Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[MrConservative]

On a side note, I would be interested on your thoughts on the RN's Scott Class Ocean Survey Vessel, she's big but, has fantastic endurance, and certainly doesn't have a massive crew requirement 42 (same as HMNZS Resolution), with accommodation for 63. Certainly is ideal for the operating environment. She can also support Amphibious and mine sweeping operations.
It would certainly be the closest I have seen that covers all requirements.
Thoughts?

Scott Class

Another Govt agency NIWA is very likely to fully take over the Survey role from the RNZN - its sort of shared to vaying degrees. The Scott is also not a perfect Dive ship you could say. The DWP brief outlines a littoral warfare support ship. This is not. So I cant see the Scott flying a white RNZN ensign.

 

[marandalaw]

Cyber Bullying

Admin You are banned permanently

Apart from the fact that the member you slagged was a defence professional, and was a highly regarded member of this forum, he is also deceased and unable to reply.

You are a troll, take your ridiculous behaviour elsewhere

learn to construct a sentence and behave like an adult wherever else you go

 

[Lucasnz]

Another Govt agency NIWA is very likely to fully take over the Survey role from the RNZN - its sort of shared to vaying degrees. The Scott is also not a perfect Dive ship you could say. The DWP brief outlines a littoral warfare support ship. This is not. So I cant see the Scott flying a white RNZN ensign.

NZ has had a surplus capability in hydrography for a number a number of years (especially since it became a contestable contract via LINZ). I have no problem giving the surveying role to to NIWA as the RNZN will still retain a military hydrographic capability.

The key issue for me is that capabilities the Littoral Warfare Support Ship will bring in addition to MCM, Surverying and Diving capabilities (I'm assuming based on current RNZN eqiupment that these capabilities will be modular). I think the the LWSS offers a huge chance to to build something like LCS (i.e a lot cheaper and slower with electronics similar maybe to a Floreal Frigate) that could fill a the viod between the OPV's and ANZAC's.

Given the cheap trend I could easily see a third OPV modifed by removing the ice belt and improving the design via improved sensors etc. While the Whangarei builders are gone I sure we could build the ship in NZ.

 

[KiwiRob]

Given the cheap trend I could easily see a third OPV modifed by removing the ice belt and improving the design via improved sensors etc. While the Whangarei builders are gone I sure we could build the ship in NZ.

That's pretty much what I have been thinking would be the solution the Govt would go for, give some supply chain commonality with the OPV's and isn't too expensive to build and man.

 

[CJohn]

The CN was interviewed by Australian Defence Magazine a few months ago and he said this:

Quote:
ADM: Will Endeavour's replacement be as versatile as Canterbury?

Parr: I think there are some exciting developments in the design and build of a multi-role, auxiliary oiler replenishment ships.

A vessel which can provide logistic support both to ships at sea and from the sea to the land clearly has a great deal of utility in a modern navy.

I'm taking a lot of interest in the Royal Norwegian Navy's Project 2513 to procure a multi-role ship to meet afloat replenishment needs, while at the same time able to embark vehicle, aviation, medical and maintenance support payloads.

I believe ships with this mixture of capabilities will become increasingly attractive to navies worldwide, simply because they suit the contemporary maritime security environment in terms of force projection and sustainability

That's an interesting insight from the CN concerning the Endeavour's replacement.
The Norwegian project seems to be looking at a design extension of the Aegir 10 style of fleet tanker.

I would imagine the Navy will also be looking into options for a smaller, simpler version of the Dutch JSS from Damen Schelde. I do like that open aft deck space on this ship, but I would be happy with either type of design if it incorporates versatility and extra sealift capacity for the Navy.

Lets hope move info comes to light in the near future.

 

[Lucasnz]

That's an interesting insight from the CN concerning the Endeavour's replacement.
The Norwegian project seems to be looking at a design extension of the Aegir 10 style of fleet tanker.

I would imagine the Navy will also be looking into options for a smaller, simpler version of the Dutch JSS from Damen Schelde. I do like that open aft deck space on this ship, but I would be happy with either type of design if it incorporates versatility and extra sealift capacity for the Navy.

Lets hope move info comes to light in the near future.

Don't forget Merwede were offer a JSS version of the Canterbury. It's not on there website anymore but from a logistics and quailification of crew point of view the design might be to good to pass up. I still can't help wondering if a JSS (despite the additionaly lift capability it brings) is more than what NZ really needs.

 

[MrConservative]

Don't forget Merwede were offer a JSS version of the Canterbury. It's not on there website anymore but from a logistics and quailification of crew point of view the design might be to good to pass up. I still can't help wondering if a JSS (despite the additionaly lift capability it brings) is more than what NZ really needs.

Sadly its still there:

Joint Support Ships

Of course they have tucked it away into the deepest darkest parts of their website so no one can really see it. Similiar to their info on the Canterbury. Its the Corporate way of trying to pretend that it never happened.

 

[KiwiRob]

We'll probably buy it just to spite you Mr Conservative

 

[RegR]

Surely Merwede will have all of Canterburys known problems sorted and rectified if the government went with its option and not repeat the past as I don't think they will want to give back another payout to the government. Whats to say we won't get different problems with a different ship.
The ship will have the added benefits of commonality, ease of training and commercial cost.

 

[Adzze]

APS for OPVs?

Just on a slight tangent, a question for the DefPro's here...

I seem to recall others commenting that the OPVs in particular lack a sufficient minimum of self-protection - though a conventional CIWS would likely require reorganisation on the hangar deck (moving the crane) and/or add significantly to the ship's weight. The Defence White Paper indicates that the armament and sensors may be upgraded on the OPV/IPVs but there's little mention at this stage what this would entail, or if this would include self-protection.

Thinking about the most likely threats faced by these vessels, it occurred to me that the most likely contenders would be pirates or terrorists (fair comment?), rather than a threat from enemy nation-states (ie. air strikes and anti-ship missiles). That being the case, it seems to me that the most dangerous ranged type of weapon used against the OPV would be something like an RPG.

With this in mind, would a smaller-scale hard kill APS such as that used on some APCs offer suitable protection, without adding significantly to weight or ship-board real-estate requirements? From what I've seen (on youtube) these APSs such as Israel's "Iron Fist" system seem quite compact... thoughts?

 

[Todjaeger]

Just on a slight tangent, a question for the DefPro's here...

I seem to recall others commenting that the OPVs in particular lack a sufficient minimum of self-protection - though a conventional CIWS would likely require reorganisation on the hangar deck (moving the crane) and/or add significantly to the ship's weight. The Defence White Paper indicates that the armament and sensors may be upgraded on the OPV/IPVs but there's little mention at this stage what this would entail, or if this would include self-protection.

Thinking about the most likely threats faced by these vessels, it occurred to me that the most likely contenders would be pirates or terrorists (fair comment?), rather than a threat from enemy nation-states (ie. air strikes and anti-ship missiles). That being the case, it seems to me that the most dangerous ranged type of weapon used against the OPV would be something like an RPG.

With this in mind, would a smaller-scale hard kill APS such as that used on some APCs offer suitable protection, without adding significantly to weight or ship-board real-estate requirements? From what I've seen (on youtube) these APSs such as Israel's "Iron Fist" system seem quite compact... thoughts?

Not a DefPro, but I have been paying attention to what goes on in some defence circles. Having said that, I do agree that the most likely serious threats which the OPVs could encounter would be pirates or terrorists, and that the largest weapons they would likely employ would be some form of rocket launcher or perhaps recoiless rifle.

With that in mind, I do not think it would be worthwhile for some form of ship-mounted hardkill missile system to be fitted. The warhead found in most RPGs is quite small, and the launch system is limited in terms of range and accuracy (particularly aboard smallcraft underway at sea...) While a successful hit could damage an OPV, unless it was a very luck hit, the damage would likely be superficial, as opposed to a mission-kill, nevermind actually sufficient to cause the loss of the vessel. With that in mind, and also that ship-mounted weapons like the Typhoon and mini-Typhoon could effectively engage smallcraft attempting to close to within RPG launch range before pirates/terrorists aboard the FAC could launch rockets... It would seem a better option to mount weaponry which can be used against incoming smallcraft. Unfortunately, the OPV's will still encounter problems in terms of restrictions on space and weight, even for the smaller mini-Typhoon mountings.

Part of that is because of design and construction oversights, where the vessels came out heavier than expected. The other is due to the vessel layout, where lines of sight are either blocked or occupied by other pieces of equipment. That or underlying decks are already tasked and would need to be refitted in order to properly support needed mounts in certain locations.

-Cheers

 

[anzac3]

Hi, hope you knowledgeble people wont mind me asking, if its true that the OPV in NZ navy are just civillian ships , ie , do they have any armouring protection? just a standard kind of hull without lots of sealable bulkheads?

Sorry to ask, its just that i thought that maybe a group of pirates in an RIB may well overpower the OPV as they can carry portable grenade launchers, etc,.



cheers:idea:

 

[Todjaeger]

Hi, hope you knowledgeble people wont mind me asking, if its true that the OPV in NZ navy are just civillian ships , ie , do they have any armouring protection? just a standard kind of hull without lots of sealable bulkheads?

Sorry to ask, its just that i thought that maybe a group of pirates in an RIB may well overpower the OPV as they can carry portable grenade launchers, etc,.



cheers:idea:

The OPV's to my knowledge are military vessels, built to a (commercial) military standard. While others like Alexsa could likely explain this a bit better, my understanding is that the vessel is built to spec, but some of the damage control and system isolation facilities are not configured the way it would be on a warship. Take the engine room for instance, the engines are together, instead of being separated by a bulkhead. This could be an issue if the vessel is damaged/penetrated, because a single hit could potentially damage both engines and therefore disabling the vessel. Or if there was a fire aboard in the engine room, again both engines would be effected.

IMO it would be unlikely that a group of pirates could overpower one of the OPV's, if an OPV was operating in an area frequented by pirates like off the Horn of Africa, or the Malacca Straits. Having said that though, given the current armament configuration which leaves no weapon mountings covering the aft approaches to the OPV's, it is not something I would rule out as a possibility.

Assuming the crew is reasonably alert, then even multiple smallcraft approaching the aft portion of the vessel could be repelled, by crew manning support weapons (MAG-58 and similar) and small arms.

-Cheers

 

[mattyem]

The OPV's are very much Military SPEC vessels. With a fwd and aft DC station and water tight hatches and bulkheads etc. They are operated in a similar manor to the frigates although cannot fully undertake the role of a frigate. The ships hull is made to counter expected threats that are expected in its anticipated operational theater, mainly pacific waters around NZ and the southern ocean. The OPV's therefore aren't built to the same spec of an ANZAC which is designed to operate in more hostile waters.

I agree with Todjaeger in terms of any pirates ability to take the vessel. In waters deemed at high risk or piracy, the ship will be closed up in anti piracy/force protection watches, which has an increased number of sentries (especially armed sentries on the upper decks) and quick reaction force will be closed up below at immediate notice. Also it is inherently hard to accurately fire a RPG or such like at a moving vessel from another moving vessel, even more so at speeds in excess of 20kts.

Ships also have SOP's written up to deal with these situations to help mitigate the risks associated with piracy.

I have served on a ship much less capable than the OPV's in high piracy zones and the anti piracy watchbill set up on that ship was more than enough to repel any would be pirates.

 

[Gibbo]

The OPV's are very much Military SPEC vessels. With a fwd and aft DC station and water tight hatches and bulkheads etc. They are operated in a similar manor to the frigates although cannot fully undertake the role of a frigate. The ships hull is made to counter expected threats that are expected in its anticipated operational theater, mainly pacific waters around NZ and the southern ocean. The OPV's therefore aren't built to the same spec of an ANZAC which is designed to operate in more hostile waters.

I agree with Todjaeger in terms of any pirates ability to take the vessel. In waters deemed at high risk or piracy, the ship will be closed up in anti piracy/force protection watches, which has an increased number of sentries (especially armed sentries on the upper decks) and quick reaction force will be closed up below at immediate notice. Also it is inherently hard to accurately fire a RPG or such like at a moving vessel from another moving vessel, even more so at speeds in excess of 20kts.

Ships also have SOP's written up to deal with these situations to help mitigate the risks associated with piracy.

I have served on a ship much less capable than the OPV's in high piracy zones and the anti piracy watchbill set up on that ship was more than enough to repel any would be pirates.

MattyEm - curious to know how the 'watchbill' is setup (if you're allowed to say here!). One key question I do have though is are the various sentries equipped with comms to allow co-ordination with the bridge and/or sensor operators?

 

[mattyem]

MattyEm - curious to know how the 'watchbill' is setup (if you're allowed to say here!). One key question I do have though is are the various sentries equipped with comms to allow co-ordination with the bridge and/or sensor operators?

All sentries on the upper deck have an icom, as well as key command positions and people throughout the ship.

The watchbill in anti piracy watches increases personnel manning states throughout areas of the ship that are either usually unmanned or lightly manned, It also details people off to set roles on the ship throughout the transit in the high risk area. Thats about all I can really say without command getting on my back.

In short it increases the number of sentries on upper decks, identifies people for roles such as a Rapid reaction Force, Damage Control Parties, Identifies Emergency muster stations etc etc

Just a list of who does what job and where they do it

 

[StevoJH]

All sentries on the upper deck have an icom, as well as key command positions and people throughout the ship.

An Apply product by anychance? :lol2

On a more serious note, if pirates cannot take Auxillery Oiler (big, slow, lightly armed), how do they expect to take an OPV (smaller, faster, more heavily armed, better sensors(?))?

 

[mattyem]

An Apply product by anychance? :lol2

On a more serious note, if pirates cannot take Auxillery Oiler (big, slow, lightly armed), how do they expect to take an OPV (smaller, faster, more heavily armed, better sensors(?))?

exactly!

I would say that once Pirates are confronted with force from another ship prior to them boarding it, chances are they will see it as a "hard" target and move on to keep fishing for a non defended ship or "soft" target.

it sometimes seems that people are forgetting the reasons behind the type of ships that the pirate of today looks for, namely a large cargo type ship with a relatively low free-board and small crew. And once the ship is hijacked the last thing they want to do is to damage it or harm the crew, in doing so will largely reduce the amount of ransom the company will payout.

Im pretty sure the last vessel on any pirates mind would be any sort of naval patrol vessel!

 

[SASWanabe]

exactly!

Im pretty sure the last vessel on any pirates mind would be any sort of naval patrol vessel!

i have mentioned this before but they have attacked USN destroyers,cruisers and French and US AOR's before...

 

[ThePuss]

i have mentioned this before but they have attacked USN destroyers,cruisers and French and US AOR's before...

Yep they are dumb bastards.....does not seem they have have taken "Naval Recognition 101" :crazy