Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[chis73]

Perhaps a bit of a cheeky offer, but maybe we should ask the Aussies if they would care to lease one of the IPVs short-term, seeing that the unfortunate HMAS Bundaberg looks to be no more?

I am firmly of the belief that RNZN needs an additional vessel (or vessels) in service during the period when the frigates undergo their upgrade, ie by 2016, certainly not 5 years from now. Preferably that would be an additional OPV (probably leased, unless new construction was ordered immediately). An ex-RN River class perhaps? I don't know if helicopter operation is particularly necessary (seeing as we have had 4 years of operation from the Otago class so far without using it)

I think that while crewing the IPVs is difficult at present, that difficulty should disappear while the frigate upgrade happens. Perhaps talk of selling IPVs is then premature?

Chis73

 

[Lucasnz]

Perhaps a bit of a cheeky offer, but maybe we should ask the Aussies if they would care to lease one of the IPVs short-term, seeing that the unfortunate HMAS Bundaberg looks to be no more?

I am firmly of the belief that RNZN needs an additional vessel (or vessels) in service during the period when the frigates undergo their upgrade, ie by 2016, certainly not 5 years from now. Preferably that would be an additional OPV (probably leased, unless new construction was ordered immediately). An ex-RN River class perhaps? I don't know if helicopter operation is particularly necessary (seeing as we have had 4 years of operation from the Otago class so far without using it)

I think that while crewing the IPVs is difficult at present, that difficulty should disappear while the frigate upgrade happens. Perhaps talk of selling IPVs is then premature?

Chis73

The navy has struggled with recruitment since the late 1970's I'm not sure the manning problems will ever disappear until the current three month discharge notice is replaced with more fixed term arrangement. While many of the discharges are at the 6-8 year mark spending resources to train someone and then watching walk out the door 6 months later makes no sense and contributes directly to long term capabilities.

 

[Zero Alpha]

The navy has struggled with recruitment since the late 1970's

Your post prompted me to dig out the 1978 White Paper. The turnover figures for Navy were:

1971-73 14.49%
1973-74 17.65%
1974-75 15.33%
1975-76 19.08%
1976-77 20.37%
1977-78 18.76%

I haven't seen any historical figures quoting recruiting targets and actuals compare it with exit rates.

 

[RegR]

The navy has struggled with recruitment since the late 1970's I'm not sure the manning problems will ever disappear until the current three month discharge notice is replaced with more fixed term arrangement. While many of the discharges are at the 6-8 year mark spending resources to train someone and then watching walk out the door 6 months later makes no sense and contributes directly to long term capabilities.

Recruitment and retention has always been a tough one and is only getting worse as the 'perks' are slowly being eroded, no incentive to stay and ironically those savings are now probably being taken up trying to fill and train the vacated ranks, good one beans.

I think the navy (NZDF in general actually) just need to catch up with the times, its a whole different culture/attitude/generation these days and DF needs to keep up, adjust and adapt accordingly otherwise suffer the consequences, too many other options these days in competition. Whilst they could never match the pay rates of some civi outfits they can definitely win on the experience, lifestyle and benefits front if they really wanted to, most would stay if they enjoyed it enough regardless of pay. You can only put up with so much ship before the grass starts looking greener.

If it's not seen as attractive to begin with then why join but also if it's not seen as beneficial to continue then why stay. Too many factors to try and consider and I guess hard getting the right balance without some compromise but can it really get any worse? Probably.

 

[Lucasnz]

I've just been down to one of the IPV in port and there were at least two VR personnel amongst the crew. Talking to one of the VR personnel he suggested the RNZN was looking at greater use of mixed crewing (Regular and VR). Good visit except for too many crew loafing about on the bridge and a S/Lt who needs to work on her PR skills.

 

[40 deg south]

Airborne Systems Europe Awarded Contract to Supply Anti-Missile Decoys to the New Zealand Ministry of Defence : Bridgend, UK | Airborne Systems: Parachutes: Military Parachutes: Cargo Parachutes: Aerial Delivery Equipment

Bridgend, UK – 14 August, 2014 – Airborne Systems Europe is pleased to announce that the Royal New Zealand Navy (RNZN) will join their counterparts in the UK Royal Navy and United States Navy in fitting the Airborne Systems FDS3 decoy systems to their ships.

The FDS3 corner reflector decoy offers a unique countermeasure protection against the most advanced and latest RF-seeking missiles.

The contract to supply the system is valued at £3.4 million over the next three years and will see the system fitted to the RNZN frigates as part of the ANZAC class Frigate Systems Upgrade (FSU) project. The contract for the decoys was awarded on 3 July 2014 at the New Zealand Ministry of Defence offices in Wellington, New Zealand.

More equipment ordered for the frigate upgrade. As I understand it, this is an inflatable decoy that sits pre-loaded in a launcher tube. When fired, the decoy blasts out, inflates and drifts astern providing a similar radar signature to the ship.

 

[40 deg south]

New Zealand's OPVs complete Typhoon gun acceptance trials - IHS Jane's 360

The Royal New Zealand Navy's (RNZN's) Otago-class offshore patrol vessels (OPVs), HMNZS Otago and HMNZS Wellington , have completed successful acceptance trials of the Typhoon naval gun system, an RNZN spokesperson told IHS Jane's on 20 August.

The trials were conducted over 11-12 August at an undisclosed location. "The aim of the trials was to verify that the installed Rafael Typhoon Weapon System functions correctly firing live ammunition at a towed target," said Lieutenant Commander Vicki Rendall.

The vessels, formerly armed with the MSI DS 25M Autsig 25 mm gun system as primary weapons, were installed with the Rafael Typhoon 25 mm stabilised naval gun as part of an upgrade programme.

The ships also had their Vistar 350 day and night surveillance system replaced with Rafael's Toplite multi-sensor optronic payload, which incorporates a laser designator, advanced correlation tracker, and a forward-looking infrared sensor.

"The integrated weapon system with Typhoon Toplite replaces the existing MSI Naval Gun System and the Vistar 350 Electro-Optical Surveillance System," said Lt Cdr Rendall. As well as the 25 mm guns, each vessel is equipped with two 12.7 mm machine guns.

Otago and Wellington were inducted into the RNZN in February and May 2010 respectively under the Project Protector programme. The programme aims to meet patrol and surveillance requirements in New Zealand's exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and to assist South Pacific states in patrolling their own EEZs.

The upgraded Otago-class OPVs are expected to achieve full qualification by the end of 2014.

Lt Cdr Rendall also told IHS Jane's that besides the Otago-class vessels, a similar Typhoon gun system had been installed on the RNZN's Canterbury-class multirole vessel, also as a replacement for the MSI DS 25M Autsig 25 mm gun.

That seems to have gone smoothly. What exactly was the problem wth the weapon system that has been replaced?

 

[40 deg south]

Defence & Security Intelligence & Analysis - IHS Jane's 360

Briefing: Sailing apart
Although Australia and New Zealand jointly procured their ANZAC frigates to a common baseline, the two nations are now following very different courses for their respective mid-life update programmes. Richard Scott reports.

I think this report is one non-subscribers can access by providing an email address and some personal details. I've got no time today, but maybe after the weekend...

 

[chis73]

That was quite an interesting report. The most concerning thing for me was the number of CAMM per ship on the last page. Twenty. Not good. Not much better than 8 Sea Sparrow really, compared to 32 ESSM.

I wonder if any thought was given to a cut-&-shut hull extension. Say at the point abaft the Mk45 gun and before the main superstructure, with the view of putting the Mk41 there, in an arrangement similar to that on the German Type 123s. That would probably solve the too-small displacement and top-weight issues. I suppose it would upset trim too much or something.

I wouldn't expect it to adversely affect speed that much - it may even improve it. Shouldn't cost too much. Allows us to keep good equipment that we already own rather than throwing it away eg. save the tracking radar/illuminator, the modest increase in displacement might even allow for a second, and the SPS-49 to stay (the Smart-S having only half the maximum range of the SPS-49). Would work in better with what the Canadians are doing to the Halifax class (ie upgrading to ESSM). Perhaps buy ESSM missiles as a separate project over a longer timeframe. Keep the CAMM upgrade as proposed.

Too late now to alter the contracts I suppose. Any thoughts on the above?

Chis73

 

[swerve]

You're suggesting a very large, high risk, rebuilding of the ships. From what I can see, that's exactly what the RNZN is trying to avoid. It's going for a low risk, relatively cheap, upgrade.

20 CAMM is a little surprising (I expected provision for more), but it's vastly better than 8 Sea Sparrow, & 32 ESSM comes with costs.

Once the expensive & risky cut & shut has been rejected, there isn't any spare displacement available. The RNZN is trying to keep the top weight margins the RAN has given up. The RAN accepts the effects on speed & range of ballasting & other modifications needed to fit extra kit: the RNZN, with a different fleet & different priorities, does not.

 

[alexsa]

That was quite an interesting report. The most concerning thing for me was the number of CAMM per ship on the last page. Twenty. Not good. Not much better than 8 Sea Sparrow really, compared to 32 ESSM.

I wonder if any thought was given to a cut-&-shut hull extension. Say at the point abaft the Mk45 gun and before the main superstructure, with the view of putting the Mk41 there, in an arrangement similar to that on the German Type 123s. That would probably solve the too-small displacement and top-weight issues. I suppose it would upset trim too much or something.

I wouldn't expect it to adversely affect speed that much - it may even improve it. Shouldn't cost too much. Allows us to keep good equipment that we already own rather than throwing it away eg. save the tracking radar/illuminator, the modest increase in displacement might even allow for a second, and the SPS-49 to stay (the Smart-S having only half the maximum range of the SPS-49). Would work in better with what the Canadians are doing to the Halifax class (ie upgrading to ESSM). Perhaps buy ESSM missiles as a separate project over a longer timeframe. Keep the CAMM upgrade as proposed.

Too late now to alter the contracts I suppose. Any thoughts on the above?

Chis73

Difficult to cut and extend a ship with a tapering hull anywhere but midships. The difficulties with extending in that location are pretty obvious as you woul be cutting into the Engineering area.

 

[chis73]

Thanks for that. I knew that there would be something obvious I wasn't taking into account. Suspected that for only a few metres it might have been do-able, and near enough to amidships to get away with it. Knew there must be a reason the British only lengthen their ships between batches. Sorry - brain fade.

 

[Riga]

Thanks for that. I knew that there would be something obvious I wasn't taking into account. Suspected that for only a few metres it might have been do-able, and near enough to amidships to get away with it. Knew there must be a reason the British only lengthen their ships between batches. Sorry - brain fade.

Of course another reason we British lengthen our ships between batches is the possibility of poor procurement - be that political (financial) or Civil Service / MOD incompetence...

 

[ngatimozart]

This is just a thought bubble. Ignore the fact that money is tight and the bean counters would go into collective apoplexy over it, we'll also keep the pollies out of it.

Could it be feasible from an engineering point of view, be practical and be fiscally feasible to add a well deck / dock to the Canterbury? Given that Canterbury is less than 10 years old and potentially has another 20 in service, such a major modification would be best done sooner rather than later. My reasoning for asking this question is that if it is feasible, then it would increase the capability of Canterbury in both, a military capacity and a HADR capacity. I think first of all a 20m or longer plug, would have to be inserted amidships and possibly a stern extension, to replace the space taken up by the dock. I am not an engineer to lets see what those qualified think.

 

[t68]

This is just a thought bubble. Ignore the fact that money is tight and the bean counters would go into collective apoplexy over it, we'll also keep the pollies out of it.

Could it be feasible from an engineering point of view, be practical and be fiscally feasible to add a well deck / dock to the Canterbury? Given that Canterbury is less than 10 years old and potentially has another 20 in service, such a major modification would be best done sooner rather than later. My reasoning for asking this question is that if it is feasible, then it would increase the capability of Canterbury in both, a military capacity and a HADR capacity. I think first of all a 20m or longer plug, would have to be inserted amidships and possibly a stern extension, to replace the space taken up by the dock. I am not an engineer to lets see what those qualified think.

Would it be easier to sell and put the proceeds to a new purpose built ship,

Scotland or someone could do with sealift ship if the yes vote goes thru

 

[ngatimozart]

Would it be easier to sell and put the proceeds to a new purpose built ship,

Scotland or someone could do with sealift ship if the yes vote goes thru

Well that's one of the things I want to find out.

 

[Todjaeger]

This is just a thought bubble. Ignore the fact that money is tight and the bean counters would go into collective apoplexy over it, we'll also keep the pollies out of it.

Could it be feasible from an engineering point of view, be practical and be fiscally feasible to add a well deck / dock to the Canterbury? Given that Canterbury is less than 10 years old and potentially has another 20 in service, such a major modification would be best done sooner rather than later. My reasoning for asking this question is that if it is feasible, then it would increase the capability of Canterbury in both, a military capacity and a HADR capacity. I think first of all a 20m or longer plug, would have to be inserted amidships and possibly a stern extension, to replace the space taken up by the dock. I am not an engineer to lets see what those qualified think.

Not an engineer, but the very first thought is that it would not be worthwhile from a cost/benefit POV. The first is that all of the equipment, machinery, etc currently located where the well dock would go would need to be relocated to make room for the dock an requisite equipment. Given that this might also include shafts... I suspect this would be problematic. Adding in a hull plug would still be full of potential problems given that would impact the ice strengthened hull, and the vessel's displacement and distribution. Remember the superstructure is more forward than amidships, lengthening an aft section would make it worse. Also there is still the potential issue with a space conflict between the shifts and props vs. the well dock. Given that Canterbury only cost about NZD$150 mil. I suspect the modification cost (in terms of money and time) would just not be worth it.

-Cheers

 

[alexsa]

Well that's one of the things I want to find out.

I suspect theis would be very complex and difficult noting it is a significant change to the entire structure of the aft end of the vessel and how this interacts with the strumcture of the rest of the ship noting the need to be able to ballast down

Very expsensive and may not be that successful.

 

[aussienscale]

I suspect theis would be very complex and difficult noting it is a significant change to the entire structure of the aft end of the vessel and how this interacts with the strumcture of the rest of the ship noting the need to be able to ballast down

Very expsensive and may not be that successful.

Agree, and a ship with a well dock needs to be designed as such from the start, you have to look at things such as ballast tanks to sink the back of the ship to flood the well dock, additional watertight safety features etc.

I think for the cost, it would probably end up being more than the ship is worth, sell it and I am sure the Spaniards would build a Galicia Class for a very good price ? And the SK Yards would be very happy to help as well

Cheers

 

[t68]

Agree, and a ship with a well dock needs to be designed as such from the start, you have to look at things such as ballast tanks to sink the back of the ship to flood the well dock, additional watertight safety features etc.

I think for the cost, it would probably end up being more than the ship is worth, sell it and I am sure the Spaniards would build a Galicia Class for a very good price ? And the SK Yards would be very happy to help as well

Cheers

Any idea how much Canty would be on the open market and would their be any potential buyers?