Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[Pusser01]

Are the new landing craft the MRV carries likely to inter-operable with the RAN LPA's & Tobruk? Vice versa the same for the new ADI LCM's, noting the Kiwi LCM's have a clamp arrangment with the ramp of the MRV, while the new ADI LCM were designed to use a pontoon system, where both the ramps of the LCM & LPA slot into it. The old LCM8 & LCH just lower their ramps onto the already lowered ramp of the LPA & are then wharped into place using hawsers. Is the Kiwi LCM capable of transporting the Abrahms or for that matter is the vehicle deck of the MRV stressed to carry a 60tonne tank aswell? Just wondering about this if the need ever should arise where the MRV & LPA's carry out a joint Anzac insertion!!
Cheers

 

[Sea Toby]

Australia has selected a new landing craft by ADI Limited to replace the old. Each can carry five LAV armored vehicles while the LCM-8 can only carry two. The New Zealand LCM-8, similar to the old Australian ones, can only carry two LAV armored vehicles. As I recall the Australians are buying the new LCMs to carry Abrams tanks the old ones couldn't.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Australia has selected a new landing craft by ADI Limited to replace the old. Each can carry five LAV armored vehicles while the LCM-8 can only carry two. The New Zealand LCM-8, similar to the old Australian ones, can only carry two LAV armored vehicles. As I recall the Australians are buying the new LCMs to carry Abrams tanks the old ones couldn't.

Lets remember that the Aussie LAVs are around 12 tons each while the NZ ones are up around 20 tons, so the aussie craft will probably be able to carry 3 NZ LAVs, as I think the max load is around 60 tons.

I believe that there is also a project to replace even the new ADI landing craft at the moment.

 

[mug]

Sort of on-topic (link) ...

Hon Phil Goff
8/08/2006

Former Navy Frigate to be sunk in Bay of Islands

Defence Minister Phil Goff today announced that the former Royal New Zealand Navy frigate, HMNZS Canterbury will be sunk as a dive wreck at Deepwater Cove, Cape Brett in the Bay of Islands.

"The disposal of the Canterbury for scrap was examined as an option but the greater long term economic benefit to the country was thought to come from the sinking of the frigate as a dive wreck", Mr Goff said.

"A number of registrations of interest for disposal of the Canterbury were received from the North Auckland area. The strongest case was that put forward by the Bay of Islands Trust which will be given responsibility for sinking the vessel.

"The Bay of Islands Trust's proposal was seen as having the best potential to deliver the greatest overall economic benefit to the community and the country.

"The addition of a dive wreck will add to the attraction the Bay of Islands has to domestic and international visitors, in what is one of the country's most visited tourist destinations.

"The strong support of regional MPs, local government, iwi and tourism operators made the Bay of Islands Trust's proposal the strongest we received.

"While this vessel will be sunk, the ships name and its honour board will live on with the newly constructed multi role vessel, due to enter service in early 2007, which will have the same name and same home port", said Mr Goff.

The frigate HMNZS Canterbury was commissioned into the Royal New Zealand Navy in October 1971 and de-commissioned in March 2005. HMNZS Canterbury was the last of the Leander-class frigates in the Royal New Zealand Navy. HMNZS Canterbury carried a crew of 240 Officers and Ratings.

 

[Whiskyjack]

IMHO, NZDF should:Be able to self deploy and sustain its current combat forces in medium to high level combat within the context of a coalition outside of the South Pacific.

Be able to conduct independent operations {peackeeping/making, disaster releif etc} within the South Pacific region with current forces.

Be capable of countering known and historic assymetric threats, within NZ, dependent territories or those nations to which NZ has consititonal responibilities.

Be able to adequetly conduct survellance and law/customs enforcement in the NZ EEZ.

Be capable of, and trained for, rendering proper aid to the civil power, including civil defence/disaster releif.

Please note that I say 'current forces', one cannot have the forces one wants overnight and as such we should work on the capabilities/units that we have now rather than additional capabilities which should be addressed at a later date.

With respect to the LTDP, DSI etc, I have long been of the opinion that the current government has stopped the rot in defence, nothing more, and spun it as being the best thing since sliced bread. By and large, with a couple or three exceptions, I cannot fault Labour for what they have done. Its what they havent done equipment wise, and how that relates to 'strategic planning', that gets on my wick.

I couldn't agree more. There is nothing wrong with what has been purchased, it is just what hasn't.

Accepting what has already been done with the RNZN, what do you see as being needed in addition?

 

[mug]

Accepting what has already been done with the RNZN, what do you see as being needed in addition?

Third frigate. All three then updated similar to Australian levels. Improved website, PR and recruiting facilities.

Not a bad little navy then.

 

[KH-12]

Slightly OT but fitting in with the Project Protector fleet development, there is an article in the latest Pacific Wings (August) about the possibility of the RNZAF getting 4-6 Bombardier Dash-8 Q200's for EEZ maritime patrol, as per the Australians Coastwatch aircraft. The logic being that this would free up the P3's and they would work in conjunction with the OPV's and IPV's to carry out interceptions as required. This was highlighted in the Maritime Patrol review as an area that needed additional aerial assets so there may be some basis behind the rumour.

http://www.dpmc.govt.nz/dpmc/publications/maritimepatrolreview2001/Maritime_Patrol_Review.pdf

 

[mug]

Interesting rumour and not one that I've heard before.

6-8 aircraft would be a significant increase in capability. Are threats perceived to be on the increase (to justify increased numbers), or are they just going undetected now?

 

[Whiskyjack]

Slightly OT but fitting in with the Project Protector fleet development, there is an article in the latest Pacific Wings (August) about the possibility of the RNZAF getting 4-6 Bombardier Dash-8 Q200's for EEZ maritime patrol, as per the Australians Coastwatch aircraft. The logic being that this would free up the P3's and they would work in conjunction with the OPV's and IPV's to carry out interceptions as required. This was highlighted in the Maritime Patrol review as an area that needed additional aerial assets so there may be some basis behind the rumour.

http://www.dpmc.govt.nz/dpmc/publications/maritimepatrolreview2001/Maritime_Patrol_Review.pdf

As I recall, form the early 2000s the Dash-8s were to replace the P3s, that idea was abandoned after further review and it was found that the P3 was the only aircraft that fitted the specs required, in regards to range etc.

 

[Sea Toby]

The 2004 Long Term Development Plan
Projects Approved and in Acquisition Phase
• Boeing 727 Replacement
• Medium Range Anti-Armour Weapon
• Very Low Level Air Defence Cueing
• Light Operational Vehicle
• Multi-Role Vessel
• Patrol Vessels
• Special Operations Capability
• P-3 Mission Systems Upgrade
• P-3 Communications and Navigation Systems Upgrade
• New Defence Headquarters Building

Projects Approved in Principle by Government
• C-130 Life Extension
• C-130 Communications and Navigation Systems Upgrade
• Direct Fire Support Weapon – Area
• NZDF Helicopter Capability
• Ohakea Consolidation
• Army Engineering Equipment

Projects Necessary to Avoid the Failure of Policy
• Joint Command and Control System
• Improvised Explosive Device Disposal

Projects Necessary to Provide a Well-Equipped Land Force
• Land Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance
• Combat Service Support Vehicles
• Army Tactical Trunk Communications
• Army In-Service Weapon Replacement
• General Service Vehicle Fleet Replacement

Projects Necessary to Avoid Significant Risks to Policy
• ANZAC Self-defence Upgrade
• NZDF Torpedo Replacement
• C-130 Self-Protection
• P-3 Self-Protection
• Anti-Ship Missiles
• Joint Communications Modernisation

Projects that have Benefit but are Less Critical to Achieving Policy Objectives
• High Readiness Infantry Company
• Short to Medium Range Aerial Surveillance
• Remote Mine Detection
• Army Manoeuvre Range
• Indirect Fire Support Weapon
• Infrastructure Projects

You'll notice that the first two categories have been bought and are being introduced into the defence forces. You'll notice the last four categories have not been bought and are floating around in outer space. One of those items, the short to medium range aerial surveillance, is in the most least category. There is no guarantee that any of the less critical items will ever be acquired.

I have read somewhere that the Ministry of Defence will be updating this dated 2004 document next year, during 2007. It will be interesting to see if any items in the last four categories move up into the first two categories, or whether the first two categories disappear from the LTDP.

 

[KH-12]

As I recall, form the early 2000s the Dash-8s were to replace the P3s, that idea was abandoned after further review and it was found that the P3 was the only aircraft that fitted the specs required, in regards to range etc.

The Australian aircraft are fitted with LR tanks and offer a much better operational range than the base civil version (7 hours patrol time) if you are looking to only go out to 200NM then they are probably OK, here is a brochure on the Swedish version, looks like the sensors are similar to the Orion upgrade.

http://www.kustbevakningen.se/documents/Flyg/SCG MSA brochure-rev-1.pdf

 

[Whiskyjack]

The Australian aircraft are fitted with LR tanks and offer a much better operational range than the base civil version (7 hours patrol time) if you are looking to only go out to 200NM then they are probably OK, here is a brochure on the Swedish version, looks like the sensors are similar to the Orion upgrade.

http://www.kustbevakningen.se/documents/Flyg/SCG%20MSA%20brochure-rev-1.pdf

I think when it comes to the Pacific a dedicated MPA is the only option, and this is what they found when they looked into it. I think the P3 can go for up to 10-11 hours.

I would agree that additional aircraft for the 200nm limit is a great idea, but I can't see it happening, unless it was a private commercial lease arrangement perhaps.

 

[KH-12]

I think when it comes to the Pacific a dedicated MPA is the only option, and this is what they found when they looked into it. I think the P3 can go for up to 10-11 hours.

I would agree that additional aircraft for the 200nm limit is a great idea, but I can't see it happening, unless it was a private commercial lease arrangement perhaps.

I must admit it is out of the blue (so to speak ), the logic is there to fit in with the PP fleet but not sure where the capital would come from, still who would have thought that the Gov would stump up $1Billion for new helicopters . Certainly if you want to patrol a large area on a regular basis then you need to invest in the airborne platforms, it would free up the Orions for more distant tasks.

 

[Whiskyjack]

I must admit it is out of the blue (so to speak ), the logic is there to fit in with the PP fleet but not sure where the capital would come from, still who would have thought that the Gov would stump up $1Billion for new helicopters . Certainly if you want to patrol a large area on a regular basis then you need to invest in the airborne platforms, it would free up the Orions for more distant tasks.

I agree, if it is going to happen, a big if IMO, as I said above it sounds more like something that would be contracted out in the short term with exploring a UAV option like the Aussies are doing in the long term.

 

[KH-12]

I agree, if it is going to happen, a big if IMO, as I said above it sounds more like something that would be contracted out in the short term with exploring a UAV option like the Aussies are doing in the long term.

Would be interesting to know the economies of operating a UAV platform for this role given the not inconsiderable communications infrastructure required. Yes I think the lease option would be the most likely scenario.

Not sure the NZDF is thinking UAV at this stage, I think it will be a wait and see process re: the Australian experience, I think the development cycle for maritime UAV's has a way to go before we would want to invest in that area. Will those fish poachers take an overflight of a UAV seriously anyway, lets face it the Mariner looks like an over grown model aeroplane :shudder (albeit a very expensive one)

Maybe the solution is to start off cheap and operate something like the ScanEagle http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/scaneagle/ from the OPV's / MRV's to extend their effective sensor range.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Would be interesting to know the economies of operating a UAV platform for this role given the not inconsiderable communications infrastructure required. Yes I think the lease option would be the most likely scenario.

Not sure the NZDF is thinking UAV at this stage, I think it will be a wait and see process re: the Australian experience, I think the development cycle for maritime UAV's has a way to go before we would want to invest in that area. Will those fish poachers take an overflight of a UAV seriously anyway, lets face it the Mariner looks like an over grown model aeroplane :shudder (albeit a very expensive one)

Maybe the solution is to start off cheap and operate something like the ScanEagle http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/scaneagle/ from the OPV's / MRV's to extend their effective sensor range.

If you think Mariner is expensive, don't check out Global Hawk .

Don't disagree with you, just think that the ability to have a platform with an endurance of 40+ hours with the sensor package would be the right direction to go over the next decade. Agree with the scan eagle as well.

All the UAV has to do is find, take footage and direct the appropriate authorities to the scene. Also not as manpower intensive IMO.

 

[Sea Toby]

From my experience there aren't many surprises of ships showing up off the coast. With GPS/AIP systems in place, and manifest requirements, we know which ships are arriving on any day. The further out to sea, the easier it is to catch illegal activity. With so many local boaters and fishermen out close to shore, its impossible to think in terms of over the horizon, there is so much safety enforcement that needs to be done. Its better to wait for a suspected ship to dock, than attempt to catch them close to shore. The above is for illegal activity.

On the other hand, we respond for search and rescue, most of which has to do with the alarmingly unsafe boaters close to shore. Helicopters are the key. Patrol boats second.

For a small nation such as New Zealand, I don't see how they can afford close to shore air surveillance against illegal activity. Aircraft are great patrolling further out to sea, not so great close to shore. Aircraft and helicopters cannot enforce the law, only spot. While America has such patrol aircraft close to shore, they are not as useful as the aircraft patrolling further out to sea as far as catching offenders. Its my opinon inshore aircraft patrolling is an unaffordable luxury. If New Zealand cannot afford 5 Hawk trainers at $15 million each, what makes you think New Zealand can afford 5 Dash 8s at the same price. Plus the Dash 8s operational costs would be considerably more expensive than flying 5 Hawk trainers.

The best defence of a nation's local fisheries is a great fishery agent on the ground and on a boat. The best defence of a nations's fisheries further out to sea is a long range patrol aircraft and off shore patrol boats. I think New Zealand chose correctly where to spend their precious funds. As I noted before, short range aircraft patrols were listed on the LTDP in the bottom category of usefulness.

 

[Gibbo]

Slightly OT but fitting in with the Project Protector fleet development, there is an article in the latest Pacific Wings (August) about the possibility of the RNZAF getting 4-6 Bombardier Dash-8 Q200's for EEZ maritime patrol, as per the Australians Coastwatch aircraft. The logic being that this would free up the P3's and they would work in conjunction with the OPV's and IPV's to carry out interceptions as required. This was highlighted in the Maritime Patrol review as an area that needed additional aerial assets so there may be some basis behind the rumour.

Yeah just discovered this myself today (& posted in NH-90 thread )
Very sceptical about this happening - unless of course there is one possibility! Could they be looking at ditching the B200's from 42Sqn as they're leased rather than owned. Replace them with Q200's & have a civvy maintain them (latter is what is suggested in the Pac Wings snippet). Replacing one leased type with another wouldn't be a major undertaking - not with the civvy support role anyway....Just guessing!

 

[KH-12]

Slightly OT but fitting in with the Project Protector fleet development, there is an article in the latest Pacific Wings (August) about the possibility of the RNZAF getting 4-6 Bombardier Dash-8 Q200's for EEZ maritime patrol, as per the Australians Coastwatch aircraft. The logic being that this would free up the P3's and they would work in conjunction with the OPV's and IPV's to carry out interceptions as required. This was highlighted in the Maritime Patrol review as an area that needed additional aerial assets so there may be some basis behind the rumour. QUOTE]

Yeah just discovered this myself today (& posted in NH-90 thread )
Very sceptical about this happening - unless of course there is one possibility! Could they be looking at ditching the B200's from 42Sqn as they're leased rather than owned. Replace them with Q200's & have a civvy maintain them (latter is what is suggested in the Pac Wings snippet). Replacing one leased type with another wouldn't be a major undertaking - not with the civvy support role anyway....Just guessing!

The Q200 would be a very expensive replacement for the B200's in the multi-engine training role, the hourly operating costs would be considerably more, I don't believe this would be the rationale for the move. I think the only reason the civilian maintainer was mentioned was due to their experience on type, which makes sense from an economic perspective, will be interesting to see what happens. They may even be operated by a civilian govt agency, although given that this has not occured with the PP vessels it is probably unlikely.

 

[Gibbo]

On an unrelated Navy topic I see the RNZN is finally starting to get serious about the MCM role...

http://www.hydroidinc.com/pr_0806_RNZN.html

The beauty of the thing is it could be deployed on any of the fleet's vessels, although I guess HMNZS Manawanui & Resolution may do the lion's share of this work. I understand Manawanui is possibly getting / trialling a new sonar which one hopes is optimised for the MCM role - anyone heard about this!?!

I guess there's still a need for AUV for clearance tasks (laying charges etc).