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

[Sea Toby]

The new MPV will be launched at the Merwede shipyard on February 11, 2006. Who will be doing the christening, and what will she name her?

Some more information has been posted at the New Zealand Ministry of Defence website. The ship will be capable of storing 4 NH-90 helicopters, plus one SeaSprite. New Zealand did purchase the extended range of 8,000 miles, some have been wondering whether her range is 6,000 or 8,000 miles. The two cranes, port and starboard adjacent to the hangar, are 60 tonne cranes.

A typical one company cargo load would be 16 LAVIIIs, 14 LOHs, 7 Unimogs, 2 ambulances, 2 flat bed trucks, 7 LOV trailers, 2 Rough Terrain fork lifts, 4 four-wheel drive vehicles, plus up to 33 containers.

The two LCM-8s can carry two LAVIIIs. The LCM-8s are 59 tonnes capable of carrying 50 tonnes of cargo. Two 7.4 meter RHIBs are carried for boarding operations, and two special forces 11 meter RHIBs can be carried.

The MRV will have a two bed sick bay, an emergency operating center and a five bed ward. The medical center will also have X-ray facilities, a small lab, and a morgue. The ship can manufacture 100 tonnes of fresh water daily.

I hope this answers many questions about the MRV....

The MRV will only have a 25-mm gun along with the OPVs. The IPVs will only have 12.5 mm guns, 50 cal. I would have preferred the MRV and OPVs having at least a 57 mm gun similar to the Canadian frigates, and the IPVs having the 25-mm gun. These guns are useful for fishery patrol only in a no threat environment.

The OPVs are a new generation of the Irish OPVs, except the Irish where able to place a 76 mm gun on theirs. While the OPVs have the size of a light frigate, they are not armed as such. Considering the costs of these fishery protection vessels, I wonder if the Kiwis would have been better off getting some more of the Stalwart class cheaply from the US Navy and upgrading their propulsion plants to achieve a higher speed. The same 25 mm gun can be placed upon a Stalwart (Resolution). The aft area of a Stalwart can be cleared for RHIBs, although there would not be enough space for a dedicated helicopter deck and hangar. Frankly, the only weapon system on the OPVs worth noting is the SeaSprite helo.

While the range of the OPVs is impressive, by the time its loaded with any worthwhile weapons systems, a larger gun, ASW torpedoe tubes, SAM self defense missiles, the ship will lose its considerable range trading weight for weapons from the weight of fuel. Of course, adding a suitable naval combat weapon control system and its sensors the Anzacs have will double their price easily. There is a difference between an OPV and a frigate.

At least the IPVs appear the equal to the new Australian IPVs, minus the better gun.

 

[Sea Toby]

Why didn't the Australians turn their mine hunters over to the naval reserve? It seems a blue water navy doesn't have the manpower to bother with the brown water assets in every navy. Using the reserves to man and operate a navy's brown water assets is an excellent use of the reserves.

 

[seantheaussie]

The Australian Defence Force doesn't really believe in reserve units. The army pretends to but only keeps the units at 30-40% manpower. Any RAAF officer would drop dead from shock if confronted with US ANG fighter squadrons. AFAIK the RAN makes the least use of reserves.

 

[Aussie Digger]

thanks for information.
wouldnt a 30mm gun be better considering that it is a bigger caliber and hence will have a longer range and greater hitting power. by the way what is firing rate of the 25mm gun and its range also who are the manufacturers?:coffee

25mm ammo is significantly cheaper than 30mm AND we manufacture it ourselves, unlike 30mm which we have to fully import. Bushmasters are manufactured by ATK - Alliant Techsystems in the USA.

You make a fair point Sea, but seem to forget that our defence needs come before the deficiency's of our Ally. Do you seriously think WE don't need a major surface combatant class for our defence? Likewise with the tank. Whether the Abrams is the right choice or not is really irrelevent. Our land forces needed a tank and Abrams, personal preferrences aside, is pretty tough to beat, on paper and on results.

You make a good point about the RAAF and RAN attitude to reserves though. Why for the life of me can reserve pilots not fly A330/737 class aircraft? Former regular RAAF pilots fly them on a daily basis for private airlines, yet they're not good enough for the RAAF anymore??? For fast jets, I could partially understand, we have a small force and limited training opportunities. We have to maximise the use of the capability. Why they can't provide reserve pilots as relief crews for identical aircraft though is one I do not and probably will not ever understand.

 

[Sea Toby]

Mrs. Bronwyn Barton, a Melbourne resident, her husband Blair is the MPV ship manager for Tenix, launched the ship in Rotterdam at Merwede's shipyard, without naming it! Isn't it bad luck to put a ship into the water without naming it? Neptune is on his way.

It is not difficult to decide on a name. I had two different approaches to this ship. My first approach was to name it Protector or the Maori equivalent. Protector would follow in the same vain as Endurance and Resolution, its Maori equivalent would follow in the same vain as Te Kaha and Te Mana. My second approach was to follow the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company Ben My Chree, Gaelic for girl of my heart, or simply sweetheart (after all its near Valentine's Day) with a similar Maori name. Any three names, one in English and two in Maori would have been more than sufficient.

What would you name her? As I said it is not too difficult.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Mrs. Bronwyn Barton, a Melbourne resident, her husband Blair is the MPV ship manager for Tenix, launched the ship in Rotterdam at Merwede's shipyard, without naming it! Isn't it bad luck to put a ship into the water without naming it? Neptune is on his way.

It is not difficult to decide on a name. I had two different approaches to this ship. My first approach was to name it Protector or the Maori equivalent. Protector would follow in the same vain as Endurance and Resolution, its Maori equivalent would follow in the same vain as Te Kaha and Te Mana. My second approach was to follow the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company Ben My Chree, Gaelic for girl of my heart, or simply sweetheart (after all its near Valentine's Day) with a similar Maori name. Any three names, one in English and two in Maori would have been more than sufficient.

What would you name her? As I said it is not too difficult.

It's a bit depressing really, not one news article that I have seen on the launch. It may have been on TV on the weekend, but nothing in the paper.

As for names, given the army lift capability, maybe something like the Mono Island or Green Island, the onlt two Amphibious operations carried out by the New Zealand Army during the Second World War. Or they may follow the examplr of the ill fated Charles Upham and go for the name of a military hero?

 

[Sea Toby]

Defence Talk News, yep, this web site, posted the New Zealand's government's press release. No mention of any name. Radio New Zealand mentioned the launch, and the scoop has posted the press release too.

I like the ingenuity of this MPV, New Zealand is acquiring this for half the price of a larger Dutch Enforcer. It meets all of the specifications the New Zealand government requested. Since New Zealand in its past history has given its commanding general the option of coming home, I doubt whether New Zealand would ever place its troops in an opposed amphibious landing, even in the best of times amphibious operations are dicey.

This MPV will provide the sea lift for the one company that is kept on short notice, along with the ability to use its landing craft over a beach in case a dock is not an option. The MPV can be used for humanitarian disaster relief, naval training, fishery patrols, and for showing the flag in neighboring nations.

If it was deployed to a sensitive area, one of the two Anzacs would escort the vessel, with the other Anzac surrendering its CIWS. With only mine avoidance sonar onboard, I wouldn't bother with ASW torpedo tubes, surely the Anzac escorting her would provide the ASW and AAW capability.

Other small first world nations have taken notice, I wouldn't be surprised if another nation follows New Zealand. This ship would have been useful in the Bosnia, East Timor, and Solomon Islands, and Afghanistan deployments since the turn of the century, not to mention being useful in the Indonesia tusammi relief. I'm positive she will be very useful in the future, not once but many times.

 

[EnigmaNZ]

It's not bad for $US100, I guess as no NZ ship has been fired upon since the river plate, there is not considered a great need for heavier armiment on the MRV. I have no doublt the "greens" in gov saw to that, as they are totally against a well armed military. Plus there is urgent need for the ship since the Canterbury was decommissioned. If a need is seen in latter years, changes can be made then, as they are to the Anzacs from 2010. The MRV can also navigate in 400mm of fresh ice, 16 inches, with a bulbous bow, which is ice strenghtened. The Huons would make a nice replacement for our dive tender, the Manawanui, as NZ is losing it's antimine ability with the passing of our previous IPV. Even one of them, can the Ozzies be persuaded to lease us one at mates rates

 

[Sea Toby]

Since the River Platte? Didn't the Leander swallow a long lance torpedo in a line with American cruisers at the Battle of Kolombangara which put her out of action for 25 months, and the Achilles on 5th January 1943 patrolling off Guadalcanal when four Japanese aircraft attacked. One bomb hit her on a gun turret which put her out of action for 17 months?

I don't think New Zealand can afford new minehunters today. With continuous training, the usage of the diving tender is appropriate for New Zealand's peacetime anti-mine activities. Even the new IPVs could handle sweep gear if necessary. The survey ship with its sophisticated sonar will also be an asset against mines. I wouldn't worry about mines until hostilities start...

The best way to avoid having your harbors mined is to sink the ships dropping them before they arrive, and splashing aircraft before they drop the mines. Of course, you'll need an air combat force... The only huge blunder by this Labour government....

 

[Whiskyjack]

Defence Talk News, yep, this web site, posted the New Zealand's government's press release. No mention of any name. Radio New Zealand mentioned the launch, and the scoop as posted the press release too.

I like the ingenuity of this MPV, New Zealand is acquiring this for half the price of a larger Dutch Enforcer. It meets all of the specifications the New Zealand government requested. Since New Zealand in its past history has given its commanding general the option of coming home, I doubt whether New Zealand would ever place its troops in an opposed amphibious landing, even in the best of times amphibious operations are dicey.

This MPV will provide the sea lift for the one company that is kept on short notice, along with the ability to use its landing craft over a beach in case a dock is not an option. The MPV can be used for humanitarian disaster relief, naval training, fishery patrols, and for showing the flag in neighboring nations.

If it was deployed to a sensitive area, one of the two Anzacs would escort the vessel, with the other Anzac surrendering its CIWS. With only mine avoidance sonar onboard, I wouldn't bother with ASW torpedo tubes, surely the Anzac escorting her would provide the ASW and AAW capability.

Other small first world nations have taken notice, I wouldn't be surprised if another nation follows New Zealand. This ship would have been useful in the Bosnia, East Timor, and Solomon Islands, and Afghanistan deployments since the turn of the century, not to mention being useful in the Indonesia tusammi relief. I'm positive she will be very useful in the future, not once but many times.

Sea Toby, we will have to agree to disagree on the MRV.
I agree that it is ingenious, I just think that the specifications that it was built to meet were flawed in the first place. Of all the countries in the world very few would need an amphibious capability, unfortunately I see NZ a one of the few countries that does.

Situated in the South Pacific, where NZ is the second most powerful country in the region (or third if you include the French). A region that has a history of political instability and armed conflict in the last 20 years there has been 3 coups, one insurgence/conflict and PNG (I am never sure how to describe PNG), plus other ‘at risk’ nations. Move to the east and you have Indonesia, which has not had the greatest history of stability either.

Add to this an economy that is dependent on open sea lanes.

Please let me be clear here, I do not advocate the NZDF as a force capable of undertaking high intensity conflicts (although they should be able to send some units to contribute), because the forces do not exist in the region unless you are talking Australia and France! The NZDF should be capable of contributing to medium level conflicts. It goes without saying that low level conflict is also necessary.

At a more basic level the NZDF should be able to operate in the region effectively. With a force structure/training/equipment that leaves in no doubt the ability to apply over whelming force on any opponent it is likely to face in the region. It also needs to be able to contribute to larger conflicts, around the world, where the govt deems it in the national interest.

Given the level of ability of the region we are not talking heavy armoured brigades here or Amphibious Response Groups, or squadrons of strike aircraft, and we are not talking a defence budget that is extra billions of dollars a year.

Essentially successive NZ govts have run down the capability of the NZDF, the current Govt has decided to structure the NZDF to a force structure that does not meet the requirements of NZ’s geography, but rather what it thinks the NZDF should be doing, e.g. peace operations. There are nothing wrong with peace keeping, but I believe that any country that configures its defence force around it is asking for trouble.

Now this does not mean I see NZ troops storming over the beach in an opposed amphibious landing. I don’t even think that the USMC or Royal Marines would want to do that unless they could avoid it. Even in the Falklands it was decided to go via San Carlos and across the island.

The NZDF needs to start thinking about manoeuvre and how best to achieve this. I have opinions on what I think force structure and equipment looks like and I enjoy debating them, but I will not go there in this post as I am more concerned about the policy directions that the NZDF is being lead in. However the NZDF should be able to operate in the region at will, there are no threats to supply lines, no chance of losing air dominance (in spite of having no fighters). Yet it is not structured to take advantage of this fact.

I am sure the MRV will be a fine ship, and there is a place for it in the RNZN, but I just think it is a ship that should complement another ship(s).

 

[Sea Toby]

I have posted before I think New Zealand can spend more on defense, and the biggest blunder was sacking its air combat force. I would increase NZ spending another NZ$400-500 million per year, to speed up the acquistion process.

Why is the MRV arriving one year after the Canterbury was stricken? Why are the OPVs and MPVs undergunned? Where are their CIWS? With the size of New Zealand's forces, how does anyone expect a battalion to be available at short notice? No army has all of its army on short notice.

NZ$200 million of the above per year would fund the rebuilding of the air combat force along with its operational costs. Even anti-mine warfare is effected by the lack of an air combat force. At the very least, the Orions should have been armed with harpoons before the air combat force was sacked. The same can be said of the air cueing upgrade of the Mistral SAMs. How can a government cancel a sweetheart deal for cream puff F-16s?

However, with an unemployment rate of 3.5%, New Zealand will have difficulty recruiting for its forces. The government wishes to develop another brigade, they'll be lucky to man another battalion. The same can be said of the third frigate, as the Project Protector vessels consumes a frigate's crew. And I cannot understand sacking air combat force personnel that's already been recruited.

Spend more on newer, better equipment, higher pay, don't expect much more personnel..... If you want a great amphibious capability, you won't get it without air superiority. 250 men, or even 500 men won't take an island that's heavily defended. It took more marines to take Tarawa than what the New Zealand army has.

The MPV is a joint ship, useful for the army and the air force. The army will depend on it for sealift of one company and all of its equipment on short notice and sustain it for a month while the air force will depend on it to haul its helicopters.

 

[Lucasnz]

Ships names & MRV

I understand that the ships names will not be announced until about Sept 2006.

The MRV is a good design, though I would have preferred the Singapore Endurance Class. As it is fitted out the MRV would not be able to provide support to Troops ashore (NGS capability), whereas the Endurance Class does. In Bouginville we sent Canterbury to provide that capability.

It's other key short coming is that it has no self defence capability, and would require a significant upgrade to operate in an initial East Timor enviorment, ignoring the presence of escorts.

The key upgrades I see it needing are CIWS / Mistral, as the 25mm has about a 180 degree firing arc, if the photos are anything to go by. Passive countermeasures and military level ESM / ECM. There is no point in any ASW capability, except maybe a Torpedo Alarm (Do they exist).

 

[Sea Toby]

Yes, it does appear the New Zealand army will have to be self sufficient. In a jam the only help from the Navy will be its SeaSprite's helicopters, the five inch guns on the Anzacs, and the 25-mm Bushmaster guns of the MPV and OPVs. While this gun can scrafe a beach, it won't be of much help off the beach.

The only help from the air force will be its NH-90 helicopters. There are no longer any air combat forces in New Zealand, Labour took care of that.

I found two pictures of the MPV launch but they are copyrighted. So I can't post the pictures on this website. But I can link them.

http://homepage.mac.com/donclark/.Public/MPVlaunch1.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/donclark/.Public/MPVlaunch2.jpg

 

[Supe]

If you want a great amphibious capability, you won't get it without air superiority. 250 men, or even 500 men won't take an island that's heavily defended. It took more marines to take Tarawa than what the New Zealand army has.

I don't think current doctrine in Western armed forces still does the whole storming beach heads thing. NZ would never operate alone anyway and would be involved in a much larger taskforce, providing NZDF ships and personnel with protection. I can't imagine a situation where the NZDF would be required or involved for the sort of amphibious operation inferred by your post ala Tarawa. Small regional landings perhaps such as Solomon Islands or Fiji.

I do agree that the OPV's are underarmed. I just hope the design allows for some weapons growth.

 

[cherry]

NZ would never operate alone anyway and would be involved in a much larger taskforce, providing NZDF ships and personnel with protection.

You are probably right, but why should NZ freeload off everybody else. Every other country provides at least some sort of capability to protect themselves but NZ just seems dead set on freeloading off Australia in particular like some sort of parasite. I think the Australian government has recognised this and are slowly separating themselves from NZ, simply because the NZ armed forces are weak and so is their government.

 

[Supe]

I'm sure Australia is considered by some in U.S defence/political circles, as a bit of a defence parasite or not doing as much as it could. That's why we do need to increase our capabilities and reduce burdens and dependency on our allies and proposed purchases like C17's and procurement of LHD's make sense. However, we will never have a defence force that can do everything, or have all the odds and sods the yanks have. So, just like NZ, we will have to prioritise and structure ADF in line with most urgent requirements and according to what a nation can sustain over the years, whether that be in terms of manpower and economy...

The NZ army looks pretty mean these days but I reckon they could beef up their artillery. My concern isn't the lack of fighters but the lack of ships and firepower in the RNZN arsenal.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Defence Talk News, yep, this web site, posted the New Zealand's government's press release. No mention of any name. Radio New Zealand mentioned the launch, and the scoop has posted the press release too.

I like the ingenuity of this MPV, New Zealand is acquiring this for half the price of a larger Dutch Enforcer. It meets all of the specifications the New Zealand government requested. Since New Zealand in its past history has given its commanding general the option of coming home, I doubt whether New Zealand would ever place its troops in an opposed amphibious landing, even in the best of times amphibious operations are dicey.

This MPV will provide the sea lift for the one company that is kept on short notice, along with the ability to use its landing craft over a beach in case a dock is not an option. The MPV can be used for humanitarian disaster relief, naval training, fishery patrols, and for showing the flag in neighboring nations.

If it was deployed to a sensitive area, one of the two Anzacs would escort the vessel, with the other Anzac surrendering its CIWS. With only mine avoidance sonar onboard, I wouldn't bother with ASW torpedo tubes, surely the Anzac escorting her would provide the ASW and AAW capability.

Other small first world nations have taken notice, I wouldn't be surprised if another nation follows New Zealand. This ship would have been useful in the Bosnia, East Timor, and Solomon Islands, and Afghanistan deployments since the turn of the century, not to mention being useful in the Indonesia tusammi relief. I'm positive she will be very useful in the future, not once but many times.

Of what use would the MRV have been to NZ's Afghanistan deployment??? It's a landlocked Country...

I daresay the MRV will come in handy, it's just a shame NZ purposely acquired a ship of such limited capabilities...

 

[Whiskyjack]

Of what use would the MRV have been to NZ's Afghanistan deployment??? It's a landlocked Country...

I daresay the MRV will come in handy, it's just a shame NZ purposely acquired a ship of such limited capabilities...

Agreed, It would be nice to see a more capable ship in service.

I would like to see the MRV as test ship to build a more extensive capability on. The MRV would then move into a South Pacific/UN role e.g. Aid, disaster relief, peace keeping duties, re-supply etc...

 

[Sea Toby]

As I mentioned before the MRV is undergunned and without a CIWS. Otherwise I think she a great ship for New Zealand. Until New Zealand decides to keep two companies on short notice, there isn't any need for more sealift. Any of the folow-on forces and equipment can be sent via a leased ship. While the ship only has two helicopter landing zones, it does have a lift which can bring the four other helicopters up from the vehicle cargo decks. Define what you want, its amazing how shipbuilders will build what you want.

 

[Kiwi Echo]

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)



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