we should take the best offer.
In my perfect world Australia would pay for major acquisitions by performing maintainance on the building countries sister ships/aircraft as maintainance has definite defence advantages.

Try telling that to Tenix and ADI. Have a look at their bottom lines. We have NEVER produced every SINGLE component and munition on a ship or for that matter any platform. Doesn't mean we don't have a financially viable defence industry though. Even the US doesn't produce EVERY single component and munition for it's forces.

As to your perfect world the building Country also sees advantages in conducing it's own maintainence. In the case of the French/Spanish fleets, what benefit would they get to have their vessels sail all the way down here simply for us to maintain/upgrade them? It's a ridiculous proposition IMHO...

 

[seantheaussie]

As to your perfect world the building Country also sees advantages in conducing it's own maintainence. In the case of the French/Spanish fleets, what benefit would they get to have their vessels sail all the way down here simply for us to maintain/upgrade them? It's a ridiculous proposition IMHO...

We buy the vast majority of our equipment from the US & a lot of their equipment gets reasonably close to Australia. The French could have deep maintainance to/from territories OR on goodwill visits to Asia. Offsets are always a pain in the arse for the selling country yet they still happen. How much should defence overpay for Australian assembled equipment IYHO? Should we get 10%less, 20%, 30% OR even less equipment? Should it be 10%late, 20%, 30% OR even later?

 

[Aussie Digger]

We buy the vast majority of our equipment from the US & a lot of their equipment gets reasonably close to Australia. The French could have deep maintainance to/from territories OR on goodwill visits to Asia. Offsets are always a pain in the arse for the selling country yet they still happen. How much should defence overpay for Australian assembled equipment IYHO? Should we get 10%less, 20%, 30% OR even less equipment? Should it be 10%late, 20%, 30% OR even later?

A French frigate visited Brisbane shortly after USS Ronald Reagon. When was the last time anyone remembers a French Naval vessel visiting Australia?

I agree industrial offsets occur, however I have never heard of a Naval service sailing a vessel half way round the world in order for another Country to conduct maintenance that they are perfectly capable of conducting themselves. Offset agreements tend to be work packages etc, and don't always relate directly to the capability being sought. Most major defence companies have "civilian" operations as well, and work in relation to those activities are often included in the work package.

I think the Government is willing to pay for "reasonable" increases in cost, for the work to be done in Australia, but obviously there is a point where benefits outweight the advantages, I agree with that sort of policy. I woukd use it appropriately on a case by case basis. I would nt make a carte blanche decision based on 1 narrow priority, ie: purely financially based.

Australian governments aren't totally fiscally minded. Political point scoring is also very high on their respective agenda's, and creating work through capital investment is not only good for our economy, but good for Government's chances of being elected for another term...

Not trying get you "off-side" though...

 

[Whiskyjack]

On the other hand, New Zealand acquired a ferry design thats been around for five years, four ferries are very similar and they are smaller versions of other ferries this shipyard has built. Notice the new Interislander ferry is a larger version of the MPV. Of course there were some design changes, but the engine plant and basic layout of the ship is very similar. After a review of the maritime forces, the bidding and awarding process, this ship is being delivered 27 months after the order was placed. It seems the government maritime review took longer than the construction time, having to scrutinize 21 different bids. Instead of a ten year programme to build such a ship for the Australians, New Zealand is getting a ship in seven years.

If Australia awards the contract next year, 2007, and won't expect delivery until 2012, that is a five year construction time, whereas New Zealand was able to get delivery in 27 months, a bit more than two years. In my book:THAT'S IMPRESSIVE! The only quicker route is to acquire vessels used, already built. Somehow Australia messed this process up with the Newport LST's.

Of course in wartime environment these events don't take anywhere near as long, especially the government's evaluation process. But these events show how long it takes to build a ship, and shows that every military fights the next conflict with assets ON HAND!

Once the order was in the building of the MRV has progressed very fast, on the other hand the requirement for a Amphibious/logistics ship has been around since the first Fiji Coup in ’87, I remember a TV news article around the time of the order of the first ANZAC’s which showed models of proposed ships and an interview with the Minister of Defence saying that this ship was a ‘priority’. So we are talking a 20 year span here….

 

[Sea Toby]

Yes, a troop carrier has been on the wish list for a long time. On the other hand the Australian navy has had on its wish list a flat top ever since the Melbourne was decommissioned and the Invincible sale was cancelled. You could using the same logic say the new Australian LHDs have been on the planning stages for 25 years too.

Since half the price of any warship is its combat data weapons systems, the steel hulls and engne plant of the LHDs could be built abroad in a French or Spanish shipyard, while having the superstructure, weapons systems, and final fit out done in an Australian shipyard. Therefore, half of the programme's expenditures could be spent in Australia. Frankly, steel is cheap compared to combat data weapons systems.

Notice that the New Zealand MPV is being built in the Netherlands, but its final fit out is being done in Melbourne. Tennix could have had the hull towed to Australia and could had built the superstructure modules in either Australia and New Zealand. Of course this would have delayed the completion, but the option was there. Like the Anzac frigates, all of the superstructure of the OPVs is being built in New Zealand.

However there are significant differences. Whereas the Australian LHDs is a $2 billion programme, the New Zealand MPV is a $250 million programme. Of the $500 million expenditure of Project Protector, New Zealand will see over $120 million of it spent in New Zealand. Its not a total loss on the overseas trade accounts.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Sea Toby, something I have been thinking about for a while now, do you see the LCS in service with the RAN or RNZN in the future?

I have been looking at the mission(s) the USN wants it for and think it suits the environment, especially in the South Pacific and north of Australia.

 

[Sea Dog]

Sea Toby, something I have been thinking about for a while now, do you see the LCS in service with the RAN or RNZN in the future?

I have been looking at the mission(s) the USN wants it for and think it suits the environment, especially in the South Pacific and north of Australia.

One step at a time. RAN first needs DDG's, that's the priority, then work on the sea-lift, and then look at the escort/littoral stuff. At the current time, the FFG's are more than capable to do the littoral mission with their current fit and with modernization of the 60's.

 

[Whiskyjack]

One step at a time. RAN first needs DDG's, that's the priority, then work on the sea-lift, and then look at the escort/littoral stuff. At the current time, the FFG's are more than capable to do the littoral mission with their current fit and with modernization of the 60's.

I don't disagree with you, but one ANZAC would provide the basic crew for 4-5 LCS, with a greater availability rate. I am suggesting 2010-12 before it is even considered. Plus the Spec Ops, anti-piracy missions etc, may make them more user friendly.

 

[Sea Dog]

I don't disagree with you, but one ANZAC would provide the basic crew for 4-5 LCS, with a greater availability rate. I am suggesting 2010-12 before it is even considered. Plus the Spec Ops, anti-piracy missions etc, may make them more user friendly.

LCS is overkill for Spec-ops & anti-piracy (the latter a job best left to lightly armed CG vessels with a nice stable deck for helos).

 

[Whiskyjack]

LCS is overkill for Spec-ops & anti-piracy (the latter a job best left to lightly armed CG vessels with a nice stable deck for helos).

My thoughts are more along the line that the LCS (as currently specified for the USN) is the perfect jack of all trades platform for a navy that has limited recourses. It is fast and capable, and it will possibly be of an Australian designed hull.

 

[Sea Toby]

The LCS is interesting. Whether anyone else besides America will ever build a LCS is undecided. America is only purchasing them to bring up the number of surface ships cheaply. The ship actually reminds me of the Danish Stanflex designs, capable of doing everything, but not at the same time, depending upon the containers onboard. Frankly, don't tell Helen Clark about these ships, she would probably purchase these and sell off her Anzacs if given a choice.

 

[Sea Dog]

The LCS is interesting. Whether anyone else besides America will ever build a LCS is undecided. America is only purchasing them to bring up the number of surface ships cheaply. The ship actually reminds me of the Danish Stanflex designs, capable of doing everything, but not at the same time, depending upon the containers onboard. Frankly, don't tell Helen Clark about these ships, she would probably purchase these and sell off her Anzacs if given a choice.

Let's hope that the final LCS that the USN builds is not just some cheap ass modernized FFG. For the sake of cheaply built hulls, by the time all the systems were up on the Flight III's, we had pretty much zilch growth capability (thanks a f***ing lot Adm Zumwalt).

The real cost of a warship is not on the hull, it's on the combat systems. Better give us a more capable hull, and as systems come online, we can upgrade. Just take a look at how lightly armed the DD963's where when they came out, and how we easily upgraded them later.

We need that type of hull growth on the proposed LCS. Anything less is just a glorified Coast Guard cutter.