Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[MrConservative]

Unfortunately those days are gone. The RNZN now has dry ships, so centuries of history have gone down the heads. Jacks dungy runs are no longer tolerated. Anyway can buy 2 - 3 chooks for the price of one King Stallion, so can lift more beer for the same cost.

So basically it's an LHD then? I think maybe a tad large for our requirements, but if it could be scaled down to say 13,000 or 14,000 tonnes then it would be ideal. However steel is cheap and air is free and it might be easier to leave it at 18,000 tonnes.

I was not worrying about the Navy's beer ... more like a real emergency like if a brewery caught fire.

Reducing the draft to 6m and 3m off the beam would make a considerably difference in displacement, likewise a reduction in length to say 170m. An all round scaling down by 10% of that HDL-18000 design to say 170 x 28 x 6 would give a vessel in the vicinity of 14000t. Which is probably a vessel halfway the capacity of the CY and the 18000 design.

But steel is cheap and air is free. That volumetric increase of space that is probably very useful with respect to growth margins - because it has to be a vessel for the 2040+ era and not a repeat of design specs dreamed up 15 years ago.

 

[spoz]

You can’t just scale a ship design up or down, try to do it “on the cheap” and you are storing up major issues for the future. While I have no doubt HHI could produce a ship in the 14000 ton range, unless they already offer a range of options like say Damen it would in effect be a new design. And that will be the situation whan comparing Makassar and MRSS, although that is already to some extent a “family” of designs, noting that it is mich easier to rearrange the upper hull/superstructure than it is to resize the underwater hull. You might be able to get the builder to absorb the cost of redesign if he or she saw a marketting advantage in doing so - OTH you might find NZ being charged for it.

 

[MrConservative]

You can’t just scale a ship design up or down, try to do it “on the cheap” and you are storing up major issues for the future. While I have no doubt HHI could produce a ship in the 14000 ton range, unless they already offer a range of options like say Damen it would in effect be a new design. And that will be the situation whan comparing Makassar and MRSS, although that is already to some extent a “family” of designs, noting that it is mich easier to rearrange the upper hull/superstructure than it is to resize the underwater hull. You might be able to get the builder to absorb the cost of redesign if he or she saw a marketting advantage in doing so - OTH you might find NZ being charged for it.

Of course they would have to pay for it. (I don't know where the insinuation about doing it on the cheap has been projected from and is in fact necessarily constructive).

NZ contributed towards a fresh design with HHI tailored for its requirements with the Aotearoa/Polar Class. They could very well choose to do that approach again with an adaptation of a HHI or other amphibious design as a CY replacement. And pay for it.

However the cost differential between a redesigned 14000t vessel specifically tailored to the NZDF's exact future needs (which are still yet to be specified beyond ministerial musings) and a straight off the blueprints slightly larger 18000t is essentially agnostic at this stage.

 

[Cadredave]

Yeah, we're definitely in fantasy land now .

Back in the real world; is the government really going to approve the huge cost of a vessel like the Endurance 170? Something they will see as an aircraft carrier? And it's not just the cost of the vessel itself, to justify that level of capability we would need more equipment to fill it. With NZ's current helicopter fleet we'd struggle to fill the deck landing spots, let alone the hangar space.

The last NZGov approved a replacement tanker for ruffly the same price as the whole Project Protector fleet that is real world same goes with the P8 alot on here were going for other planes based on the same argument about price. NZDF is Joint it has taken alot of painful years to learn that all three services get the equipment they need if they show a united front but also do the hard yards in ensuring what goes before Cabinet & treasury is viable and VFM.

I've never seen a requirement for NZ's future sea lift ship to be able to host an Osprey, but I have seen the requirement that it have a relatively shallow draught to allow access to the small islands in the South Pacific.
The Canterbury has a draught of 5.4m, the Endurance 160 has a draught of 5.8m and the Makassar class has a draught of 4.9m.

RNZN is still in the crawl stage of fully understanding what is required to operate an amphibious vessel there wont be any requirements released until RNZN knows what it wants. When CAN is at the half way stage of her life then a RFI will be issued to all prospective builders only then will everyone will see the future requirements for a future replacement ship what ever shape or function that may be.

 

[Todjaeger]

RNZN is still in the crawl stage of fully understanding what is required to operate an amphibious vessel there wont be any requirements released until RNZN knows what it wants. When CAN is at the half way stage of her life then a RFI will be issued to all prospective builders only then will everyone will see the future requirements for a future replacement ship what ever shape or function that may be.

The reason I brought the question up is because I believe Canterbury is getting close to the halfway mark for service life. I have been trying to get confirmation of this, since my recollection is that the Project Protector fleet was to be built/maintained to commercial standards and that the major vessels were planned to have either a 20 or 25 year service life. If the planned for service life was to be 20 years, then it is about a year past that point, OTOH if the service life was planned to be 25 years, that would put it around the beginning of 2020.

 

[ngatimozart]

The reason I brought the question up is because I believe Canterbury is getting close to the halfway mark for service life. I have been trying to get confirmation of this, since my recollection is that the Project Protector fleet was to be built/maintained to commercial standards and that the major vessels were planned to have either a 20 or 25 year service life. If the planned for service life was to be 20 years, then it is about a year past that point, OTOH if the service life was planned to be 25 years, that would put it around the beginning of 2020.

Maybe 30 years if Endeavour's service life is anything to go by. She was commissioned on 8 April 1988 and decommissioned on 15 December 2017. Canterbury was commissioned on 12 June 2007 and if a 30 year life is accepted, then a MLU would be due around 2022.

 

[t68]

Maybe 30 years if Endeavour's service life is anything to go by. She was commissioned on 8 April 1988 and decommissioned on 15 December 2017. Canterbury was commissioned on 12 June 2007 and if a 30 year life is accepted, then a MLU would be due around 2022.

I was under the impression that future force 2035 was when the replacement would be most likely reaching its FOC by then, if that is to be achevied then planning should be beginning soon to be in the water around 2030 then worked up


http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/public-docs/future-35-our-strategy-to-2035.pdf

 

[ngatimozart]

I was under the impression that future force 2035 was when the replacement would be most likely reaching its FOC by then, if that is to be achevied then planning should be beginning soon to be in the water around 2030 then worked up


http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/public-docs/future-35-our-strategy-to-2035.pdf

What is aspired to and what actually happens can be to completely different stories.

 

[Xthenaki]

Maybe 30 years if Endeavour's service life is anything to go by. She was commissioned on 8 April 1988 and decommissioned on 15 December 2017. Canterbury was commissioned on 12 June 2007 and if a 30 year life is accepted, then a MLU would be due around 2022.

If the " Canterbury " is intended to be in service for at least 30 yrs is there any advantages to be had on lengthening the vessel forward of the engine room . The "Aratere" was extended in 2011 with a 30m mid section at a Singapore dry dock. Cost $42m . Advantages - extending fore part of vessel - improving performance in heavy weather. Additional space for better defensive weaponary. Extended vehicle deck. etc. Obviously benefits have to justify the cost otherwise finance is best kept for "Canterburys" successor.. Why I have brought this up is that often mid life refits incorporate necessary changes where practicable usually from inherent deficencies.

 

[ngatimozart]

If the " Canterbury " is intended to be in service for at least 30 yrs is there any advantages to be had on lengthening the vessel forward of the engine room . The "Aratere" was extended in 2011 with a 30m mid section at a Singapore dry dock. Cost $42m . Advantages - extending fore part of vessel - improving performance in heavy weather. Additional space for better defensive weaponary. Extended vehicle deck. etc. Obviously benefits have to justify the cost otherwise finance is best kept for "Canterburys" successor.. Why I have brought this up is that often mid life refits incorporate necessary changes where practicable usually from inherent deficencies.

A fault with Canterbury is that it is light because the original design is for a vehicle ferry voyage with a heavy load. The Canterbury doesn't carry the required tonnage so has to travel in ballast, meaning that we pay good money to cart seawater around the world. From my POV the main capability that Canterbury lacks is a well dock, but would it be worthwhile spending the money installing one during a MLU? I think that the NZDF will be actively looking at options for the Canterbury, whether it undertakes a MLU or is replaced. I believe that this is now SOP for MLUs, when a business plan is created. Talking of replacements, the ANZAC FFG replacement project is supposed to start next year.

 

[Todjaeger]

If the " Canterbury " is intended to be in service for at least 30 yrs is there any advantages to be had on lengthening the vessel forward of the engine room . The "Aratere" was extended in 2011 with a 30m mid section at a Singapore dry dock. Cost $42m . Advantages - extending fore part of vessel - improving performance in heavy weather. Additional space for better defensive weaponary. Extended vehicle deck. etc. Obviously benefits have to justify the cost otherwise finance is best kept for "Canterburys" successor.. Why I have brought this up is that often mid life refits incorporate necessary changes where practicable usually from inherent deficencies.

AND

A fault with Canterbury is that it is light because the original design is for a vehicle ferry voyage with a heavy load. The Canterbury doesn't carry the required tonnage so has to travel in ballast, meaning that we pay good money to cart seawater around the world. From my POV the main capability that Canterbury lacks is a well dock, but would it be worthwhile spending the money installing one during a MLU? I think that the NZDF will be actively looking at options for the Canterbury, whether it undertakes a MLU or is replaced. I believe that this is now SOP for MLUs, when a business plan is created. Talking of replacements, the ANZAC FFG replacement project is supposed to start next year.

Honestly I doubt either change could be safely, economically, or effectively be done to Canterbury, as they both would require some significant structural modifications. I am not a naval architect or engineer, but I would also image that the ice strengthening of the Canterbury hull would make what is already an unusual modification even more complicated than 'normal'. A 20% increase in the LOA under other circumstances would be quite difficult. As would essentially ripping out the stern ramp to replace it with a well dock.

Rather than attempt a significant MLU to add in capabilities which are currently lacking in Canterbury, IMO it would be better to note such deficiencies and ensure that they are non-existent in the Canterbury replacement. Trying to back-fit something like a well dock which really needs to be designed into a vessel so as to not conflict with machinery spaces is not going to go well.

 

[Xthenaki]

A fault with Canterbury is that it is light because the original design is for a vehicle ferry voyage with a heavy load. The Canterbury doesn't carry the required tonnage so has to travel in ballast, meaning that we pay good money to cart seawater around the world. From my POV the main capability that Canterbury lacks is a well dock, but would it be worthwhile spending the money installing one during a MLU? I think that the NZDF will be actively looking at options for the Canterbury, whether it undertakes a MLU or is replaced. I believe that this is now SOP for MLUs, when a business plan is created. Talking of replacements, the ANZAC FFG replacement project is supposed to start next year.

I understand where you are coming from and do not feel the capital cost spent would be justifiable. Ideally then an early retirement for "Canterbury" - minimal MLU and plead for extra bucks for a properly designed replacement. the ANZAC FFG replacement will provide a lot of interest. I like the aussie BAE program because its spread out over a wide time frame and may have upgrades (Batch 1 and 2] the design at the moment is at the top of the scale. The negative - COST and we will not know fully about this until tenders are submitted and received. Depending what Australian Govt is in office at that time and whether they feel

 

[Xthenaki]

I understand where you are coming from and do not feel the capital cost spent would be justifiable. Ideally then an early retirement for "Canterbury" - minimal MLU and plead for extra bucks for a properly designed replacement. the ANZAC FFG replacement will provide a lot of interest. I like the aussie BAE program because its spread out over a wide time frame and may have upgrades (Batch 1 and 2] the design at the moment is at the top of the scale. The negative - COST and we will not know fully about this until tenders are submitted and received. Depending what Australian Govt is in office at that time and whether they feel

To finish off the above - "whether they feel" - a subsidy is justified to keep their shipbuilding industry alive.

 

[John Newman]

From my POV the main capability that Canterbury lacks is a well dock, but would it be worthwhile spending the money installing one during a MLU? I think that the NZDF will be actively looking at options for the Canterbury, whether it undertakes a MLU or is replaced.

This might be out of left field (maybe too far out of left field, I don't know), but I have often wondered over the last few years if there was a possibility of Australia, the Netherlands, Spain and the UK getting their heads together and look at a new and common evolution of their respective variations of the Enforcer design.

Enforcer (ship design) - Wikipedia

That's eight ships of three different variations that will probably start to be replaced from around 2030 and beyond, and if NZ was looking for Canterbury replaced in that similar time frame you could be looking at a class of up to 10 hulls, maybe there is some possibility of economies of scale and commonalty?

Cheers,

 

[ngatimozart]

Gidday John,

I've been thinking along the lines of the ST E170 LHD because my belief is that an LHD is more effective and efficient than a LPD when it comes to rotary wing ops. Have a couple of spots on the flight deck strengthened and heat treated to lillypad Chooks, King Stallions and Ospreys which are all operated by our close friends and allies, then we will have a viable asset. The trouble with Euro designs like you suggest is that they will be designed by committee, be overly expensive and take to long to fruition. TBH my grandkids will be collecting their pension before the first such euro vessel would clear the slipway and my oldest grandkid is 15.

 

[swerve]

You mean like happened with Galicia, Castilla & Rotterdam?

There are plenty of international projects which have been balls-ups, but this is one of the successes - & there have also been plenty of single country projects which have been flops because nobody could quite decide what they wanted.

Just make sure Damen is design lead.

 

[ngatimozart]

You mean like happened with Galicia, Castilla & Rotterdam?

There are plenty of international projects which have been balls-ups, but this is one of the successes - & there have also been plenty of single country projects which have been flops because nobody could quite decide what they wanted.

Just make sure Damen is design lead.

I think another success, whilst not an international project, is the Danish Absalon and Iver Huitfeld warships. Then there are the Navantia F100 series of frigates. But for a country like NZ most eurokit is expensive, unless it is built in places like South Korea or Eastern Europe. If we were to, say acquire three Iver Huitfeld FFG's we should have them built in South Korea with OMT being a significant part of the project team. If that was to occur I would like to insert a 7m plug in between the A gun position and the B gun position. This plug would house 24 strike length Mk-41 VLS. Ideally they should be built in NZ; unfortunately no govt since 1984 has seen the need to support heavy engineering and infrastructure. Such a build here would return a significant sum of money to the local economy and to the NZG in the form of income tax, GST and company taxes amongst other revenue streams.

 

[beegee]

I think another success, whilst not an international project, is the Danish Absalon and Iver Huitfeld warships. Then there are the Navantia F100 series of frigates. But for a country like NZ most eurokit is expensive, unless it is built in places like South Korea or Eastern Europe. If we were to, say acquire three Iver Huitfeld FFG's we should have them built in South Korea with OMT being a significant part of the project team. If that was to occur I would like to insert a 7m plug in between the A gun position and the B gun position. This plug would house 24 strike length Mk-41 VLS. Ideally they should be built in NZ; unfortunately no govt since 1984 has seen the need to support heavy engineering and infrastructure. Such a build here would return a significant sum of money to the local economy and to the NZG in the form of income tax, GST and company taxes amongst other revenue streams.

The Iver Huitfeldts already have 32 strike length Mk 41 VLS cells. Another 24 would be impressive.

If Babcock can keep the Arrowhead 140 cost to the government stipulated 250m quid, then you'd get essentially an improved Iver Huitfeldt with the mission spaces the RNZN want so much. Babcock's documentation says you can have the Iver Huitfeldt's weapon fit if you want, so you could have 32 strike length VLS cells (although that would be a big ticket item).

https://www.babcockteam31.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Arrowhead-140-Brochure.pdf

The ability to fit the existing systems and equipment from the parent design is retained to provide flexibility in the capability supplied at build and through the life of the platform. For example, this retained capability means that the 32 cell Mk41 Strike Length silo can be fitted to incorporate a combination of a larger number of anti-air missiles, vertical launch antisurface missiles, precision land strike missiles or ASW weapons such as ASROC.

Or, as you say, if it's financially expedient, we could license Babcock's design and build it in SK.

One of the things I've wondered about is what the Aussies plan to do with their decommissioned ANZACs. There might be the opportunity to get some cheap secondhand systems to equip NZ's new ships, especially their CEAFAR 2 radar, but also mk45 guns, Nulka launchers, etc.

An Arrowhead 140 design with 32 SL mk41 and CEAFAR 2 radar would be a very capable vessel.

 

[t68]

I think another success, whilst not an international project, is the Danish Absalon and Iver Huitfeld warships. Then there are the Navantia F100 series of frigates. But for a country like NZ most eurokit is expensive, unless it is built in places like South Korea or Eastern Europe. If we were to, say acquire three Iver Huitfeld FFG's we should have them built in South Korea with OMT being a significant part of the project team. If that was to occur I would like to insert a 7m plug in between the A gun position and the B gun position. This plug would house 24 strike length Mk-41 VLS. Ideally they should be built in NZ; unfortunately no govt since 1984 has seen the need to support heavy engineering and infrastructure. Such a build here would return a significant sum of money to the local economy and to the NZG in the form of income tax, GST and company taxes amongst other revenue streams.

I can see them being cheaper if the design was known to them and have done several before , but would building an unknown design be actually cheaper when the have to build one off jigs for only 2 ships.

What was the biggest module built in NZ for the Anzacs, could all the modules be built in NZ.
Is there a shipyard big enough that could do it?
just out of curiosity what was the largest Naval ship built in NZ?

 

[beegee]

just out of curiosity what was the largest Naval ship built in NZ?