I found this RR brochure: Ship design. Pages 5 and 6 apply.
Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
Bigger than the Cantabria design that Australia have chosen (23,000 tonnes vs. 19,500) and also more risky, as not based on an existing vessel. I really hope HHI can deliver the goods without too many teething problems.[/QUOTE]
I think it is evident that this size ship is obviously far larger than needed by our navy. I think one could assume a fare bit of discussion went on with our defence /Antarctic partners before the final design was chosen. This may have been an influential in the no go of the C17 by cabinet earlier this year. If past records are anything to go by I would not be concerned about HHI's ability to deliver the goods in regard to this ship.
I think it is evident that this size ship is obviously far larger than needed by our navy. I think one could assume a fare bit of discussion went on with our defence /Antarctic partners before the final design was chosen. This may have been an influential in the no go of the C17 by cabinet earlier this year. If past records are anything to go by I would not be concerned about HHI's ability to deliver the goods in regard to this ship.
I won't expand too much on this, but in the early 80's to around the early 90's the Kiwi's were recognised as one of the best sub hunters in the game
So yes they get enough practice
Cheers
A good write up in the USNI about RIMPAC and its coalition building. I've put it here because it starts of with the RNZN Cdre who's in charge of the Amphib TF for the exercise.
RIMPAC Tightens International Coalition in Pacific
RIMPAC Tightens International Coalition in Pacific
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Bingo! That's the one.
To me, it has more than a little resemblance to the pics released of the Endeavour replacement. The mid-size one in the catalogue looks about right for the fuel requirements in the RFP, but is light on cargo capacity. And the helicopter deck looks much shorter than the one on the images released of the NZ vessel.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Speaking of cargo capacity, have any nautical types looked closely at the illustrations of the new ship?
I've seen four shots from different angles, and still can't quite make out how many containers are in view.. There are two lots of four TEUs facing crossways just to the rear of the crane.But these seem to be up on some sort of stand - possibly indicating they could be double-stacked if necessary. Can anyone advise the purpose of the stands, or am I misinterpreting this altogether?
Forward of the crane there appear to be two pairs of two containers tucked in directly behind the bow, although they are hard to make out.
This would give a total of 12 TEUs in a single layer, which was the minimum specified in the RFP. But it's unclear whether some/all of these can be double stacked, or whether it is possible to pack in more around the base of the crane.
Any thoughts?
I've seen four shots from different angles, and still can't quite make out how many containers are in view.. There are two lots of four TEUs facing crossways just to the rear of the crane.But these seem to be up on some sort of stand - possibly indicating they could be double-stacked if necessary. Can anyone advise the purpose of the stands, or am I misinterpreting this altogether?
Forward of the crane there appear to be two pairs of two containers tucked in directly behind the bow, although they are hard to make out.
This would give a total of 12 TEUs in a single layer, which was the minimum specified in the RFP. But it's unclear whether some/all of these can be double stacked, or whether it is possible to pack in more around the base of the crane.
Any thoughts?
CDRE Gilmour is highly regarded and is building up an incomparable CV in my view. Future CDF in the making.
I count twelve containers as well. I presume the four in the forecastle are the ones capable of holding ammunition (as this should rightly be kept as far away as possible from the fuel). What puzzles me is how you would unload these at sea and transfer the contents to the underway-replenishment stations. It seems a tricky proposition with all that scaffolding and the catwalk (which doesn't look wide enough for a forklift) in the way. Given the low freeboard, I doubt there is a cargo clear-way running fore-and-aft beneath the main deck.
The eight containers amidships are probably dry cargo & reefers. Maybe the catwalk is wider here and a forklift could be used to access them. I believe the structure is usually referred to as a meccano deck.
It is possible that there is a cargo hold underneath the RASCO station. Unlikely to be very large (500t max). Being below the superstructure would count against it having any ammunition / fuel space (which would go against merchant vessel safety regulations). But as nothing was specified in the RFP, it is more probable there isn't a cargo hold, and that below decks is pretty much all liquids.
A couple of very useful background papers from one of the US un-rep gurus:
http://www.sname.org/HigherLogic/System/DownloadDocumentFile.ashx?DocumentFileKey=f44b637e-c251-4e00-9460-f1cc2f9a1d1b
http://navalengineers.net/Proceedings/AD09/Papers/UnrepSystemModernizationFinalR1R.pdf
The first is a excellent history of US underway replenishment ship design (written 30 years ago). Interesting, amongst other things, for what it says on hydraulic vs. electric un-rep systems (RNZN have picked electric).
The second is a 2009 paper on improvements such as a 5t capable RAS-rig for the new Ford class carriers. It is interesting for what it says about un-rep in ice conditions.
The new RNZN tanker doesn't look like it is designed to conduct underway replenishment in ice at all (note the exposed winches inboard of the kingposts). The cat-walk again seems dubious safety-wise in icing conditons. I highly doubt the new tanker will be able to perform RAS in the Southern Ocean or the Antarctic. If the new ship is limited to port-to-port operation in this Antarctic role, then a civilian vessel seems more efficient (not as compromised in terms of crew space, crew size, etc, than an un-rep vessel). Are 12 containers enough (the US use the Ocean Giant which can carry 1000+)? Where does the fuel go when it gets there (NZ doesn't have storage at Scott Base for anything like the 7000t+ the tanker can carry; the US already use the 38000t dwt Maersk Peary to resupply McMurdo, it can carry 100% of US needs). Does any Antarctic programme actually want our new tanker?
The new tanker's flight-deck is interesting. It is lower than is usual in UK designs (compare the RFA Fort & Wave classes, at least one deck higher). Note the flight-control station in the Rolls-Royce brochure that is missing in the RNZN tanker images.
I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that using this ship to resupply Antarctica is yet another half-baked bad idea (a repeat of the Canterbury performing Southern Ocean patrol).
P.S. Does anyone else think that the RAS stations look very much like they may be liquids-only (or very-light stores-capable at best)? The kingposts seem similar to those in the Wave class AOs. It is certainly not the US STREAM system common in the Pacific (the S in STREAM stands for Standard ... hmmm). Note the absence of a sliding padeye system on the kingposts to lift solid stores loads. Most serious replenishment ships have either separate liquids & solids transfer stations (eg. US Kaiser class AO & Lewis & Clark T-AKE, Korean Chunjee, Indian Deepak classes) or combination stations (Fort Victoria, HMCS Protecteur, Cantabria, Durance, Etna classes). Does this imply the main means to transfer solid cargo is via VERTREP helo (using probably the piddly Seasprite)?
The larger displacement compared to the Cantabria is probably due to the twin-shaft design (the Cantabria is single-shaft).
Last edited:
kiwi in exile
Active Member
You raise some interesting issues. At this stage there isn't a lot that we actually know for sure about the new tanker, beyond the very limited info released by NZDF, and some CGI PR images. How representitave these pics are is unknown and what we get my be a little different from these. Looking foward to (hopefully) learning more in Aug Navy today. I know that increased focus on Antartica/southern ocean is a big part of DWP, but beyond this, we still needed a new tanker for our rest of world ops.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXL5oFX97YM
12 containers does seem a little short. I like that the American terminal supervisor is wearing a tshirt
I doubt very much they were intending to do that at all. Any containers will be transferred alongside at wharf facilities using the vessels crane.
I also do not think they were ever intending to do underway replenishment in Arctic conditions as well. However cold weather rep is conducted done in the northern reaches of the Pacific and Atlantic. I would hazard a guess that the vessel will safely do cold weather rep maybe not in the southern ocean (60S+), but considerably far south and clear of the melt residue with a rendezvous with a SOPV allowing it to be on station longer. The RNZN have followed closely the Norwegian's winterisation of their new vessel.
A specific civilian vessel acquired to replenish Scott Base would not offer VfM when effectively one or two summer trips down to the ice by the next Endeavour will suffice (taking out the waste/refuse on the return trip). The required fuels will obviously go into the storage tanks that are currently there and though very small when compared to what MacTown needs are not inconsiderable. This capability is all about making NZ more self sufficient with respect to its Antarctic programme and less reliant on the US.
You are welcome to hold that view publicly here if you wish based on indicative media impressions of a vessel that is only at the conceptual stage and far from being finalised. Antarctic support is a secondary capability. The main role is as a maritime sustainment vessel that has supplementary sealift.
Based on what? Lets be serious, we know very little about the ships capabilities apart from the Ministers news release and what has appeared in the media. Yet you make such a profound judgement based on that. The Antarctic operation is an important government policy as was stated in the DWP and this is a part of the support package for that policy. It will be a welcome and needed addition to the Antarctic JLP.
Yes the Antarctic operation is only one part of the requirement for the vessel. It has other mission roles to fulfil as well and it is designed to support what we are doing now and into the future, not what we did in the past. It is not Endeavour, is not meant to be and will not be. The object of the exercise when you replace a current capability, is that the new one will improve on and extend the capability sets of the one that it is replacing.
(Posting here for the 1st time... been lurking for far too long! 40 deg south, thanks for mentioning my post on the other forum)
The French vessel will do much more than Antarctic supply. It is simultaneously replacing a supply vessel and the fisheries patrol vessel Albatros. Double crewed, it will spend 220+ days ar sea per year... summer on logistics missions, and winter on fisheries patrols.
Lots of details on the ship available below. Incidentally, it only cost €42MM ex-VAT. The smaller, non-ice capable B2Ms are cheaper still - only €25MM each, also double crewed for maximum sea time.(Incidentally, the first B2M arrived in Noumea today...)
More info on Polar Logistics Vessel L'Astrolabe:
4000t full load displacement
26 containers (14 below deck, 12 on deck)
990-1400m3 fuel oil
2 helicopters
35t crane
Links and design schematics:
akerarctic.fi/sites/default/files/page/fields/field_attachments/06_2016-03_-_piriou_-_plv_compressed.pdf
akerarchtc.fi/sites/default/files/page/fields/field_attachments/06b_polar_logistics_vessel_arctic_passion_2016_.pdf
Welcome aboard cobber. I've reposted the links:
http://akerarctic.fi/sites/default/...ents/06_2016-03_-_piriou_-_plv_compressed.pdf
http://akerarctic.fi/sites/default/...lar_logistics_vessel_arctic_passion_2016_.pdf
Last edited:
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
Quite the point i as making actually, Both the new Endevour replacement and littoral support vessels will have far more roles than Antarctica, and yeah, while the french vessel is well suited to ice breaking and has bigger cranes ect, it might still be far smaller than required, given the new vessel supposed to replace both HMNZ Resolution and Manuwanuis roles!
Im hearing Opv or greater in ship dimensions being mentioned here, 100 metres/ 2000 plus tonnes? Im frankly surprised we arent as ahead with the extra OPV and Littoral support plans as we seem to be with Endeavour replacement, given the timeframe Navy expects them to be in service by, 2020! pity Hyundai isnt building all three would have made sense to me, a good reputation they have for quality in past dealings, and a build of three may have saved us cost wise , time wise too.
Im hearing Opv or greater in ship dimensions being mentioned here, 100 metres/ 2000 plus tonnes? Im frankly surprised we arent as ahead with the extra OPV and Littoral support plans as we seem to be with Endeavour replacement, given the timeframe Navy expects them to be in service by, 2020! pity Hyundai isnt building all three would have made sense to me, a good reputation they have for quality in past dealings, and a build of three may have saved us cost wise , time wise too.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
https://www.facebook.com/NewZealandDefenceForce/posts/1062122220491590
NZ and Hyundai sign the contract, despite surprising lack of Korean faces in room.
NZ and Hyundai sign the contract, despite surprising lack of Korean faces in room.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
I'm no expert (to put it mildly) but either there is some way of opening the containers and moving goods to the jackstay rig for transfer, or there must be some break bulk cargo below decks. I'm pretty sure the navy isn't relying solely on a helicopter to transfer solid stores.
Given the Rolls Royce influence elsewhere in the design, it's a safe bet that the ship will use RR underway-replenishment equipment.
Replenishment/Fuelling-at-sea systems (RAS/FAS) – Rolls-Royce
Their catalogue shows a single mast system that can transfer both fuel and stores, but doesn't give a maximum weight. RR has also developed a 'Heavy RAS' option transferring loads up to 5 tonnes.
https://navalmatters.wordpress.com/...replenishment-at-sea-hras-rig-at-hms-raleigh/
I doubt there is an intention to refuel ships in the Antarctic, but imagine they will want the ability to top up the new Southern OPV a fair way south.
We don't know the container or cargo capacity - only that it is a minimum of 12 TEUs. And even that is a fair bit more than we can deliver by C-130. It will presumably mean we aren't reliant on the US for ship-delivered supplies, and will have some capacity to provide additional transport for them.
Does anyone know if the Maersk Peary will meet the new MARPOL ice regs post-2018?
I'm not getting too carried away with manufacturer-generated computer images. As per above, I'm very confident they will be using a RR combination transfer station, irrespective of what the CGI shows.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Lack of procurement resources, which the government has belatedly beefed up in the last two years.
I have the impression there was only the capacity to manage one big acquisition project at a time.
Current status is:
Endeavour contract signed this month, meaning procurement team can presumably turn to next job.
Littoral vessel - 2 x Requests for Information completed. Request for Proposals (i.e. tender) expected sometime this year.
Southern OPV - RFI presumably being developed (for release next year?)
kiwi in exile
Active Member
In regards to Maersk Peary, I have to say the ship size is a bit over kill considering it being a 38,000t ship that completed it's annual resupply in Feb delivering just 6.2 million gallons of fuel (less then 113,000 barrels) something the the NZ replenishment ship coud easily do (and some what more efficiently also delivering containers) if the ice strengthening can be on par with the Peary which is classified at 1B (0.8 meters of ice).
Do we know if the new tanker will just be able to take a few knocks from the ice or if it will be able to cut it's way through limited thickness ice formations? 'Ice strenghtened' is a bit of a vauge description.
if it can be on par with the Peary then might be an area for NZ and the US to build back up damaged relations outside of the direct military conflict sphere, Supporting scientific research would be unlikely to ruffle any ones feathers in the NZ public.
Do we know if the new tanker will just be able to take a few knocks from the ice or if it will be able to cut it's way through limited thickness ice formations? 'Ice strenghtened' is a bit of a vauge description.
if it can be on par with the Peary then might be an area for NZ and the US to build back up damaged relations outside of the direct military conflict sphere, Supporting scientific research would be unlikely to ruffle any ones feathers in the NZ public.
The 6.2 million gallons of fuel is not an insignificant amount. This is about the 20,000 tonne mark. It would be great to hear to what level the installed ice protection is to be. Anyone heard anything yet?