Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
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[/QUOTE]
I think that this tanker is more about our contribution to our obligations in regard to collective defence. It is obviously far more capable than required to support two frigates and do a few trips to Antarctica. I think few of us realize the value that some of our allies placed on Endeavor and there are very few ships that will have the capabilities of this new ship in this region of the world. It will mean that we will bring something valuable to the collective defence table that may, by some be more valued than a frigate.
I think that this tanker is more about our contribution to our obligations in regard to collective defence. It is obviously far more capable than required to support two frigates and do a few trips to Antarctica. I think few of us realize the value that some of our allies placed on Endeavor and there are very few ships that will have the capabilities of this new ship in this region of the world. It will mean that we will bring something valuable to the collective defence table that may, by some be more valued than a frigate.
$493 seems a heavy price to pay for ice strengthening considering this is not its main role.
If you compare the RAN-Navantia contract of $640 for 2 X Cantabria ships it seems like Oz got a very good deal for greater capacity ships.
Naturally I accept that there will be Australian provided Comms, CMS and a few more bits and pieces but still it compares well.
If you compare the RAN-Navantia contract of $640 for 2 X Cantabria ships it seems like Oz got a very good deal for greater capacity ships.
Naturally I accept that there will be Australian provided Comms, CMS and a few more bits and pieces but still it compares well.
This capability is not simply not there to supply the Anzacs of which we only have two. This capability is to support deployed forces, land, air and maritime including keeping the future SOPV on station longer. An annual or possibly two logistics runs down to the ice does not mean much 'time off' when it will also be replenishing the SOPV during that time frame. The current E has alway been independently deployed on other tasking albeit in a limited way (due to its inherent lack of logistical sustainment capability) even when we had two frigates deployed.
Actually I had reason to believe that the total Navantia contract was $1.2B for the two RAN Cantabria based vessels. There is another article mentioning of the 640m but that does not include the 5 year 250m sustainment contract.
Australia Picks Navantia To Build Two Replenishment Ships
http://www.janes.com/article/60074/...illion-on-two-spanish-made-naval-supply-ships
However for the RNZN any heavy price began to be paid for 10 years ago with the dreadful Protector acquisition. So of course we have had to double down on this. It maybe that the NZ figure includes a similar sustainment contract with IHI and kind of inflates the quoted price.
Last edited:
The latest piece of salacious gossip (from Richard Harman, so probably some truth to it) is that Treasury now wants the LOSC vessel to serve as a replacement for NIWA's Tangaroa as well as for Navy's Resolution, Manawanui & Kahu, and that the Navy & NIWA will have to share it.
Quite how that will work is difficult to see: the LOSC vessel is supposed to be on stand-by as the first-responder to a regional natural disaster. How can it do that if it is deployed on some 3-month fish-fart counting mission to the Ross Sea?
I have said it before, but I really think the LOSC requirement needs to be met by multiple vessels (at least 2-3; Damen's MRAV series would be a good start), rather than a single vessel.
(source)
Quite how that will work is difficult to see: the LOSC vessel is supposed to be on stand-by as the first-responder to a regional natural disaster. How can it do that if it is deployed on some 3-month fish-fart counting mission to the Ross Sea?
I have said it before, but I really think the LOSC requirement needs to be met by multiple vessels (at least 2-3; Damen's MRAV series would be a good start), rather than a single vessel.
Oh indeed, I'm all for the new tanker but in this case I think you could make some pretty good arguments for spending the money on a different 'product mix' of ships - $493 million would go a long way towards a second SOPV and an extra LPD for instance, which arguably would provide better capability and availability in our normal areas of interest than a tanker.
HMNZS Canterbury arguably already fulfils some of the Endeavours minor roles already, and extra fuel bunkerage on a second ship (maybe even a RAS!) for instances like East Timor where fuel was short at the beginning of the deployment could offset the loss of a dedicated tanker.
What such a setup would primarily lose is allow us to contribute 'something' vaguely warlike further afield ala supporting the Australian deployments to the Gulf. Perhaps we would just have to send something actually warlike instead i.e. a Frigate
Groan... that'd be right! Bet they kicked the C17 into touch!
:ar15 Treasury!
Having said that, there's a couple of 'capabilities' that Tangaroa has that the LOSC presumably won't get - (1) ice-strengthening (2) rear net trawling. That means the LOSC just won't be able to replace Tangaroa in those specific areas so I wonder if in fact this is more an intent to offer LOSC capability when RNZN can spare it and where that arrangement suits both parties, rather than a dedicated commitment!?!
NIWA apparently operate a fleet up to to 30 vessels although clearly Tangaroa is the largest & only ice-strengthened one. We know the SOPV will be ice-strengthened but can't see that also being extended to the LOSC, unless they intend to use one design for both (given one is presumably far closer to contract signing I'm not convinced this is the case).
Maybe NIWA sea days could be provided from both LOSC & SOPV & OPV!?!
Last edited:
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
Frankly id rather our Navy and other military assets not be tied up for civilian roles like Niwa,customs assist, cant see how we can meet our defence commitments elsewhere with the current numbers, let alone this. Seems like some Govt officials are back pedalling on DWP policy to me.
Harman is one Journalist that actually is old school. Real issues and real knowledge. Not just a shallow political gossip peddler like you get on TV and the tabloid print these days.
Treasury are fast becoming out of synch with the executive branch. Bill English only wants them for their number crunching abilities. More of their advice is getting binned and his policy scoping using big data is solved elsewhere. Maybe its time for a VfM exercise to be conducted on them. Might clip the wings of a few of the born again Ruthinasia elements who come up with this sort of crap.
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
Mr C, wasn't the issue really with Project protector largely the 2 ipvs not being used, as the other Ipv's,the Canterbury and OPVs certainly have been getting a lot of use since commissioned. Was there some roles the current ice strenghtened Opv cant do, that the new one will?
Canterbury needed a lot of remedial work, true, but that work has been completed now and the cost there was to Tenix Australia, not us.
Canterbury needed a lot of remedial work, true, but that work has been completed now and the cost there was to Tenix Australia, not us.
I am convinced that the $493m includes a sustainment package. The actual build cost will be less. This ship will more likely be going to Ulsan for refits and not Calliope Dock.
The next E sorts out some of the weaknesses that the CY imposes on us. I'm of the view that this capability set coming through on the next E is drawing a line in the sand. Lets solve the many issues of the CY in a future MRASV that is another leap in capability as much as the next E will be.
The capability that the next E will bring to any force commander is significant and substantially more valuable than a vanilla AO. From 2020 our MCC will now be able to provide a post FSU Anzac, a LOSV and the new E. All highly capable all highly relevant and well received.
The current 'ice strengthened' OPV's couldn't do the southern ocean role they were primarily bought for. They basically selected an el-cheapo version of the INS Roison and added an ice belt around it. Awful seakeeping characteristics. The SOPV will do what is on the tin.
The IPV's have been described as 7 day wonders. Too short in range to conduct meaningful EZZ work that requires persistence. Fine vessels if NZ was in the central med like Malta and wanted to ply the 12nm limit. The whole methodology with respect to the policy analysis that lead to us buying the IPV's was flawed.
I suggest you read the Coles Report regarding the CY. I have made my feelings known about the Protector Vessels here for years. Again the low cost option was taken - at heart a Ferry used on the Holyhead - Dublin crossing with an Ice belt.
The worst defence decision we ever made. Worse than cancelling the F-16's in my book.
Interesting article from Harman. I'm picking RNZN would be able to choose to spread NIWA taskings across LOSC & (S)OPV, depending on what NIWA are wanting at the time. They would then tick the 'EEZ Patrol' box for the sea-time - but I do also believe the Tangaroa taskings shouldn't become RNZN's concern.
I'm also astounded that Govt could supposedly be aware of USA 'frowning' at our B757 limitations and asking them for more air-time yet then dumping a single C17 option which whilst not perfect, smacks of another bludge!:bum
Yes END replacement will help - does anyone know how long the current civvy support vessels supplying Antartic Ops average for a round trip? I'd imagine at least 2 return trips a year (season, start & end). That's less time doing it's 'day job'.
Historically the RNZN had done oceanographic work with NIWA's predecessor, the DSIR (Dept of Industrial & Scientific Research) especially in the Southern Ocean. Much of the original work regarding currents and salinity profiles for the waters south of NZ comes from those voyages. Today with modular mission systems such an arrangement could work again, especially if the bulk of the funding for such missions was to come from the NIWA budget rather than the NZDF budget.
I agree with all of the above except possibly the last sentence, at least with the protectors we got some marginally usable items, They may not all really qualify as equipment, but with the F16's we got nothing and in the end went backwards. What are your thoughts on the underwhelming press coverage the the outlaying of close to half a billion for the navy's E replacement. Hell, a truck load of pork cops into the drink got better. If it was a road or a bridge the whole country would have seen it front page or first on the news.
Well true yes but the key difference now is that was in the days RNZN had mutliple survey / research vessels (eg: Monowai, Tui, Tarapunga, Takapu) but now that's 1 LOSV which will also be required to do much, much more than just littoral survey. Your point about modular systems is correct though, should allow (S)OPV to play a part in this.
As stated Mr C the build contract was $640 for 2 plus a $250 sustainment contract for 5 years.
The white paper allowed 1.2b so I'm presuming that's a contingency. What's relevant is a contract to build cf a contract to build whatever IHI have signed for.
Fair point about the F-16 cancellation.
The lack of press coverage might have something to do with Defence not being as controversial in 2016 compared to 2001. The MSM media's modus operandi is that if you cannot go negative and controversial about something you simply ignore it.