Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[Novascotiaboy]

40 Deg South

An option that appears suitable besides HMS Echo is the yet to be built Antartic Survey vessel the RSS Sir Richard Attenbourgh.

https://www.bas.ac.uk/polar-operations/sites-and-facilities/ship/new-uk-polar-research-vessel/

As well as the RSS Discovery.

RRS Discovery - Ships | National Oceanography Centre | from coast to deep ocean

Both may be a bit on the heavy side but part of that is the ice strengthening that isn't required by the RNZN.

The SD Victoria is the right tonnage but to me a little short but the design meets the general criteria and gives readers a glimpse of what is likely a front running design.

http://products.damen.com/-/media/P.../Documents/Worldwide_Support_Ship_8316_DS.pdf

The new LOSC will likely be very similar in appeared to any of these vessels based upon the RFI requirements of a forward placed helicopter pad and RPAS hangar.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

Just one last design for you to compare with.

http://www.mermaid-maritime.com/src/pdf/Mermaid Endurer-Datasheet.pdf

 

[40 deg south]

Just one last design for you to compare with.

http://www.mermaid-maritime.com/src/pdf/Mermaid Endurer-Datasheet.pdf

Thanks Nova

Between you and CJohn I have a much better understanding of what sort of vessel they will be considering.

Normal NZ practice seems to be around a year from close of RFP to contract signing. I wonder whether the additional staff in Defence Procurement will be able to reduce that time, and get a contract signed before the next election (prob. Oct 2017)?

Clearly a lot of work has already gone into the specifications - it would be a shame for the project to be suspended or severely changed at the whim of a new Minister.

 

[ngatimozart]

40 Deg South

An option that appears suitable besides HMS Echo is the yet to be built Antartic Survey vessel the RSS Sir Richard Attenbourgh.

https://www.bas.ac.uk/polar-operations/sites-and-facilities/ship/new-uk-polar-research-vessel/

As well as the RSS Discovery.

RRS Discovery - Ships | National Oceanography Centre | from coast to deep ocean

Both may be a bit on the heavy side but part of that is the ice strengthening that isn't required by the RNZN.

The SD Victoria is the right tonnage but to me a little short but the design meets the general criteria and gives readers a glimpse of what is likely a front running design.

http://products.damen.com/-/media/P.../Documents/Worldwide_Support_Ship_8316_DS.pdf

The new LOSC will likely be very similar in appeared to any of these vessels based upon the RFI requirements of a forward placed helicopter pad and RPAS hangar.

Thanks for the posts. I don't think that the SD Victoria will be the right tonnage. I think that when the LOSC is fully loaded they may possibly be looking at something in the 3,000 - 3,500 tonne range. Will be interesting to see what they do come with in the end.

Whether the sailors see it as a popular ship to be drafted too will remain to be seen. All sorts of things (sometimes little) are on a Jacks list for your average Jack to see any particular ship as being a good draft. Mind you some will be itching to be plank owners.

 

[recce.k1]

Thanks for the posts. I don't think that the SD Victoria will be the right tonnage. I think that when the LOSC is fully loaded they may possibly be looking at something in the 3,000 - 3,500 tonne range. Will be interesting to see what they do come with in the end.

September's Navy Today is now available for download as of earlier today and pages 10-11 show a representation "of one potential solution to the littoral Operations support Capability user requirements and does not indicate the arrangement of a specific solution or necessarily reflect the design of the final negotiated LOSC ship".

From the article (and interesting that delivery is scheduled for 2020, but assuming a 2-3 year build presumably the final design will be signed off within a year or so from now)?

That project has just released a Request For Tender document for a new Littoral Operations Support Vessel that will replace the hydrographic vessel HMNZS RESOLUTION, already decommissioned, and the diving vessel HMNZS MANAWANUI, which will reach the end of its service in 2018. The new vessel is scheduled for delivery around the same time as the MSC replacement tanker, in 2020. Unlike the MSC project, which is purpose-built and designed “from the keel up”, the LOSC will be based on a commercial offshore vessel design, and modified with military capabilities to support an amphibious-capable Joint Task Force. The military capabilities the RFT is seeking include self-protection systems, stern slipway for tactical insertion of specialist small boats, command and control facilities and sensor management system. The LOSC is expected to also have the ability to carry an embarked force of 50 personnel, and an aviation-capability that is able to land a NH90.The LOSC is designed to operate in a medium-threat environment, and will have survivability and redundancy features. Whilst designed to operate in a threat environment, this vessel is also able to support other government agencies, both regionally and domestic. The vessel is expected to be fitted with hydrographic systems to assist in mapping of the sea bed, a salvage crane, diving and remotely operated vehicle systems to find and recover items from the sea bed.

 

[RegR]

September's Navy Today is now available for download as of earlier today and pages 10-11 show a representation "of one potential solution to the littoral Operations support Capability user requirements and does not indicate the arrangement of a specific solution or necessarily reflect the design of the final negotiated LOSC ship".

From the article (and interesting that delivery is scheduled for 2020, but assuming a 2-3 year build presumably the final design will be signed off within a year or so from now)?

Does seem strange that the entire littoral force will be without any actual vessel for a 2 year+ period due to the slipped retirement/commissioning dates. Bad planning? Poor management? Pre-empting soloutions? Whatever the reason it's not actually saying much about the "importance" of the capability in any case as if hydro, MCM and ODT can manage 2 years without a dedicated ship then really......... Imagine if we did the same with the C130 replacements?? (We actually could'nt), maybe a stop gap lease in the plans as 2 years (plus trials) seems rather excessive? And what would the core crew be doing over this time? Or have they already left.......

Also like how the naval magazine got it's own ships mixed up in the pics as well lol.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

There is an RFI to determine the availability and capabilities of leased OSV's so maybe the intention is to lease a commercial vessel for two years to get crews familiar with 21st century engineering capabilities as a run up to the acceptance of a new vessel. Since Manawanui is a former OSV herself the core capabilities would be maintained with a lease. The speced military abilities of the new ship are likely unavailable on the present vessel. A lease for two years would be a low cost alternative to having to relearn hard earned skills while maintaining core capabilities.

With the downturn in the oil and gas market there are lots of vessels available and companies would be very happy to snag a two plus year contract.

The early withdrawal from service may not be a bad thing if one looks at the opportunity that exposure to future capabilities can be had such as the moon pool, dynamic positioning, automated engineering spaces, active heave compensated crane, large work deck, RPAS and helo operations. I think this is a very good opportunity that I think is very well planned.

 

[40 deg south]

September's Navy Today is now available for download as of earlier today and pages 10-11 show a representation "of one potential solution to the littoral Operations support Capability user requirements and does not indicate the arrangement of a specific solution or necessarily reflect the design of the final negotiated LOSC ship".

From the article (and interesting that delivery is scheduled for 2020, but assuming a 2-3 year build presumably the final design will be signed off within a year or so from now)?

Thanks recce.

Those who speculated that the LOSC would be a militarized offshore support vessel were spot on. One thought - the list of armaments in the illustration make no mention of a bolt-on Phalanx option. Has that been dropped from the spec?

Back in April last year Zero Alpha posted a list of companies that had responded to the second RFI. I'm pretty sure this doesn't preclude others from bidding, but this who was showing interest at the time.

Damen
BMT
BAE
Hyundai
Fincantieri
Lockheed Martin
Navantia

It is possible that some of them (LockMart?) are only interested in a single element of the vessel, such as the sensors. A notable omission is Rolls Royce, who have a big presence in the offshore support vessel market. On second thoughts, the new NZ tanker appears to have a strong RR influence on the design so it may be that Hyundai will be offering a RR-based design again?

 

[Novascotiaboy]

The RFI clearly defines the need and location for a Phalanx. It's prefered location is the quarterdeck with a ready use magazine located in the immediate vicinity.

For those unfamiliar with this location it is above the stern. In the case of a modified OSV it may go on a mezzanine above the stern slipway for small boats.

Below is a photo of the Stril Poseidon an oil field standby rescue vessel in service in the North Sea off of Norway. This vessel is 90+ metres and about 2500 ton.

The Stril Poseidon is primarily a rescue craft but can also provide rapid oil spill response and emergency towing. - Image - Ship Technology

 

[RegR]

The early withdrawal from service may not be a bad thing if one looks at the opportunity that exposure to future capabilities can be had such as the moon pool, dynamic positioning, automated engineering spaces, active heave compensated crane, large work deck, RPAS and helo operations. I think this is a very good opportunity that I think is very well planned.

But then could they not have done all if this on their new vessel? Surely they know by now the good points they wanted of Reso, Man and other vessels they have operated the different capabilities from otherwise they could have already leased a ship when Reso paid off.

Not sold on it being a "plan", more time caught up on them and their decision making processes have not kept pace, but if so does that mean we are going to lease a tanker as well? Hope so otherwise we are in the same boat so to speak. Could be a few NZDF projects running this concept going off envisaged timeframes.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

While not ideal having a dedicated LOSC vessel for a year or so, hasnt our mcm, dive teams deployed overseas recently this yr to RIMPAC and other exersizes without one? In the mean time, couldnt we deploy some of that dive and mcm equipment we use onboard opv, or cross deck our teams onto allied ships who have such a capability,in the short term.

 

[RegR]

While not ideal having a dedicated LOSC vessel for a year or so, hasnt our mcm, dive teams deployed overseas recently this yr to RIMPAC and other exersizes without one? In the mean time, couldnt we deploy some of that dive and mcm equipment we use onboard opv, or cross deck our teams onto allied ships who have such a capability,in the short term.

Yes they are deployable (one of their attributes) however just noting the long gap in a dedicated vessel is in fact not doing much for the obvious need/requiement. Just not a good look for me as if it was a priority then surely it would have been sorted prior to the impending retirement of the last dedicated platform they have.

For 2 years another vessel within navy, our allies or other mode of transport will need to be utilised in the interim to cover taking away from other areas supposedly. We would still no doubt do this from time to time even with a dedicated ship but again why/how in the first instance for something deemed a valuable asset?

 

[ngatimozart]

While not ideal having a dedicated LOSC vessel for a year or so, hasnt our mcm, dive teams deployed overseas recently this yr to RIMPAC and other exersizes without one? In the mean time, couldnt we deploy some of that dive and mcm equipment we use onboard opv, or cross deck our teams onto allied ships who have such a capability,in the short term.

One of the OPVs (can't remember which one) has a MBES, associated ships geolocation (GNSS, GPS,) & ships attitude and heave sensors (gyros, accelerometers etc.,) fitted and that OPV can be used for most, but not all taskings that Manawanui undertakes. The Tarapunga & Takapu are trailer borne so can be deployed by air and / or road as well as being carried by a mother ship.

 

[chis73]

One of the OPVs (can't remember which one) has a MBES, associated ships geolocation (GNSS, GPS,) & ships attitude and heave sensors (gyros, accelerometers etc.,) fitted and that OPV can be used for most, but not all taskings that Manawanui undertakes. The Tarapunga & Takapu are trailer borne so can be deployed by air and / or road as well as being carried by a mother ship.

I admit I haven't kept up with this, but are you sure the statement on the OPV is correct? There was talk of fitting the MBES from Resolution to an OPV around the time of Resolution's decommisioning, but was it actually done?

It would seem that it isn't the Wellington in any case, judging from this 2014 Navy presentation to the NZ Hydrographic Society - where they used the Wellington as a vessel of opportunity in the Solomons (surveying vessel was the RHIB as I read it).

http://www.hydrographicsociety.org.nz/docs/NZ%20Navy%20presentation%202014.pdf

I agree with RegR. It is over 4 years now since Resolution was retired. There has been plenty of time to sort a replacement before Manawanui goes. That there is going to be a gap, and talk of having to lease a vessel, can only be attributed to bureaucratic failure.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

In a related note, will RNZN have to find a short term solution for going without Endeavour replacement for a yr or so, Australia will be retiring there's around the same time so we cant rely on them can we?

 

[Rob c]

In a related note, will RNZN have to find a short term solution for going without Endeavour replacement for a yr or so, Australia will be retiring there's around the same time so we cant rely on them can we?

If past experience is is anything to go by, it is unlikely that there will be any move to cover this period for both vessels. they may try to keep them in service a little longer or fully man the IPV's to keep up crew.s basic experience levels, I think it is unlikely that they will charter stand in's

 

[ngatimozart]

If past experience is is anything to go by, it is unlikely that there will be any move to cover this period for both vessels. they may try to keep them in service a little longer or fully man the IPV's to keep up crew.s basic experience levels, I think it is unlikely that they will charter stand in's

They can't keep Endeavour in service past 2018 because it doesn't meet IMO regulations regarding oil tankers.

I admit I haven't kept up with this, but are you sure the statement on the OPV is correct? There was talk of fitting the MBES from Resolution to an OPV around the time of Resolution's decommisioning, but was it actually done?

I haven't heard or seen any different so I am presuming that it went ahead. I could be wrong. It was the plan but plans have been known to change.

 

[ngatimozart]

It would seem that it isn't the Wellington in any case, judging from this 2014 Navy presentation to the NZ Hydrographic Society - where they used the Wellington as a vessel of opportunity in the Solomons (surveying vessel was the RHIB as I read it).

http://www.hydrographicsociety.org.nz/docs/NZ%20Navy%20presentation%202014.pdf

I agree with RegR. It is over 4 years now since Resolution was retired. There has been plenty of time to sort a replacement before Manawanui goes. That there is going to be a gap, and talk of having to lease a vessel, can only be attributed to bureaucratic failure.

Nice link. A colleague and I had trialed something similar about 14 years ago using an echo sounder and a RTK (Real Time Kinematic) GPS mounted on an IRB. We were looking at extending beach profiles out through the surf zone to about where the water depth was 12m - 15m. However the lack of motion sensors reduced that accuracy quite a bit because we could accurately measure the motion of the boat in 3 dimensions and the heave.

Attributing the the gap to bureaucratic failure is, I think, a bit incorrect. If the blame needs to be sheeted home then it should be placed fair and squarely on the pollies. If the first RFI was followed up then we wouldn't be in this predicament.

 

[Rob c]

Attributing the the gap to bureaucratic failure is, I think, a bit incorrect. If the blame needs to be sheeted home then it should be placed fair and squarely on the pollies. If the first RFI was followed up then we wouldn't be in this predicament.[/QUOTE]
Agree with the pollies taking the blame. I think everything got put off due to the then upcoming DWP and the time taken to complete this DWP. I think this would have been due to behind the scenes political meddling in the process until a document acceptable to the government was achieved. Hence we now are getting a rush of RFI's,RFT's , tenders and signed tender's. Nothing down in Wellington is done in isolation from political input.

 

[40 deg south]

Attributing the the gap to bureaucratic failure is, I think, a bit incorrect. If the blame needs to be sheeted home then it should be placed fair and squarely on the pollies. If the first RFI was followed up then we wouldn't be in this predicament.

I agree the 'fault' such as it is lies with politicians rather than officials. However, the NZ government has only just started running a budget surplus, and expenditure has been screwed down tight right across the public service since the current government took office.

The chance of the government approving more military capital expenditure prior to this point was practically nil. I just hope NZDF and MoD have spent the time preparing for the surge of replacement activity needed over the next five years. I've been fairly encouraged by the DWP and the announcements to date.