I reckon that they a more than capable of designing and building the MSC.
Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
Like I said I don't doubt their credentials but I still would'nt buy a car unseen based history of their other models or one from the 80s. I just find it strange to win a bid without an actual physical build or at least reference. Our OPVs and MRV came from a reputable company as well C/W plans and stated capabilities, those did'nt turn out too flash so let's just hope the guarantees sound at least.
Well concerning that they have been and are building ships for the South Korean Navy, I don't really see what you are going on about. Like anything you pays your money, you takes your chances. Not every design for a RNZN vessel has to meet with our prior approval and you may find that the MSC design is commercial sensitivity for some reason.
Last edited:
Take our chances? Really, wow?? It's a essentially a tanker, what's there to be sensitive about? Plus they have already won the shortlist or is DSME still in the running
Reg I am sure that their is a well considered design and that they are not going into this half-arsed. Shame that there is nothing much out there regarding the Korean AOE II Fast Combat Support Ship project available.
Yes I'm sure they would'nt, in fact I would be very surprised if they at least did not have some assurances as to its capability and design. Just think for something like this there is nothing more definite, even a CGI version or drawing at this stage of the project.
They would be alittle trusting to take their word on it otherwise and just let them go at it with the specs and parameters IMO regardless of their wealth of knowledge and just wondering what they then compared to the DSME option to win. Nothing on the indian design either so guess it could be how they operate, just not too sure why if they have the contract?
Just curious is all.
Lots of things to be commercially sensitive about Reg from both sides. Yes they have been short listed but as far as we are aware no contract has been signed yet.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
All that has been released in public is that DSME and HHI were short-listed and asked to put in a Best And Final Offer. Janes reported that HHI was designated the preferred bidder, which means that NZ will negotiate exclusively with them. If agreement can't be reached, NZ then breaks off negotiations with HHI and deals solely with DSME.
There is no doubt that HHI had to submit a (highly detailed) vessel design to bid for the contract. Unlike most of the other contenders, they never publicised what it is, not has any info leaked from the NZ side. All in all, its possibly NZ's best-kept defence secret of the modern era, with the possible exception of Minister Brownlee's BMI.
We know that HHI is building replenishment ships for the ROK navy (AOE-II class) and looks to have a contract for the Indian navy as well. It seems likely the ship for NZ will be based on one of these designs, or in fact they may be the same/a similar design.
My reading of the DWP-related docs is that NZ has opted for a lower-cost (and probably less capable) design that is probably more a basic tanker with space for containers on deck, rather than a multi-function AOR such as the Aegir-class. If so, I think it will be a short-sighted decision, presumably driven by financial necessity.
My guess is that the winning design will be unveiled in the next month or so, possibly at the same time the tender for the LOSC is released.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
You deserve a large cold beer for that contribution, Mr C.The Indian's are also going to use the tech transfer approach with their MCMV's working with Kangnam's to build them Kangnam style.
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
I agree, it would be a short sighted decision to go with a 'no frills' Navy tanker design. Especially after all the hype over multi functionality ,and carrying troops,extra ammo and dry goods ice belt, ect. Surely with the 20 billion mentioned in DWP, penny pinching on a major asset would be a failure to deliver on policy,once again.
Going with the basic design has been offset by the LOSC capability been increased. My personal view is that while the Tanker as proposed made sense; transporting misson critical equipment and personnel has its limitations operationally for a small defence force in operational areas (when 7000 tonnes of fuel is floating around).
I would not be surprised if Australia's recent decision regrding their AOR design have lead NZ down a complementary route (i.e East Timor role) plus the additional cost of ice strengthening.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Agree and since its core capability is as a tanker, when it is deployed to replenish other vessels in the Asia-Pacific or Gulf regions, it won't be available to compliment HMNZS Canterbury with transporting additional vehicles and troops around our near-region anyway, so in that regard it does appear to be better that the LOSC capability be increased which also gives NZDF additional options should the need arise.
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
In the original definition for the LOSC the requirement was for a vessel to support forces ashore, provide MCM, support dive operations, perform naval hydrography and provide a limited armed presence role within a hull of up to 3600 tons IIRC. GoIng back a few pages the Damen multi role auxiliary vessel was discussed as a possible design contender as it has the adaptable design to allow all these roles.
The more flexible the mission set is for a vessel the larger the platform needs to be. Looking at the Skandi Bergen used by the RAN one can see the advantages of a larger hull. It can support the LOSC planned tasks but it also has substantial designed liquid stores capability. A simple single RAS tower could allow a vessel of this type to provide limited support in the event the tanker is unavailable. I agree this is not ideal but with such a small fleet the need is still present given the area of operations. A look at the Davie hull that is available and the design pictures gives an idea of what can be accomplished by the bigger hull.
Just a bit of background on the current state of play with DSME
Bankruptcy looms over DSME - Splash 247
http://splash247.com/under-fire-kdb-promises-to-cut-shipping-and-shipbuilding-exposure/
The builder is struggling and, while this may result in a good price, it may count against them in the assessment of project risk.
Think a few of the SK shipbuilders are having issues at the moment with finances, strikes etc, could be interesting just to get off the ground but yes could equate to some bargains to be had IOT secure a deal. Was'nt End purchased for a good price in the end comparitively? On the flip side this could also possibly prove a safer option to build the other required vessels elsewhere avoiding our eggs in the same basket type scenario.
On the other 2 up and coming naval purchases (littoral and southern OPV) what's the scope so far? I think it beneficial to have a singular family of vessels in terms of cost, training, maintenance, modularity etc with obvious mission specific features for their intended roles (ice strengthening, deck space etc). I still actually like the BAM OPV of Spain as their intended roles current and future are on a par with our requirements with the advantage of the same base model. OPV, littoral and antartic support (did'nt even know Spain had a claim) are all options within this class to be built and IMO still provide improvement over what we currently have ie range, speed, seakeeping, weapons, sensors, helo ops, crew comfort/options etc (or mix and match of role dependant).
We should aqquire the 3rd OPV and littoral soonish and then replace the Otago class when their time comes as per for spread of cost and synergies gained. Just an option.
HMNZS Te Kaha has berthed at Pearl Harbour for RIMPAC. During the exercise an AGM119 Penguin missile will be fired from the ships Seasprite helo. NZ Army soldiers have travelled to RIMPAC aboard the RAN LHD HMAS Canberra. RNZN Commodore Jim Gilmour is commanding the RIMPAC Amphibious Task Force, Command Task Force 176, from the USN LHA USS America.
Images available on the:
RNZN Facebook page
RNZN RIMPAC Web page
General RIMPAC imagery
Images available on the:
RNZN Facebook page
RNZN RIMPAC Web page
General RIMPAC imagery
Well done CDRE Gilmour. Back in 2011 he was Commander Combined Task Force 151 in the Gulf. A RIMPAC command will be good for his future prospects.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Tidespring, The First Tide Class (MARS) Royal Fleet Auxiliary Tanker Started Sea Trials
Just posted this in the RN thread, and thought the time-line may have some relevance to NZ.
The UK ordered their MARS tankers in Feb 2012. First steel was cut mid-2014, and sea trials are currently underway (July '16). Installation of specialised military equipment will take place in the UK later this year, presumably giving entry into service sometime later in 2017? So, 5+ years from contract to delivery of a completed item. From this point onward they are scheduled to receive a new vessel every 6 months.
Using this as a guide, if NZ signed a contract with HHI tomorrow, we'd have a usable vessel late in 2021 at the earliest. Of course, NZ's selection will be a good deal smaller and probably less complex, which may make for a faster turnaround. I certainly wouldn't expect a two-year lag between contract signing and first steel cut.
How does this compare to what is envisaged in the 2014 Defence Capability Plan?
Just posted this in the RN thread, and thought the time-line may have some relevance to NZ.
The UK ordered their MARS tankers in Feb 2012. First steel was cut mid-2014, and sea trials are currently underway (July '16). Installation of specialised military equipment will take place in the UK later this year, presumably giving entry into service sometime later in 2017? So, 5+ years from contract to delivery of a completed item. From this point onward they are scheduled to receive a new vessel every 6 months.
Using this as a guide, if NZ signed a contract with HHI tomorrow, we'd have a usable vessel late in 2021 at the earliest. Of course, NZ's selection will be a good deal smaller and probably less complex, which may make for a faster turnaround. I certainly wouldn't expect a two-year lag between contract signing and first steel cut.
How does this compare to what is envisaged in the 2014 Defence Capability Plan?
DSME are in serious hot water at the moment with a number of their executives being prosecuted for fraud and the Korean Development Bank under pressure not to bail out ailing companies.
The build time of Tidespring has been very good, as can be expected from good Korean yards, however, the yards long term viability is not assured.
http://splash247.com/another-former-dsme-exec-faces-accounting-fraud-probe/
http://splash247.com/south-korea-rushes-through-stimulus-package-to-help-struggling-shipbuilders/
The stimulus package is not supported by all politicians so it certainly is not assured.
The build time of Tidespring has been very good, as can be expected from good Korean yards, however, the yards long term viability is not assured.
http://splash247.com/another-former-dsme-exec-faces-accounting-fraud-probe/
http://splash247.com/south-korea-rushes-through-stimulus-package-to-help-struggling-shipbuilders/
The stimulus package is not supported by all politicians so it certainly is not assured.
And it keeps getting worse
DSME collapse likened to Enron - Splash 247
Korean Shipbuilding is in deep trouble. Hyundai and Hanjin are likely to merge, STX has gone to the wall and DSME need a lifeline to survive. There is considerable opposition to the allocation of public funds to help the yards out given they have been cooking the books.
China is in similar strife
DSME collapse likened to Enron - Splash 247
Korean Shipbuilding is in deep trouble. Hyundai and Hanjin are likely to merge, STX has gone to the wall and DSME need a lifeline to survive. There is considerable opposition to the allocation of public funds to help the yards out given they have been cooking the books.
China is in similar strife