Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[ngatimozart]

Commonality only usually lasts as long as the first upgrade. Having common doctrine is more important than common hardware. We've got very different needs, operate in different areas, and don't have all the baggage that goes with a protectionist industrial policies. Aside from that, we're on a divergent geopolitical path. Even a brief look at the ethnicity population projections shows that while Australia will remain very 'white,' New Zealand is getting less so. That means much closer economic, social and emotional links to parts of the world Australia doesn't identify as strongly with.

From StatsNZ:

The projections indicate a 90 percent chance that New Zealand's:

• 'European or Other' population (3.31 million in 2013) will increase to 3.43–3.62 million in 2025 and to 3.43–3.82 million in 2038.
  
• Māori population (0.69 million in 2013) will increase to 0.83–0.91 million in 2025 and to 1.00–1.18 million in 2038.
  
• Asian population (0.54 million in 2013) will increase to 0.81–0.92 million in 2025 and to 1.06–1.26 million in 2038.
  
• Pacific population (0.34 million in 2013) will increase to 0.44–0.48 million in 2025 and to 0.54–0.65 million in 2038.

I'm going to disagree as well but for different reasons. First a bit of critique regarding data presentation. The figures presented have no real context in the discussion. There is no ratios presented to signify what those numbers mean. Hence what proportion of the total population does each cohort represent and then the increases cited by what proportion of the cohort will that be and then by what proportion of the total population increase will that be? The data as presented says very little and offers very little context or support to your argument. The demographics are going to have minimal effect, if any, on NZ defence procurement in the medium term. However the trade at all costs philosophy that apparently pervades and informs MFAT, in all likelihood, does have and will have some impact upon NZ defence procurement.

Secondly and IMHO a very significant point that will feature in the RNZN ANZAC frigate replacement will be the NZ - Australia defence relationship. The 2010 DWP states that this is NZs most important defence relationship, which since 1991 consecutive NZGs have damaged through budget cuts (18% in 1991), loss of capabilities (e.g., ACF axing and cutting frigate force from four to two) and continual underfunding of defence to the point where it is debatable whether or not NZDF can deploy a combat force that is self sufficient and self reliant. Bluntly NZ is probably no longer seen by Canberra as a fully reliable ally and is seen by some as a defence bludger, which I find difficulty to counter.

For the last couple of years I've suggested that IMO the Iver Huitfeld frigates would be ideal replacements for the RNZN ANZAC frigates, with two being replaced by three. In the general course of things this would still be ideal. However the Commonwealth Of Australia has now made a decision regarding the RAN ANZAC frigate replacement with a continuous build program and a continuous build program for OPVs. Given that the ANZAC frigate build was a successful program it should be prudent to investigate NZ participation in this new program. Such participation by NZ would be a way of reinforcing NZs commitment to the relationship and would also help obtain some of the work here. IMHO a minimum of three frigates would have to be procureded. Whilst this program would cost more than the Iver Huitfelds, in the long term I believe it would be in NZs best interest to be involved in the Australian build program.

 

[t68]

Whilst Canberra would definatly like for us to cooperate on the next gen frigate, I think they would be more happier that you got a capabilty that is sustainable long term, if that means the Iver Huitfelds so be it

 

[johnysteam]

Navy ship replacements

Hi there
I just wanted to ask, as someone who has little navy knowledge, a question.
Does NZ navy need a big tanker to service its two frigates? or one frigate as it normally is when away. Does this tanker idea stem from the old 4 frigate navy days.

The reason I'm asking is that why don't they replace it, when due shortly with a regular navy ship with a large ( certified) tank within, and this ship could also have a bit of defence ability as well. I'm thinking of a large fast support ship with a heli deck and a bit of armament. Is there such a thing?
Cheers

 

[ngatimozart]

Hi there
I just wanted to ask, as someone who has little navy knowledge, a question.
Does NZ navy need a big tanker to service its two frigates? or one frigate as it normally is when away. Does this tanker idea stem from the old 4 frigate navy days.

The reason I'm asking is that why don't they replace it, when due shortly with a regular navy ship with a large ( certified) tank within, and this ship could also have a bit of defence ability as well. I'm thinking of a large fast support ship with a heli deck and a bit of armament. Is there such a thing?
Cheers

The RNZN currently has a tanker, HMNZS Endeavour, which is going to be replaced in 2018 / 19. That replacement process is underway now. Endeavour was commissioned into RNZN service in 1988. It does carry armament for defence when required.

 

[t68]

The RNZN currently has a tanker, HMNZS Endeavour, which is going to be replaced in 2018 / 19. That replacement process is underway now. Endeavour was commissioned into RNZN service in 1988. It does carry armament for defence when required.

I think he means something other than an dedicated AOR, along the lines of HMAS Sydney L134 which had the capabilty to resupply smaller shipping, and from memory JC1 has but was omitted fromCanberra class or joint logistic support ship Karel Doorman

Johneystream, for NZ needs an AOR is not only fuel but also dry stores as well, hopefully the replacement ship will be larger and with additional facilty like expanded medical facility, also one must remember that it not only provides RAS service to RNZN but allied forces as well as was the recent ex in AUS were she refueled USNS Tippecanoe ( T-AO-199)

 

[ngatimozart]

I think he means something other than an dedicated AOR, along the lines of HMAS Sydney L134 which had the capabilty to resupply smaller shipping, and from memory JC1 has but was omitted fromCanberra class or joint logistic support ship Karel Doorman

Don't think so.

 

[t68]

Don't think so.

Appears to me he is questioning the need for a large AOR his line of "regular navy ship with a large ( certified) tank within" in my reading of the text refers to a combatant that has the ability to replenish other ships within the the fleet, ships that I referred to has that capabilty, but doesn't mean he was thinking of those ships in general ie they were there for illustration purposes.

 

[aussienscale]

Appears to me he is questioning the need for a large AOR his line of "regular navy ship with a large ( certified) tank within" in my reading of the text refers to a combatant that has the ability to replenish other ships within the the fleet, ships that I referred to has that capabilty, but doesn't mean he was thinking of those ships in general ie they were there for illustration purposes.

OK so before I do a full reply to this, are we talking fantasy land or actual RNZN ? Are we talking current DWP, Doctrine, Conops, short, medium and long term strategic planning ?

Are we taking into account what is happening in the southern hemisphere, SE Asia, are you privy to talks in the background ? ANZUS ? FVEY ? ATF ?

What has been agreed to by both countries with regards to the ATF ? what commitments ? ? ?

I could go on with so many variables my brain hurts !!! lets start with the basics shall we ?

 

[t68]

OK so before I do a full reply to this, are we talking fantasy land or actual RNZN ? Are we talking current DWP, Doctrine, Conops, short, medium and long term strategic planning ?

Are we taking into account what is happening in the southern hemisphere, SE Asia, are you privy to talks in the background ? ANZUS ? FVEY ? ATF ?

What has been agreed to by both countries with regards to the ATF ? what commitments ? ? ?

I could go on with so many variables my brain hurts !!! lets start with the basics shall we ?

That's up to you how want to help Johnneystream on his question.

As on how the question stands, as I read the question he question's the need for a replenishment ship for a two frigate navy, when majority of the time their is only one avalible. As for his comment "regular Navy" I take it he is questioniing why they don't build a combatant with the ability to replenish other ships of the RNZN. That's how I see the question posed you and Ngati may see it differently

 

[Lucasnz]

Overall regardless of the type and size; NZ does need some sort of tanker. I think the RNZN experience of operating in the Pacific (i.e. The Otago / Canterbury Murora protests, Early Fiji Coup's), combined with the limited range of the Leander's, highlighted the need for the capability.

Johnneystream's posts focus's solely on the Frigates, but ignores the fact that the OPV and Canterbury are fitted for RAS (L). One of the Navy Today's indicated that Canterbury undertook a RAS(L) recently but I'm not sure if the OPV have used the capability yet.

 

[Cadredave]

Hi there
I just wanted to ask, as someone who has little navy knowledge, a question.
Does NZ navy need a big tanker to service its two frigates? or one frigate as it normally is when away. Does this tanker idea stem from the old 4 frigate navy days.

The reason I'm asking is that why don't they replace it, when due shortly with a regular navy ship with a large ( certified) tank within, and this ship could also have a bit of defence ability as well. I'm thinking of a large fast support ship with a heli deck and a bit of armament. Is there such a thing?
Cheers

Mate,

Welcome to the Forum just so we all understand what you are asking;

1. Are you saying NZ needs a 1 for 1 replacement of HMNZS Endeavour with a ship exactly the same? or

2. Something that has a bit more utility ie can carry POL plus dry stores & maybe a hospital or vehicle deck like a JSS

cheers

CD

 

[johnysteam]

Hey
Thanks for your comments guys!
Just wondering if NZ needed another tanker as a replacement for the current.
The JSS looks like a good idea to me.
cheers

 

[Cadredave]

Hey
Thanks for your comments guys!
Just wondering if NZ needed another tanker as a replacement for the current.
The JSS looks like a good idea to me.
cheers

This is the previous Def Ministers comments on the Endeavour Replacement;

“To operate effectively the NZDF needs to provide fuel and logistical support to its deployed ships, helicopters and vehicles,” says Dr Coleman.

“This capability is crucial given New Zealand’s vast maritime area, and our security and disaster relief responsibilities in the South Pacific. Without it NZDF operations would be limited in duration or dependent on our partners.

“The new tanker will be a significant enhancement in capability. It will increase the NZDF’s ability to support and sustain Navy, Army and Air Force operations at home and further afield.

“The tanker will be able to store a large amount of fuel, including aviation fuel, store supplies and ammunition, and accommodate an NH90 or Seasprite helicopter.

“This capability is needed as the NZDF has more ships which can embark new helicopters, and it is crucial that the tanker can support the Joint Task Force as set out in the 2010 Defence White Paper.

“Possible winterisation features will also be considered which could enable the tanker to resupply bases in Antarctica.”

It is a force Multiplier that has proven its worth over many years of Stirling service, HMNZS Endeavour was used as a non-combatant venue during the Bougainville peace talks as she was seen to be non threatening to the parties involved. With the current Governments also looking towards Antarctica you can bet that the replacement will have some ability to go down south so yes she is needed not by the Navy only but the wider NZDF as well regardless if we have one Frigate in operation at a time.

CD

 

[Volkodav]

Hey
Thanks for your comments guys!
Just wondering if NZ needed another tanker as a replacement for the current.
The JSS looks like a good idea to me.
cheers

Good question.

My gut feeling, which could be wrong, is that a JSS type vessel would be more expensive than either a tanker or a support ship. This means that the logical extension of acquiring two JSS to replace the tanker and the MRV (Canterbury) would likely be more expensive than acquiring replacement like forlike vessels.

 

[RegR]

I think the new endeavour will have more flex than the previous dedicated tanker but I guess funding will dictate exactly how much. Multi-role is very much embedded in the NZ planning process these days and with such a small force rightly so.

I see what you are getting at, now that our frigate fleet has halved do we need purely a tanker or something that can wear more hats as the bulk fuel requirement has lessened to a degree (for us anyway). There was initial talk of providing more facilities on board EndII making it a kind of mini CY, good idea I think, options, supplement, back up etc. More useful, and used within RNZN than purely a refueller.

 

[John Fedup]

Good question.

My gut feeling, which could be wrong, is that a JSS type vessel would be more expensive than either a tanker or a support ship. This means that the logical extension of acquiring two JSS to replace the tanker and the MRV (Canterbury) would likely be more expensive than acquiring replacement like forlike vessels.

You only have to look at the RCN's JSS project to see how such specialized ships fall off the procurement rails. After years of screwing around with specifications, the project became totally unaffordable and we are now getting two Berlin class AORs which will be built by SeaSpan in Vancouver. The local build for such vessels is a whole other debate.

 

[40 deg south]

You only have to look at the RCN's JSS project to see how such specialized ships fall off the procurement rails. After years of screwing around with specifications, the project became totally unaffordable and we are now getting two Berlin class AORs which will be built by SeaSpan in Vancouver. The local build for such vessels is a whole other debate.

Johnny

Welcome to the board.

I think you are correct in suggesting a JSS-type vessel would provide NZ with more flexibility than a straight tanker replacement. If you scroll far enough back through this thread, you will see that that a Request for Information was released by NZ Defence Ministry back in April 2013. That was leaning strongly towards a multi-function vessel, with 260 metres of lane space for vehicles, a pair of 65-tone landing craft, substantial stores capability and costed options for a Chinook-capable deck and ice strengthening.

Unfortunately, what NZ wants and what NZ can afford are two very different things. The Request for Proposals (i.e. the tender docs) issued earlier this year were less ambitious. They were more focused on a conventional oiler, with provision for a minimum of 12 20ft containers as deck storage. Still a handy step up in size and capability from Endeavour, but much less multi-functional than the RFI suggested.

Incidentally, Norway went through a similar exercise, issuing specs for a tanker with ro-ro capability and all the bells and whistles. None of the bids came anywhere close to being within budget, so they re-tendered for a more bare-bones oiler and eventually ordered an Aegir 18R to be built in Korea by DSME. If NZ goes down a similar track, it wouldn't be a great surprise.

Incidentally, the NZ tenders closed in June, so I would anticipate a decision going to Cabinet early in 2016 if bids come in within the expected price range. If anyone has a better estimate on timing, I'd love to hear it.

 

[40 deg south]

Daewoo and Hyundai Shortlisted

New Zealand shortlists South Korean yards for tanker project - IHS Jane's 360

Jane's announce an all-Korean shortlist for Endeavour replacement. The free portion of the article is posted below - anyone know more?

South Korean shipyards Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering (DSME) and Hyundai Heavy Industries (HHI) have been shortlisted to compete head-to-head in a 'best and final offer' (BAFO) phase for New Zealand's Maritime Sustainment Capability (MSC) programme.

The decision, announced on 9 September, has seen rival bids from European shipbuilders Flensburger and Navantia eliminated from the competition.

Approved by the government in June 2014, the MSC project is intended to replace the Royal New Zealand Navy's (RNZN's) replenishment tanker HMNZS Endeavour , which retires in 2018, so as to maintain an afloat replenishment capability for the New Zealand Defence Force. The June 2014 Defence Capability Plan stated that the replacement capability "will be capable of refuelling and sustaining the Joint Task Force both at-sea and from-the-sea", adding that when combined with other capabilities, "it would also offer options in terms of the sustainment of ground forces, and for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief missions, primarily within the Pacific region".

There are a couple of oddities in the piece above. I'm not aware that Flensburger (Germany) was previously listed as a potential supplier. Meanwhile, Fincantieri, Damen, Seaspan and Teekay reponded, but don't rate a mention above. Perhaps Flensburger was the yard one of the above planned to use for actual construction?

Anyway, good to see progress. Sorry, John Fedup, but I think NZ will have a vessel in the water before Canada cuts first steel!

 

[John Fedup]

Daewoo and Hyundai Shortlisted

New Zealand shortlists South Korean yards for tanker project - IHS Jane's 360

Jane's announce an all-Korean shortlist for Endeavour replacement. The free portion of the article is posted below - anyone know more?



There are a couple of oddities in the piece above. I'm not aware that Flensburger (Germany) was previously listed as a potential supplier. Meanwhile, Fincantieri, Damen, Seaspan and Teekay reponded, but don't rate a mention above. Perhaps Flensburger was the yard one of the above planned to use for actual construction?

Anyway, good to see progress. Sorry, John Fedup, but I think NZ will have a vessel in the water before Canada cuts first steel!

Sadly, I fear your prediction will come to pass. The AORs should have been out sourced to SK so SeaSpan could begin building our urgently needed heavy ice breakers.

 

[swerve]

Daewoo and Hyundai Shortlisted

New Zealand shortlists South Korean yards for tanker project - IHS Jane's 360

Jane's announce an all-Korean shortlist for Endeavour replacement. The free portion of the article is posted below - anyone know more?



There are a couple of oddities in the piece above. I'm not aware that Flensburger (Germany) was previously listed as a potential supplier. Meanwhile, Fincantieri, Damen, Seaspan and Teekay reponded, but don't rate a mention above. Perhaps Flensburger was the yard one of the above planned to use for actual construction?

Anyway, good to see progress. Sorry, John Fedup, but I think NZ will have a vessel in the water before Canada cuts first steel!

I'd expect Flensburger to have bid. It builds the German navy Berlin-class support ships, so certainly has the necessary experience. It markets a tanker design which seems to be a simplified version of the Berlin class.