Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[ngatimozart]

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?

No, not yet. Hopefully 1A which is difficult ice conditions >0.5m - 1.0m although I would like Super 1A . The summer ice in the McMurdo area is around the 1 - 2m sometimes more. This photo illustrates the conditions.

 

[vonnoobie]

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?

Oh not an insignificant amount at all but when you consider the ship has a capacity of around 45,000 cbm of fuel which equates to around 280,000 barrels or 50,000 of tons it is a bit of over supply.

 

[alexsa]

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..

Really depends on fork lift access. Mind you the transferrable stores are often kept in dedicated cargo spaces, not containers, (even Success did this) with access provided for movement to the RAS point. it is quite possible the containers are for offload at port (or ice base) or for ships stores (or both) but not for goods carried to replenish other vessels.

One thing they will not do is transfer boxes at sea noting they do not have a heave compensated crane (as far as I can tell) and such operations can only be carried out in 'still' conditions or along side.

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.

Its called the POLAR Code and is given effect through SOLAS and MARPOL

Polar Code

It comes into mandatory effect on 01 January 2017. Not sure if the Maersk Peary would comply but with respect to SOLAS Ships constructed before 1 January 2017 are required to meet the relevant requirements of the Polar Code by the first intermediate or renewal survey, whichever occurs first, after 1 January 2018. With regard to MARPOL ships will be required to comply with the POLAR Code pollution requirements from the get go.

http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/H...r Code Ship Safety - Infographic_smaller_.pdf

http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/H...cts the environment (English infographic).pdf

 

[alexsa]

Oh not an insignificant amount at all but when you consider the ship has a capacity of around 45,000 cbm of fuel which equates to around 280,000 barrels or 50,000 of tons it is a bit of over supply.

Right, can you please provide the calculations that gives 50000 tonnes from 45,186.7 cbm?? The SG of MDO is about .82 to .86 to the weight is not going to be greater than the volume.

 

[vonnoobie]

Right, can you please provide the calculations that gives 50000 tonnes from 45,186.7 cbm?? The SG of MDO is about .82 to .86 to the weight is not going to be greater than the volume.

Apologies, must have used the wrong conversion (cant recall which exactly).

New figures just abtained with roughly 264 gallons per a cbm, with each gallon weighting between 2.8 and 2.9kg makes it actually around 33,264 - 34,452 tons.

 

[swerve]

Depends on the gallons. I have an old two gallon bucket, & I bet that it'd be 220 of those gallons to a cubic metre, not 264. 1 gallon = 8 pints. One pint = 568 ml. Real gallons, as formerly used in New Zealand & Australia.

Beware of using funny non-standard measures, such as 907 kg 'tons'. Was the 'about 50000 tons' derived that way?

Much better to stick to metric, as used by 95% of the population of the world. Then you can use a nice simple calculation with very few ways to get it wrong: cubic metres x specific gravity = weight, i.e. 45000 x 0.84 = 37800.

0.84 = rough figure for Marine Diesel Oil.

 

[40 deg south]

Really depends on fork lift access. Mind you the transferrable stores are often kept in dedicated cargo spaces, not containers, (even Success did this) with access provided for movement to the RAS point. it is quite possible the containers are for offload at port (or ice base) or for ships stores (or both) but not for goods carried to replenish other vessels.

One thing they will not do is transfer boxes at sea noting they do not have a heave compensated crane (as far as I can tell) and such operations can only be carried out in 'still' conditions or along side.

Thanks alexsa

There are a couple of 'boxes' on deck around the crane that don't seem to have quite the dimensions of a TEU (although that could just be perspective), so potentially this is storage for RAS.I'm still unclear why the rearward 8 containers are up on racks - I'm guessing there is scope for double-stacking (thus taking the potential load to 20 TEU).

Browsing the Rolls website, I came across this:
http://www.rolls-royce.com/~/media/.../customers/marine/deck-machinery-brochure.pdf

Page 28

Rolls-Royce specialises in providing underway replenishment (UNREP)
systems as part of an integrated package. With many modern navies
moving to the low-manned all-electric ship concept, Rolls-Royce has
developed fully automated all-electric systems to complement its range
of conventional abeam and astern refuelling rigs. For liquids and solids
transfer, the latest dual-purpose systems can automatically transfer payloads of
2 tonnes or hose catenaries from a single station, and operate safely up to sea-state 6 and 7.

Sounds like something that RNZN could be interested in...

Its called the POLAR Code and is given effect through SOLAS and MARPOL

Polar Code

It comes into mandatory effect on 01 January 2017. Not sure if the Maersk Peary would comply but with respect to SOLAS Ships constructed before 1 January 2017 are required to meet the relevant requirements of the Polar Code by the first intermediate or renewal survey, whichever occurs first, after 1 January 2018. With regard to MARPOL ships will be required to comply with the POLAR Code pollution requirements from the get go.

http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/H...r Code Ship Safety - Infographic_smaller_.pdf

http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/H...cts the environment (English infographic).pdf

Time for some weekend reading for me!

 

[40 deg south]

Vacancy [Ministry of Defence NZ]

Any project managers here with a taste for kimchi?

Ministry of Defence - Acquisition Division (South Korea based)

We have an exciting opportunity for an experienced Project Manager to lead our Maritime Sustainment Capability project. This is a large and complex ship build project based in South Korea for a fixed term of 3.5 years.

The project is responsible for replacing the Navy’s current tanker with a modern ship blending Naval requirements with commercial shipyard efficiencies that will deliver to the New Zealand Navy the biggest ship they have. It will enable us to continue to refuel our ships at sea, support our deployed air and land forces, plus uniquely for a naval tanker, it will be ice-strengthened and winterised for operations to Antarctica. The new vessel will provide us with an ability to shape and react to events, making a real difference to New Zealand.

You will be responsible for the whole-of-life perspective of this project, ensuring the project is delivered on time, on budget, to quality standards and for the purpose for which it is intended.

To achieve in the role you’ll have outstanding relationship management skills, you’ll be an innovative and collaborative problem solver, highly organised and flexible in your approach. You’ll also have:

Considerable project management, planning and delivery experience working with large, complex capital projects
Experience in managing major contracts
Experience and success in developing negotiations strategies along with a proven track record of leading and influencing complex and large scale negotiations
Competency in project management methodologies and tools such as PRINCE2
Exposure to State Sector or Public Service decision making and its constitutional context
Maritime experience or experience in project management in a defence industry would be an advantage

We offer a competitive remuneration package including allowances and support while overseas.

 

[ngatimozart]

Vacancy [Ministry of Defence NZ]

Any project managers here with a taste for kimchi?

As commented by Mr C, maybe a good way of getting a close look at the Korean navy destroyer and frigate building program, because they could offer NZ highly capable, good quality ships for very competitive prices, cheaper than from elsewhere. What they call destroyers western navies call frigates and Korean frigates, corvettes.

Just as an aside, I have noticed that the ministry aren't really updating their website on the acquisitions side. There has been an RFI issued for kit for the LOSC recently that hasn't been announced on the website, plus a couple of other things from memory.

 

[KiwiRob]

What they call destroyers western navies call frigates and Korean frigates, corvettes.
.

I'd hardly call an 11,000 ton Sejong the Great-class destroyer a frigate. Doesn't the classification of the ship go with it's intended purpose rather than it's displacement.

 

[ngatimozart]

I'd hardly call an 11,000 ton Sejong the Great-class destroyer a frigate. Doesn't the classification of the ship go with it's intended purpose rather than it's displacement.

No, that most definitely is a destroyer and I wonder why they haven't called it a cruiser But if you look at the Chungmugong Yi Sun-sin class destroyers which are around 5,000 tons and the KDXIIA ships which will be between 5000 and 7000 tonnes, they are really frigates in western terms.

The KDXIIA is the AEGIS variant of the Chungmugong Yi Sun-sin class and is estimated to cost between US$500 - 700 million which will be cheaper than the projected cost of the Type 26, similar to the Italian FREMM cost and offers far greater bang and capability for buck. The KDXIIA has enough room to theoretically take 96 VLS cells. However the proof of the pudding is in the eating and they haven't finished making the pudding yet.

 

[chis73]

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/

Having consulted some sources (particularly an 80s Royal Navy Manual of Seamanship), I'll concede that the RAS rig shown in the rendered images of the new tanker should be capable of stores transfer of 1-2t loads. Just less safely. To raise and lower the load will require the highline tension to be lowered - increasing the chances the load could swing into something (like the kingpost). Not a great option when handling ammunition & missiles. Hence the development of systems to raise & lower the load while maintaining the highline tension, such as the sliding padeye in the US STREAM system. The British developed a system with a hydraulic pivoting arm (seen here on RFA Fort Grange aka Fort Rosalie).

In other news, RNZN have launched another Sea Sparrow - at a surface target :roll (Video on the Facebook page), and more test Mk46 torpedoes. Anyone heard anything on the Penguin test firing?

 

[MrConservative]

Chances are though that the KDX-IIa will likely hit the US$700 mark when the build programme hits the 2019-2026 but still highly competitive. The Koreans have started on the FFX-II Daegu's just recently DSME launches South Korea's first FFX-II frigate | IHS Jane's 360

There is also the still conceptual FFX-III, which will likely follow the KDX-IIa program later next decade. Mooted to be between the Daegu's and the KDX-IIa.

 

[40 deg south]

RR Fuelling at Sea Systems - Documents

Another Rolls RoyceRAS leaflet here.

If they want to reward me for my efforts, a car would be nice.

 

[40 deg south]

As commented by Mr C, maybe a good way of getting a close look at the Korean navy destroyer and frigate building program, because they could offer NZ highly capable, good quality ships for very competitive prices, cheaper than from elsewhere. What they call destroyers western navies call frigates and Korean frigates, corvettes.

Just as an aside, I have noticed that the ministry aren't really updating their website on the acquisitions side. There has been an RFI issued for kit for the LOSC recently that hasn't been announced on the website, plus a couple of other things from memory.

HHI gets logistics support vessel order | Naval Today

ROK Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) and ROK Navy have been supportive of HHI in its efforts to win the order. DAPA and ROK Navy joined due diligence sessions to promote HHI’s capabilities showing existing HHI built logistic support vessel, and promised support in building the MSC Tanker.

I thought this para of the last release was interesting - shows the ROK government is working very hard to support their ship-building yards through the current order drought.

Have also noticed that updating of the 'What's New' page on the MinDef website is pretty haphazard, and has been for some time.

 

[alexsa]

Good news on HHI performance. It is a turn around but they are certainly not out of the woods

Hyundai Heavy turns the corner, back in the black - Splash 247

 

[Gibbo]

.....In other news, RNZN have launched another Sea Sparrow - at a surface target :roll (Video on the Facebook page), and more test Mk46 torpedoes. Anyone heard anything on the Penguin test firing?

Um, can't see a Sea Sparrow shot at a surface target... it goes up & away! I think the article might've meant it's torpedo seen being popped out of it's tube?! Do Sea Sparrow have an 'anti-surface' capability...!?!

 

[Gibbo]

https://www.facebook.com/NewZealandDefenceForce/posts/1062122220491590

NZ and Hyundai sign the contract, despite surprising lack of Korean faces in room.

Nice model, would look good on my mantel-piece... now that would be buying an argument with the better half! :lul

I notice in some shots the base/stand that the TEU are sitting on are enclosed, in others it's not (you have to zoom in to see it). Do wonder what is planned regarding stowage of bulk goods...!?!

Now what's up with it's range, 6400 NM = less than END's 10000 NM !?! It's still almost 12000 KM & it's about 4500 KM Akl to Scott Base so that's not an issue. But just a random thought... are naval tankers usually plumbed to suck juice out of it's payload tanks when their 'own' tanks run low?

 

[Bonza]

Um, can't see a Sea Sparrow shot at a surface target... it goes up & away! I think the article might've meant it's torpedo seen being popped out of it's tube?! Do Sea Sparrow have an 'anti-surface' capability...!?!

It does indeed, as does ESSM, Standard, Rolling Airframe Missile and CAMM. Seems to be quite commonplace amongst naval SAMs. There was an incident during 1992 in which a Turkish naval vessel was crippled by a pair of Sea Sparrows after a USN vessel mistook it for a test target:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCG_Muavenet_(DM_357)

From what I understand even some of the older missiles like Talos and Tartar were able to be fired in the anti-surface role. I've never heard of any specific instances, only that the capability was there. However I would have thought radar sets of that generation would lose targets in surface clutter so I don't know how practical it would be.

Any ship captain would be bound to have cold sweats at the thought of a Talos hitting the hull, the things were bloody enormous...

 

[ASSAIL]

It does indeed, as does ESSM, Standard, Rolling Airframe Missile and CAMM. Seems to be quite commonplace amongst naval SAMs. There was an incident during 1992 in which a Turkish naval vessel was crippled by a pair of Sea Sparrows after a USN vessel mistook it for a test target:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCG_Muavenet_(DM_357)

From what I understand even some of the older missiles like Talos and Tartar were able to be fired in the anti-surface role. I've never heard of any specific instances, only that the capability was there. However I would have thought radar sets of that generation would lose targets in surface clutter so I don't know how practical it would be.

Any ship captain would be bound to have cold sweats at the thought of a Talos hitting the hull, the things were bloody enormous...

Tartar indeed had a Su capability although it was, excuse the pun, a bit hit and miss.
HMAs Perth carried out a Sinkex against the old BDV Kara Kara in 1970 during work up for the deployment to 7th Fleet, I was the SBLT supposed to be in charge of munition accounting and I knew sfa about anything.

Poor old KK got hammered by A4s, 4.5" from Parramatta, 5" from Perth, 40 mm from one of the Ton Class, Hawk IIRC and Perthshire Tartar malfunctioned in the Su mode so the Divers from Hawk went in and scuttled the old ship.
It was no quick and easy op. It lasted many hours!

I just checked my records gents and my memory had failed. The Sinkex took place in 1973 when I was in Perth for my second time and working up for an Indian Ocean deployment, by this time I was the APWO ASW. The Ton class was HMAS Teal, my apologies.