Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[ASSAIL]

I don't think that is a completely accurate statement to make.

With the very small numbers of naval ships that NZ operates and the large time gaps in ordering/requiring replacements, then of course there is no local shipbuilding industry that could survive those gaps between replacement orders.

On the question if they get value for money or not, yes certainly overseas yards would appear to compete for orders, but if the prices were high, then NZ wouldn't have a choice but to order whatever they could at the lowest cost possible, which may or may not be a bargain, and of course all those NZ dollars going offshore don't circulate in the local economy.

Yes we have been paying a premium here, but hopefully the plan in place with the significant number of ships and submarines to be ordered over the next 30 years reduces those premiums. And of course those dollars spent here go around and around in the local economy many times over too.

I don't really think it's a proper comparison to compare shipbuilding in NZ vs Australia.

NZ got a very good deal with the Anzacs. Their industry benefitted hugely by taking part in the manufacture of all 10 ships whilst only acquiring 2 although early on all,expected they would buy 3. So all that activity certainly benefitted the local economy. The operational benefits can't be measured, they are immense.
There would need to a very good price premium from overseas to better that deal, however that was for a certain time and that is passed.

There would seem to be no good reason for NZ not to shop around for their fleet units but I would have thought that given CER between us there's still plenty of opportunity for specialist companies to compete for various elements of the Oz builds. There is also no reason why NZ cannot build the smaller units, they have a magnificent large pleasure boat building industry and would have no problem building vessels such as the IPVs or the other littoral,ships.

 

[hauritz]

It will be interesting to see how New Zealand go with their proposed new OPV and Anzac frigate replacements.

I can't see them coming on board with Australia's new frigate but there might be some interest in one of the new OPVs.

 

[ASSAIL]

It will be interesting to see how New Zealand go with their proposed new OPV and Anzac frigate replacements.

I can't see them coming on board with Australia's new frigate but there might be some interest in one of the new OPVs.

No, the RNZN OPVs and the proposed additional one will be/are all,ice strengthened.

 

[ngatimozart]

It will be interesting to see how New Zealand go with their proposed new OPV and Anzac frigate replacements.

I can't see them coming on board with Australia's new frigate but there might be some interest in one of the new OPVs.

The ANZAC replacement project will be interesting and whilst I've suggested a Korean design / build for it I also thing that the Navantia F-110 FFG could be ideal as well, especially if it was able to be built in Korea. When I think about it the F-110 FFG may actually be a better fit, because potentially its less risky than a Korean design because most, if not all of what NZ would require will already be part of the design so no need for expensive and time consuming integration of the Mk-41 VLS, weapons and other items. However this is all moot at the moment, because if a left wing govt is formed either now or in the near to midterm future, replacement frigates will most likely not be acquired.

I agree with Assail that Aussie OPVs would not be a starter because of the ice strengthening requirements. However if the CoA decided to build some ice strengthened OPVs that becomes a different story. IMHO Australia should be looking at that, especially since they and France are pushing for a large maritime reserve in Antarctic waters. If that is successful they will have to police it which is what NZ will most likely have to increase in the new Ross Sea Maritime Reserve which the US and NZ managed to have approved.

 

[MrConservative]

The ANZAC replacement project will be interesting and whilst I've suggested a Korean design / build for it I also thing that the Navantia F-110 FFG could be ideal as well, especially if it was able to be built in Korea. When I think about it the F-110 FFG may actually be a better fit, because potentially its less risky than a Korean design because most, if not all of what NZ would require will already be part of the design so no need for expensive and time consuming integration of the Mk-41 VLS, weapons and other items.

The Koreans use both the Mk41 and their adapted K-VLS on the KDX variants. We would simply request Mk41 installation if we went for a Korean design. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries also have their recently announced evolved 30FF design the 30 DX to replace the Asagiri and Abukuma Classes get the green light.

Japan's ATLA Selected MHI & Mitsui to build 30DX Surface Combatant for JMSDF

 

[40 deg south]

It will be interesting to see how New Zealand go with their proposed new OPV and Anzac frigate replacements.

I can't see them coming on board with Australia's new frigate but there might be some interest in one of the new OPVs.

The current plan is for NZ's ANZACs to remain in service until around 2030. Given past history, that could well get stretched out by a few more years. Any final decision on replacements won't be made for the better part of a decade, so it could well be a vessel that has not yet been designed.

 

[KiwiRob]

There is also no reason why NZ cannot build the smaller units, they have a magnificent large pleasure boat building industry and would have no problem building vessels such as the IPVs or the other littoral,ships.

The global financial crisis pretty much killed New Zealands superyacht industry, there are only two yards left. I believe the only yard left in NZ who could build an IPV sized vessel is Qwest.

 

[MrConservative]

The global financial crisis pretty much killed New Zealands superyacht industry, there are only two yards left. I believe the only yard left in NZ who could build an IPV sized vessel is Qwest.

If you widen it to commercial marine builders and fabricators AIMECS Engineering, Circa Marine & Industrial, Titan Marine, ShipCo 360 (at the old Whangarei site where the IPV’s were built), AIMEX Ltd of Nelson could probably build or component build larger vessels. Stark Bros of Lyttleton have their own 135m by 14m Dry Dock.

But the significant thing to remember is the above are all busy enough serving the commercial fishing, aquaculture, ship repair and offshore industry. So to build Offshore Patrol Vessels locally productivity in those industries would suffer. Big Fish and Big Oil would not be happy if the commercial access they require to keep their profitable industries ticking over was compromised by a defence project that would be easier and cheaper to do offshore.

 

[recce.k1]

OPV options?

The CDF is visiting Europe and last week tweeted about his visit to the Royal Danish Navy's new arctic patrol vessel HDMS Lauge Koch - P572 and made a quick comment about her "cutting edge technology".

I'm wondering what he meant but noticed these Knud Rasmussen-class Arctic OPV's pack a bit of punch for their size and 1720-2050 tons displacement (eg 76mm multi-purpose gun, ESSM surface-to-air missiles, or MU-90 torpedoes, or perhaps even variable depth sonar or mine counter measures etc) courtesy of two StanFlex modular mission payload slots (one on the foredeck and one aft of the superstructure). Crewing complement appears to be 18 (excluding air crew), total accommodation 43.

As well as carrying two RHIB's apparently these vessels can carry a small "12m LCP class landing craft" in an internal bay under the helicopter deck, which is launched and recovered via a slipway. No doubt as well as for the Danes, I was thinking for the RNZN and its Antarctic operations wouldn't it be nice on some occasions to have a small 12m vessel with a cabin or at least greater protection from the elements for its crew (than what a RHIB can afford)? Or maybe a specialised small craft for the likes of MCM support and so on?

I would guess that the RNZN wouldn't necessarily settle on the likes of these Knud Rasmussen-class OPV's themselves (?) but may be interested in some of their features (eg potentially StanFlex, RHIB protective roll-up doors/side covers etc) and obviously a helicopter hanger (which this class lacks), all to be incorporated into a larger vessel design for the proposed ice-strengthened Southern Ocean OPV which would also have a greater range and endurance.

More reading:
New Arctic Patrol Vessels
WebCite query result
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knud_Rasmussen-class_patrol_vessel

 

[John Fedup]

Impressive armament for a ship that is one third the displacement of our DeWolfe class AOPS which has a single 25mm main gun and. 50 cal MG.

 

[Lgjonesxjs]

weapons

Impressive armament for a ship that is one third the displacement of our DeWolfe class AOPS which has a single 25mm main gun and. 50 cal MG.

The weapon list was a list of options that could be installed. It does not mean that all could be installed at any one time.

 

[Todjaeger]

The weapon list was a list of options that could be installed. It does not mean that all could be installed at any one time.

True, but in addition to the two installed Stanflex sockets, there is space set aside for two more on the helipad. If the design were to be adopted for Kiwi service, I would prefer that the helipad be changed to include either a permanent hangar, or at least a telescoping hangar. Just a helipad can work for the Knud Rasmussen-class in Danish service around Greenland, because there is an inhabited landmass that aircraft can be based/operate from and just lilypad from the OPV's. NZ does not have that option when operating in many areas, especially those likely to have ice.

 

[ngatimozart]

The latest Navy Today is out and whilst I have received my print copy, the online copy is not available yet. On page 6 it states that the cost of the 3rd OPV is $320 million and "is 'realistically' expected to be operating by 2023." The LOSC project went to tender last year but the scope of works is being revisited. They've also started work on a FSC (Future Surface Combatant) process (P.8). This is in the very beginning stages and they and the next formal step is too seek Approval to Initiate the Project. Since the current FFG's are due to retire until around 2030, they are wise to start looking at it now. They don't know yet what the FSC will be or any other details, but are starting the process to look at what the strategic maritime situation is and what technologies are available and what may or may not be pertinent to the NZG and RNZN.

 

[Rob c]

The latest Navy Today is out and whilst I have received my print copy, the online copy is not available yet. On page 6 it states that the cost of the 3rd OPV is $320 million and "is 'realistically' expected to be operating by 2023." The LOSC project went to tender last year but the scope of works is being revisited. They've also started work on a FSC (Future Surface Combatant) process (P.8). This is in the very beginning stages and they and the next formal step is too seek Approval to Initiate the Project. Since the current FFG's are due to retire until around 2030, they are wise to start looking at it now. They don't know yet what the FSC will be or any other details, but are starting the process to look at what the strategic maritime situation is and what technologies are available and what may or may not be pertinent to the NZG and RNZN.

Interesting the cost quoted for the fourth OPV at $320M This is getting up to well over twice the Protector OPV's cost and heading towards three times the cost. While inflation would cause some of this, "about 20 -25%", the rest should be able to deliver to us a far more capable ship and could contain some other abilities. May even be able to operate in a medium hostile environment as per the LOSC.

 

[MrConservative]

Interesting the cost quoted for the fourth OPV at $320M This is getting up to well over twice the Protector OPV's cost and heading towards three times the cost. While inflation would cause some of this, "about 20 -25%", the rest should be able to deliver to us a far more capable ship and could contain some other abilities. May even be able to operate in a medium hostile environment as per the LOSC.

https://vardmarine.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/VARD-7-100-AOPS.pdf

The VARD 7 100 ICE being a larger ice capable variant of the Protector OPV's and basis of the Canadian Arctic Offshore Patrol Ship makes sense in my view. It should be able to come in around the $320m mark.

As for the LOSC there is the VARD 9 design which is a development of the HMS Echo Class an Suvery/Oceanographic vessel which is able to deploy Dive and MCM capabilities. https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/echo

It would be interesting to see what overall synergies can be alligned between the current Protector OPV's, an VARD 7 ICE design and a VARD 9 variant in the LOSC solution with a view to alleviating the training and support headaches of having too many orphan designs in the small RNZN fleet. The HMS Echo and Enterprise have done patrols in the Med which shows their versatility for the RN.

Anyway a good article on the ice implications of OPV's in the Journal of Marine Engineering & Technology

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/20464177.2014.11658118

 

[John Fedup]

The AOPS (DeWolf class) were dervived from Norway’s Svalbard class. Probably won’t be as capable and will definitely be much more expensive, 3.5 billion for 5-6 ships.

 

[oldsig127]

Interesting the cost quoted for the fourth OPV at $320M This is getting up to well over twice the Protector OPV's cost and heading towards three times the cost. While inflation would cause some of this, "about 20 -25%", the rest should be able to deliver to us a far more capable ship and could contain some other abilities. May even be able to operate in a medium hostile environment as per the LOSC.

If politics in NZ is anything like politics in Australia, the change of government might make it necessary to consider what amount of money the government will be willing to spend on whale watching and fisheries patrols. Or whether the RNZN needs to be prepared to wait while there's an enquiry into why the cost has tripled and whether that cost is justifiable in view of changing government policy settings - leading to another 50% blowout even if the same ship is required because of delays and inflation.

Not a rant against the government BTW - this happens going in both directions in most countries

oldsig

 

[MrConservative]

The AOPS (DeWolf class) were dervived from Norway’s Svalbard class. Probably won’t be as capable and will definitely be much more expensive, 3.5 billion for 5-6 ships.

http://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/web/default/files/files/files/AOPS_EN.pdf

Yes the Svalbard is where the VARD 7 / De Wolf has its design DNA as explored in the above Canadian acquisition document. Page 25 provides explanation.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

http://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/web/default/files/files/files/AOPS_EN.pdf

Yes the Svalbard is where the VARD 7 / De Wolf has its design DNA as explored in the above Canadian acquisition document. Page 25 provides explanation.

What would you make of the current opposition to a kermadec marine reserve by Nz first, as quoted on the news recently? Greens and Labour want Nationals plan to go through, I wonder even with an extra opv ,how are we going to cope patrolling such a vast area?

This is surely only going to become far worse, once the ipv are retired. They aren't being replaced one for one, so the New Opv when it finally arrives will obviously have to cover some of those roles?

 

[Shanesworld]

What would you make of the current opposition to a kermadec marine reserve by Nz first, as quoted on the news recently? Greens and Labour want Nationals plan to go through, I wonder even with an extra opv ,how are we going to cope patrolling such a vast area?

This is surely only going to become far worse, once the ipv are retired. They aren't being replaced one for one, so the New Opv when it finally arrives will obviously have to cover some of those roles?

I believe with Ron Marks preference and the need for enhanced fisheries protection the plan is to replace the four protector "IPV'S" with four Arleigh Burke "IPV'S". Could be wrong.