Not necessarily, look at the number of skilled workers made redundant after the successful ANZAC project in Australia, even though we knew we needed to replace much of the fleet over the next 20 years, and the hassles that caused. What is worse is a reasonable person would have known this would happen from how long it took to ramp up for the AFP, ANZAC and Collins following the run down of the industry in the 60s and 70s, and even more ridiculous, even though we plan to build OPVs, new frigates and submarines locally, we have allowed the rundown to start again.
Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
t68
Well-Known Member
Diffrence between the Aus and Can ship yards is they know they have limited work coming onboard for the Kiwi project, whereas after Anzac we knew we would eventually need them but goverment did not place any contracts.
I can't see the Canadian shipworks laying off staff that will be need for kiwi project, i'd say its exsess staff not needed for Kiwi project but once that has been completed is another story. Just a guess on my part seems logical to me, but then I have seen some company let people go then only to hire them back at higher wages due to a lack of judgement.
Heres info and renders of the new tanker: $493 Million NZD, commissions in 2020
There doesn't appear to be oodles of space for containers? Is that a Phalanx on the bow?
Government spends nearly $500 million on new navy ship | Stuff.co.nz
Cant help but laugh at Phil Goff's comment of "we needed this, but back in the day we got SEVEN ships for the price of this one ship"
There doesn't appear to be oodles of space for containers? Is that a Phalanx on the bow?
Government spends nearly $500 million on new navy ship | Stuff.co.nz
Cant help but laugh at Phil Goff's comment of "we needed this, but back in the day we got SEVEN ships for the price of this one ship"
The Ministers release.
Good. Will be interesting to see what the actual statistics are when the details are released.
Just aft of the crane there seems to be the space for the 12 TCU's envisaged if twin stacked. Does look like a Phalanx on the bow.
The devil is in the detail but on first impressions it certainly looks more towards the JSS spectrum than a AOR with a few container spaces.
Ah yes Mr Phil Goff. You got 7 rubbish ships for that amount of money. $500m is a good spend up for what is a more quality, capable vessel.
Also look who they have carried the bridge wings out over the side, the same as on Canterbury. That is something that has impressed USN and other navies officers with regard to ship handling in confined quarters, because it gives far greater visibility for situational awareness to the bridge personnel. Might seem like a small thing but highly important.
Update. Better photo on the RNZN Facebook page
Last edited:
Glad to finally see some pictures of the new tanker. Hopefully it has cargo holds for break-bulk cargo in the mix somewhere. Can't wait to see a breakdown of how the holds are configured. Looks like they plumped for the Chinook-capable flight-deck after-all. What is with the bow though, fugly as!
Certainly more expensive than I figured what NZG would stump up for, but glad the order has finally been placed. Australia bought two Cantabria class earlier this year for AUD 646m (ie 323m each), including some local content. Not ice-strengthened though.
Minor quibbles:
1. the location of the Phalanx (if that is what it is) so far forward. Looks a very 'wet' position - not great in the icing conditions this ship will be subject to.
2. Lack of protection over the aft quarter. Can anyone spot the 'pirate guns', other than the Phalanx on the bow, this ship was going to have.
Being facetious now: who does the NH90 on the flight-deck belong to? NZ doesn't have any NH90s capable of at-sea operations.
As for Goff, the sooner he retires the better.
Certainly more expensive than I figured what NZG would stump up for, but glad the order has finally been placed. Australia bought two Cantabria class earlier this year for AUD 646m (ie 323m each), including some local content. Not ice-strengthened though.
Minor quibbles:
1. the location of the Phalanx (if that is what it is) so far forward. Looks a very 'wet' position - not great in the icing conditions this ship will be subject to.
2. Lack of protection over the aft quarter. Can anyone spot the 'pirate guns', other than the Phalanx on the bow, this ship was going to have.
Being facetious now: who does the NH90 on the flight-deck belong to? NZ doesn't have any NH90s capable of at-sea operations.
As for Goff, the sooner he retires the better.
Last edited:
Have a look at the shape of the bow - I can't see any other effective location for Phlanax (radio nz news) Wonder if Phalanx is in the price for a 3rd system given there litle in the way of location for 25mm firing arcs. Will post links later @ work.
Last edited:
Although it would ruin the ship's radar cross-section a bit (but hey, this is probably a 20000t ship - it ain't hiding from anybody), I would like to see a helicopter controller's station added above the hangar door. If it extended aft a bit, perhaps a 2nd Phalanx could be mounted above it. That would at least cover the rear 180 deg arc. Don't know if it is possible, but perhaps the search & track radars from this CIWS could be used for guiding in the helicopter in bad weather.
As for some 'pirate guns' - maybe some 25mm cannons forward of the funnels to cover port and starboard sectors, and 12.7mm pintle-mounted machine guns mounted in the quarter decks.
The only alternative location for the forward Phalanx I can suggest is atop the bridge. Weight shouldn't be too much of an issue in a ship of this size.
As for some 'pirate guns' - maybe some 25mm cannons forward of the funnels to cover port and starboard sectors, and 12.7mm pintle-mounted machine guns mounted in the quarter decks.
The only alternative location for the forward Phalanx I can suggest is atop the bridge. Weight shouldn't be too much of an issue in a ship of this size.
Here is the link with the front quarter shot of the ship: www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/308894/defence-force-to-buy-$500m-naval-tanker
The actual bow shape is very modern-looking
Another link - NZ Herald.Here is the link with the front quarter shot of the ship: www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/308894/defence-force-to-buy-$500m-naval-tanker
The actual bow shape is very modern-looking
New Defence Force Navy tanker to cost $493 million - National - NZ Herald News
Has one slightly different view - also note comment 'indicative' which means we shouldn't take smaller details shown in views as gospel, but the general overall view it what we'll get. August Navy News is apparently going to have more detail so that'll be eagerly awaited.
Definitely mainly AOR with TEU capability and much less a full-on JSS, but still an excellent replacement for END.
The RNZN Facebook as a good resolution of the "proposed design". Once you zoom in on the stern view you can see 3 x 12.7mm (one each port and starboard and one aft on the quarterdeck (below the flight deck). There are two (25mm?) located port and starboard end of the quarterdeck - you'll notice a break in the flight deck netting.
No astern refuelling capability, though I've read that need for that has died out. Looking forward to more details in the August version of NT.
And yet another link, this with a little more info on weapons, range etc.
Hyundai Heavy wins $493M contract for ice-capable NZ tanker | Scoop News
It seems from what I have looked at today that it hybrids an AOR and an AOE capability. This hopefully portends to a bona fide LOSV and SOPV design that will bury the ghouls of Project Protector.
So far the MinDef/NZDF of late has been getting it right. The T-6C has gone well, the SH-2I looks promising and the extra numbers bought showed sense, the MHOV project is seemingly without drama and the Endeavour replacement again looks promising with a realistic budget being set to avoid the capability constraints.
This ship design appears better than I thought that the government would go for and will be a great asset for its intended purpose. I think it will be highly valued by our allies for the contribution it will bring to any combined fleet operations and it could be used in higher threat area's than older support vessels. Maybe something positive came out of project projector in that it clearly showed that cheep usually means nasty and not cheerful.
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
Good to finally see some pics of the concept tanker but I can't seem to understand why the main deck is open and exposed if the plan is to send it to the southern ocean. Icing will be a concern and although she is being strengthened to operate in the ice the open deck will be a nightmare. Given that the TEUs are on elevated platforms i would prefer to see the main deck enclosed to allow covered RO / RO storage with TEUs stored topside. That would allow crew access under cover and out of the elements. It would also make accessing the TEUs easier.
Regarding the perceived lack of a flyco location there seems to be a window positioned over viewing the flight deck.
Overall a very impressive looking vessel that should be a very welcome addition to the navy.
Good job.
Regarding the perceived lack of a flyco location there seems to be a window positioned over viewing the flight deck.
Overall a very impressive looking vessel that should be a very welcome addition to the navy.
Good job.
I'm beginning to wonder just how old these images are: are they from before the decision was made to ice-strengthen the ship? The sea-axe style bow will help in heavy seas, but ice-capable ships tend to have blunter, more-rounded bows - with the intent of riding up on the ice and breaking it with the ship's weight.
Given the damage-prone position of the Phalanx, and noting that one article says that the ship will be 'capable' of having 12.7mm mini-Typhoon gun mountings, I'm wondering if there is a lot of 'fitted-for but not with' going on here.
It's ice strengthened not an ice breaker so it doesn't ride up and over crushing ice; more pushing aside any ice. It needs an icebreaker to clear a passage for it. Also it doesn't necessarily need to have weapons permanently mounted so weapons like the CIWS are only fitted as required.
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
All the same it will leave us with a two year gap between retirement of the Endeavour, and its replacement! How is that going to affect operations in the meantime, will the Aussies be able to cover some of it with theirs?
I wonder if this ship will be supplemental to Antarctic ops ,in combination to a future Air transport service there. Or whether the govt will use this extra sealift as an excuse to cut Air transport numbers , like they have with Mpa replacement, frigates ect in the past.
I wonder if this ship will be supplemental to Antarctic ops ,in combination to a future Air transport service there. Or whether the govt will use this extra sealift as an excuse to cut Air transport numbers , like they have with Mpa replacement, frigates ect in the past.
Last edited:
There has been quite a lot of crossover with Australia recently while capabilities are introduced, the most obvious being the RAAF training 4 RNZAF pilots while the T-6 was introduced, with the RNZAF then to reciprocally train some RAAF pilots in 2019 while their PC-21's are introduced. (New RNZAF Pilots Graduate In Australia | Scoop News)
However with the first of their new Cantabria based tankers arriving at the end of 2019, Australiam may also be finding things a little short between 2018-2020.
I suspect its so that they can show they are doing something with C-17's essentially off the table.
If the new tanker can take "Time off" from tankering to do Antarctic resupply runs, perhaps we would be better forgoing the tanker altogether as its clearly not required full time? It's not like the ANZACs require anything like the tanking support the Leander's did (which was why Endeavour was purchased in the first place). Its $500 million that would perhaps be better spent elsewhere