Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[StobieWan]

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

Yeah - or just using the bit that is entitled "identifying military targets by counting outgoing tracer rounds" perhaps

Ian

 

[Gibbo]

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

Sweet thanks for that - answered what I was curious about! I'm thinking that this sort of watchbill could be also employed in (lower threat) counter-terrorist ops!?!

 

[mattyem]

Sweet thanks for that - answered what I was curious about! I'm thinking that this sort of watchbill could be also employed in (lower threat) counter-terrorist ops!?!

Yes there is a number of watchbills set up for different threats/damage control states etc etc. Just outlines where people are needed at which time.

 

[alexsa]

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

Yep, they are not civilain ships. What constitutes a commercial ships varies greatly depending on function but many have features (such as redundancy) that would provide a useful bench mark for a warship. The minimum standards for commercial vessels are set by the relevant international conventions (SOLAS, MARPOL, Load Line, Tonnage etc). Generally what happens when warships are built is these standards are used as the basis for the ships design criteria from a survey and certification point of view, as opposed to using design criteria speciffically developed by defence for warships. This has benefits as it keeps up with current technology being used in the trading ship sector.

It is important to note it is quite hard to to have a warship comply completely with commercial standards due to the implicationsof their role, unless that vessel is an Auxillary (i.e and AOR). In the latter case it si not such an issue. Generally, Navy as the 'flag state' will exempt themselves from certain provisions. Many class societies are now producing warship rules to address the difference in trading vessel and warship requiremnts while these are still develped by a commercial organisation.

This is important even for minor warships where certain atributes (speed, weapons, boats, location of generators, AIS, safety of operations, operational control etc) make it hard to comply with the conventions as the two are not always complementry. In other areas the warship will exceed the convention requiremtns by quite a margin.

It is also important to note that Navy are not bound to comply with the conventions and do so on a voluntary basis.

 

[Sea Toby]

Yep, they are not civilain ships. What constitutes a commercial ships varies greatly depending on function but many have features (such as redundancy) that would provide a useful bench mark for a warship. The minimum standards for commercial vessels are set by the relevant international conventions (SOLAS, MARPOL, Load Line, Tonnage etc). Generally what happens when warships are built is these standards are used as the basis for the ships design criteria from a survey and certification point of view, as opposed to using design criteria speciffically developed by defence for warships. This has benefits as it keeps up with current technology being used in the trading ship sector.

It is important to note it is quite hard to to have a warship comply completely with commercial standards due to the implicationsof their role, unless that vessel is an Auxillary (i.e and AOR). In the latter case it si not such an issue. Generally, Navy as the 'flag state' will exempt themselves from certain provisions. Many class societies are now producing warship rules to address the difference in trading vessel and warship requiremnts while these are still develped by a commercial organisation.

This is important even for minor warships where certain atributes (speed, weapons, boats, location of generators, AIS, safety of operations, operational control etc) make it hard to comply with the conventions as the two are not always complementry. In other areas the warship will exceed the convention requiremtns by quite a margin.

It is also important to note that Navy are not bound to comply with the conventions and do so on a voluntary basis.

The OPVs are really designed with constable patrol duties in mind for local area operations in the Southwest Pacific and Southeast Asia. I don't anticipate they would ever be deployed to the Horn of Africa, but possibly fighting pirates and insurgents boats to the island nations north of New Zealand...

 

[recce.k1]

Cheers for the informative post alexsa; SeaToby, incidentally an OPV (HMNZS Wellington) has returned from the sub-antarctic islands (eg Auckland and Campbell Islands), carrying the Governor-General for a look-see arty. There was some mention prior about an OPV being dispatched further south to keep an eye on the Japanese whalers and whaling protest vessels over the Antarctic summer whaling season (but not sure if this will happen now as one of the OPV's will now have an "engine repaired permanently, under warranty", after a problem forced HMNZS Otago to turn back from this sub-antarctic voyage i.e. both OPV's were actually being deployed (presumably it would have been advantageous to send both for training purposes and to monitor the performance of both ships etc)? According to other reports "Defence Minister Wayne Mapp told Radio New Zealand there would be a full review of the problems suffered by the vessel and its sister ship HMNZS Wellington". "We do want to get the bottom of all these issues, make sure they are all resolved and they don't happen again."

In other news the Govt has released a RFI - ANZAC Self Defence Upgrade.

5.
SCOPE
5.1. The Project intends to replace major components of the combat system on TEM and TEK. Dependent on the phasing of the programme, it is anticipated that work will occur between 2013 and 2016. In addition to the ship modifications, the programme intends to deliver a comprehensive suite of support products, including a replacement of the existing Combat System Shore Facility (CSSF), comprising a full command team trainer and associated simulator.
5.2. The Project intends to replace the existing SAAB 9LV 453 CMS. This system, which integrates primary weapons and sensors providing display, control and command decision aids, was historically known as C2. To prevent confusion with other Defence Command and Control initiatives (C2), this system is now known as the CMS. In addition to replacing the CMS, the Project intends to provide replacement weapons and sensors to address some or all of the following capability gaps:
5.2.1. Air Defence – replacement and upgrade of the Point Defence Missile System (PDMS);
5.2.2. Volume Search – Provision of a medium range volume search RF and optronic package capable of providing both surface and air Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR);
5.2.3. Radar and Communications Electronic Support Measures (ESM);
5.2.4. Tactical Data Links and IFF systems;
5.2.5. Above and Underwater decoys;
5.2.6. Underwater ISR; and
5.2.7. CMS Integration. A number of systems that currently have no integration to the CMS may be fully or partially integrated.
5.3. A complete system will be delivered and installed on each ANZAC Ship. A third system comprising a CMS, partial sensor suite and simulator will be delivered to form the core of the training and support component.
5.4. It is possible that some systems, facing immediate critical obsolescence and without CMS integration complexities, may be procured in advance of the main body of work.
5.5. In addition to the systems outlined above, Defence will manage a range of smaller associated projects within the scope of the Project. These would involve minor modifications that are not integrated with the CMS or major weapons and sensors.
.

It also states "The ANZAC Ship shall be capable of engaging air threats; the most challenging of which will be multiple super-sonic, current generation, terminally manoeuvring anti-ship missiles, with a PDMS which is capable of defending the ship". and am wondering how close will the detection systems be to the HMAS Perth Combat Management System upgrade being discussed a few days ago on the RAN thread?

 

[Sea Toby]

Cheers for the informative post alexsa; SeaToby, incidentally an OPV (HMNZS Wellington) has returned from the sub-antarctic islands (eg Auckland and Campbell Islands), carrying the Governor-General for a look-see arty. There was some mention prior about an OPV being dispatched further south to keep an eye on the Japanese whalers and whaling protest vessels over the Antarctic summer whaling season (but not sure if this will happen now as one of the OPV's will now have an "engine repaired permanently, under warranty", after a problem forced HMNZS Otago to turn back from this sub-antarctic voyage i.e. both OPV's were actually being deployed (presumably it would have been advantageous to send both for training purposes and to monitor the performance of both ships etc)? According to other reports "Defence Minister Wayne Mapp told Radio New Zealand there would be a full review of the problems suffered by the vessel and its sister ship HMNZS Wellington". "We do want to get the bottom of all these issues, make sure they are all resolved and they don't happen again."

In other news the Govt has released a RFI - ANZAC Self Defence Upgrade.



It also states "The ANZAC Ship shall be capable of engaging air threats; the most challenging of which will be multiple super-sonic, current generation, terminally manoeuvring anti-ship missiles, with a PDMS which is capable of defending the ship". and am wondering how close will the detection systems be to the HMAS Perth Combat Management System upgrade being discussed a few days ago on the RAN thread?

Appears a SeaRam upgrade of the Vulcan Phalanx CIWS is in the works... Nato Sea Sparrow is showing signs of obsolescence worldwide., and a ESSM upgrade is also in the works...Either or both... By that time the frigates will be approaching 15 years of service, and a thorough mid-life refit and upgrades are called for...

 

[Cadredave]

Cheers for the informative post alexsa; SeaToby, incidentally an OPV (HMNZS Wellington) has returned from the sub-antarctic islands (eg Auckland and Campbell Islands), carrying the Governor-General for a look-see arty. There was some mention prior about an OPV being dispatched further south to keep an eye on the Japanese whalers and whaling protest vessels over the Antarctic summer whaling season (but not sure if this will happen now as one of the OPV's will now have an "engine repaired permanently, under warranty", after a problem forced HMNZS Otago to turn back from this sub-antarctic voyage i.e. both OPV's were actually being deployed (presumably it would have been advantageous to send both for training purposes and to monitor the performance of both ships etc)? According to other reports "Defence Minister Wayne Mapp told Radio New Zealand there would be a full review of the problems suffered by the vessel and its sister ship HMNZS Wellington". "We do want to get the bottom of all these issues, make sure they are all resolved and they don't happen again."

In other news the Govt has released a RFI - ANZAC Self Defence Upgrade.



It also states "The ANZAC Ship shall be capable of engaging air threats; the most challenging of which will be multiple super-sonic, current generation, terminally manoeuvring anti-ship missiles, with a PDMS which is capable of defending the ship". and am wondering how close will the detection systems be to the HMAS Perth Combat Management System upgrade being discussed a few days ago on the RAN thread?

Funny how the press go on about HMNZS Otago, Campbell Live on 3 News just happened to have a news crew on Otago when she broke down, a little spring in a juction box snapped & the story was blown out of all proportion by others she was ordered home by the Brass & departed HMNZS Wellington on both engines, we had the same problems with warranties on the LAVs now thats gone we can fix things to suit us without having to jump thru hoops eg the design had oil coolent pipes directly on top of the turbo & the heat would destroy the rubber pipes some clever dickie designed it that way but we could not change the design until now. So i think the OPV are going thru the same process.

 

[Sea Toby]

Funny how the press go on about HMNZS Otago, Campbell Live on 3 News just happened to have a news crew on Otago when she broke down, a little spring in a juction box snapped & the story was blown out of all proportion by others she was ordered home by the Brass & departed HMNZS Wellington on both engines, we had the same problems with warranties on the LAVs now thats gone we can fix things to suit us without having to jump thru hoops eg the design had oil coolent pipes directly on top of the turbo & the heat would destroy the rubber pipes some clever dickie designed it that way but we could not change the design until now. So i think the OPV are going thru the same process.

When it comes to equipment the readers fully understand, the press can't be irresponsible with say a Rolls is defective because it was serviced with an oil change at 7k miles... However, with equipment the readers don't fully understand the press gets away with murder, i.e., the radar is defective because the radar had to be serviced after only 7 months...

 

[Todjaeger]

Appears a SeaRam upgrade of the Vulcan Phalanx CIWS is in the works... Nato Sea Sparrow is showing signs of obsolescence worldwide., and a ESSM upgrade is also in the works...Either or both... By that time the frigates will be approaching 15 years of service, and a thorough mid-life refit and upgrades are called for...

SeaRAM is one possibility. However, it is also possible that the upgraded Mk 15 Phalanx CIWS might just be completely deleted as well. ESSM has been trialed and demonstrated an anti-surface capability against FACs, and given the limited range and ammunition of a Phalanx for both ASuW and CIWS, the RNZN would IMO be better off having the Anzacs carrying 32 quad-packed ESSM than 8 ESSM and a Phalanx. Given the topweight issues the RAN has encountered on their Anzacs, I would imagine that the RNZN Anzacs would have similar issues. OTOH if the RNZN do not anticipate adding a Harpoon AShM capability, then there might be suffice topweight/stability remaining for the RNZN Anzacs to mount a RAN-style CEAPAR radar upgrade and quad-packed ESSM.

Personally I think the NZDF would be irresponsible for not following something very similar if not the same Anzac upgrade programme that the RAN has. Part of this stems from the requirements a frigate would need to possess to operate in a mid to high threat environment. The other reason is not only to have commonality with the RAN, but also with the RAN already having developed the upgrade programme, the costs and problems are known. Which means that the NZDF would have a fairly good idea of the pricetag, as opposed to developing and funding an independent programme with costs and capabilities unknown. Given the comparatively limited NZDF budget, anything to reduce cost and programme risk while allowing required capabilities to be met should be followed.

In many respects, the opposite of the C-130H Hercules upgrade programme...

-Cheers

 

[recce.k1]

Funny how the press go on about HMNZS Otago, Campbell Live on 3 News just happened to have a news crew on Otago when she broke down, a little spring in a juction box snapped & the story was blown out of all proportion by others she was ordered home by the Brass & departed HMNZS Wellington on both engines, we had the same problems with warranties on the LAVs now thats gone we can fix things to suit us without having to jump thru hoops eg the design had oil coolent pipes directly on top of the turbo & the heat would destroy the rubber pipes some clever dickie designed it that way but we could not change the design until now. So i think the OPV are going thru the same process.

Heh, same old media not making much of an effort to understand past a certain point (but was pleased to see the ODT - pretty much unlike all other media - simply state in essence that the personnel got on and fixed the problem, and Otago sailed back on her two engines)! Probably had to get back to DNB pronto as per the terms and conditions of the manufacturers warranty, eh, just following procedures And as you say, like the LAV's they are pretty much early in their development cycle, and one can't void them thar warranty's and tinker/remedy. So really what was the big deal in the end!

Anyway hopefully BAE Sys are also taking a keen look at these issues as to offer an improved design for any future derivatives, be that patrolling or MCM/Diving/LWS etc (eg with changes to accomodate better damage control and more growth etc).

Also the OPV's are still to receive their baptism of fire in the deep Southern Ocean, like Te Kaha went through, so still more to look forward to for all involved.

 

[KiwiRob]

I recently read the Irish have ordered 2 new OPV's based on the Le Roisin like ours, I wonder if this will be similar to ours or something different?

 

[jeffb]

I recently read the Irish have ordered 2 new OPV's based on the Le Roisin like ours, I wonder if this will be similar to ours or something different?

Isn't the Roisin an Irish design in the first place? I'm pretty sure the two ships you're talking about went into service ten years ago.

ed: Ah I see, they're in talks with Babcock to build two new OPV's for 100m euros by 2014/15. No real details though. Alot has changed since July though in Ireland, have to wonder where the purchase of new ships comes in the whole scheme of things.

 

[Sea Toby]

Isn't the Roisin an Irish design in the first place? I'm pretty sure the two ships you're talking about went into service ten years ago.

ed: Ah I see, they're in talks with Babcock to build two new OPV's for 100m euros by 2014/15. No real details though. Alot has changed since July though in Ireland, have to wonder where the purchase of new ships comes in the whole scheme of things.

The Irish presently operate 8 OPVs. They have two Rosins, and recently ordered two slightly larger similar ships. This leaves the three ex-UK Peacocks and one of their other older OPVs left, all four of them needing to be replaced around or before 2020...

Its likely after 2020 Ireland may not be operating 8 OPVs, they could possibly go with 4 OPVs and 4 IPVs, or another OPV-IPV mix... Or settle for less than 8 ships.... Much depends upon the budget and future governments...

The Irish are also considering an enlarge OPV for sea lift purposes, although there are those who prefer a MRV similar to the Canterbury which may affect OPV numbers... Ordering something similar to the Canterbury is welcomed more by the army than the navy.... The Irish in the past have sent peacekeepers to Bosnia, Liberia, and Chad.... They have no sea lift whatsoever and are dependent upon foreign flag shipping....

Ireland and New Zealand's population are similar... Something similar to Canterbury would be idea for their sea lift needs...

 

[Norm]

Anzac up grade

Point Defence Missile System (PDMS). The ANZAC frigate has space and weight for two 8 Cell Mk 41 VLS, one of which is fitted. The MK 41 VLS is currently used solely for the NATO Sea Sparrow Missile (NSSM) and is fully integrated in to the CMS. NSSM is a surface-to-air missile with a limited surface attack mode. It is a semi-active homing weapon (reliant on the CWI illuminating the intended target throughout the engagement) and is specifically designed to counter a sea skimming threat."Extract PDF ANZAC Self Defence Upgrade".

The sea voyage to the Gulf often see's some of the MK 41s on the blink.Hopefully more missiles will be avalible in the future via the upgrade to off set this problem.Begs the Question why only one 8 cell unit is typically fitted.

 

[Sea Toby]

Point Defence Missile System (PDMS). The ANZAC frigate has space and weight for two 8 Cell Mk 41 VLS, one of which is fitted. The MK 41 VLS is currently used solely for the NATO Sea Sparrow Missile (NSSM) and is fully integrated in to the CMS. NSSM is a surface-to-air missile with a limited surface attack mode. It is a semi-active homing weapon (reliant on the CWI illuminating the intended target throughout the engagement) and is specifically designed to counter a sea skimming threat."Extract PDF ANZAC Self Defence Upgrade".

The sea voyage to the Gulf often see's some of the MK 41s on the blink.Hopefully more missiles will be avalible in the future via the upgrade to off set this problem.Begs the Question why only one 8 cell unit is typically fitted.

I was under the impression New Zealand will upgrade as the Aussies did with ESSM, the evolved sea sparrow missile which are quad packed into the eight cells. I would consider 32 quad packed ESSM missiles a considerable increase with the one 8 cell launcher. NSSM is a dated missile, the US Navy along with the Aussies are phasing out NSSM and going with ESSM and/or RAM/SeaRam. I would think the Kiwis would do likewise...

New Zealand will have enough problems with the weight of 32 ESSMs as is with the one eight cell Mk 41 VLS atop the superstructure....

 

[anzac3]

will our new littoral ship have weapons?
Maybe a lil gun on the front ?

 

[Sea Toby]

will our new littoral ship have weapons?
Maybe a lil gun on the front ?

I doubt it, but the final designs aren't set yet...

 

[mattyem]

will our new littoral ship have weapons?
Maybe a lil gun on the front ?

Well we can pretty much bet on it having 50's at a minimum. whether they go the way of having mini typhoons or go up to something like the bushmaster is the question. One would like to think it would have something in the league of the bushmaster and a 50 mount on each side.
I think this will be an interesting project to watch now the lessons have been learnt from the acquisition and testing phases of protector!

 

[Aussie Digger]

The sea voyage to the Gulf often see's some of the MK 41s on the blink.Hopefully more missiles will be avalible in the future via the upgrade to off set this problem.Begs the Question why only one 8 cell unit is typically fitted.

Top-weight issues and cost I'd imagine. The Australian vessels have been upgraded with ESSM but in doing so (along with other kit) have eaten up so much weight that they cannot mount a Phalanx CIWS any more.

If you can no longer carry a phalanx it seems unlikely you will be able to carry a 2nd Mk-41VLS...