Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[Hone C]

Winston's Pacific spend up is targeted at non security things and will be run by the New Zealand Aid Programme to:
1. Bolster our efforts to tackle priority issues for the Pacific, especially climate change and health and education.

Maybe in goal three there is some wriggle room to get some security spend

When reading the Cook Islands News article Iinked I noted another story referring to a new scholarship programme for PI students at Massey University, which also hosts the Centre for Defence and Security Studies and School of Aviation (which delivers an Air Power module in addition to pilot training).

Another angle for security spend could be the use of aid money to fund training, either directly by NZDF or through scholarships and apprenticeships to build up PI nations human capital. This would make existing programmes such as the Pacific Patrol boats more sustainable long term. I dare say a pipeline to train pilots or marine engineers would prove more useful than creative media and music, etc.

 

[MrConservative]

It’s 22 Guardian Class PBs for 13 countries including Timor L’Este.

Pacific Patrol Boat (Guardian Class)

Thanks ASSAIL. That reinforces the strategic myopia of the whole Foreign Affairs and Defence establishment of New Zealand. They run a great line on Pacific resets, worthy rhetoric, talk the talk, but have not a clue how to actually walk the talk. Full credit to the Australian government for nailing it with what a Pacific reset should look like.

 

[ngatimozart]

Or if the government invested foreign aid money into a proper wharf and breakwater at Niue, which is handily located between the other island nations, Niue could be a plausible location to set up a joint NZDF facility with local law enforcement, as the airport can also take B767 sized aircraft. A hanger could be built to house and support visiting KA-350's and the P-8A would find it useful as an overnighter.

Working on using Niue as a NZDF Pac Is base I have done a bit of quick research and leaving out French, Australian and US territories the following distances from Niue in nautical miles:

Niue to Distance (nm)
Cook Islands 587
Fiji 666
Kiribati 1436
Marshall Islands 1564
Nauru 1748
Ohakea, NZ 1468
Samoa 351
Solomon Islands 1842
Tokelau 578
Tonga 316
Tuvalu 946
Vanuatu 1244
Wallis and Fortuna 546​

These distances were calculated using Google Earth. Given that the King Air 350i max range is 1806 nm then the Solomon Islands would require an intermediate refuelling stop and possibly the Marshall Islands and Ohakea depending upon winds and other weather conditions. At 2335 m, the runway at Niue is about 300 m longer than Whenuapai and approx 100 m shorter than Ohakea.

The current ship handling facilities at Alofi would have to be vastly improved and sufficient ship berthing facilities if a suitable wharf and breakwater is built. The predominant wave climate appears to be from the east, so Alofi being on the western side of the island is in the island's lee. The predominant wind direction appears to be from the north west to north east quadrant. However the wind and wave factors can only be determined properly by a significant study.
From the nautical chart it appears that the the water depth there allows room for decent berthing of ships up to a draught of 6+ metres if it is extended out to the 9 m isobath (line of equal depth). The 5 m isobath is quite close in and the 10 m isobath is not that far out. In fact the 5 m isobath runs quite close in to the shore by what appears to be rock or coral shelves, as seen in the image below.


I am not an engineer so I cannot comment upon the feasibility on constructing a wharf and breakwater here, but if it was to go ahead as a NZ soft power project it would significantly increase NZ's presence and mana within the South Pacific. If the facilities were constructed to withstand significant cyclone damage then they could be used to predeploy emergency aid for the region.

Another option would be to use Tonga as the hub instead of Niue, but Tonga has had some unrest over recent years and could be a riskier option in that aspect. It is has a significant PRC development presence, hence it may be in NZG's interest to dig deep and go all out to replace the PRC in Tonga, buying Tonga's debt then building a NZDF Pac Is hub there. The money such a development would bring into Tonga would be more than welcomed. Mind you the same can be said for Niue or an other South Pacific nation.

 

[MrConservative]

When reading the Cook Islands News article Iinked I noted another story referring to a new scholarship programme for PI students at Massey University, which also hosts the Centre for Defence and Security Studies and School of Aviation (which delivers an Air Power module in addition to pilot training).

Another angle for security spend could be the use of aid money to fund training, either directly by NZDF or through scholarships and apprenticeships to build up PI nations human capital. This would make existing programmes such as the Pacific Patrol boats more sustainable long term. I dare say a pipeline to train pilots or marine engineers would prove more useful than creative media and music, etc.

That is a very sound idea. Practical and purposeful.

I look at the Guardian Class build by Australia, and recognise that it is a win - win in that a lot of the spend is with Australian industry. We have an aircraft manufacturer in NZ PAC, that NZ government are too purist to stack the decks in their favour and give them a Defence project to work on these days. There only problem is that they only offer a couple of single engine products the P-750 and the E-350. If they had a light utility twin in their product line up a great launch customer would be the NZ Govt supplying Hamilton built aircraft to donate to the likes of Samoa, Niue, the Cooks, Fiji and Tonga for maritime surveillance, with as you suggest NZ trained pilots drawn from scholarship candidates from those countries.

 

[ASSAIL]

That is a very sound idea. Practical and purposeful.

I look at the Guardian Class build by Australia, and recognise that it is a win - win in that a lot of the spend is with Australian industry. We have an aircraft manufacturer in NZ PAC, that NZ government are too purist to stack the decks in their favour and give them a Defence project to work on these days. There only problem is that they only offer a couple of single engine products the P-750 and the E-350. If they had a light utility twin in their product line up a great launch customer would be the NZ Govt supplying Hamilton built aircraft to donate to the likes of Samoa, Niue, the Cooks, Fiji and Tonga for maritime surveillance, with as you suggest NZ trained pilots drawn from scholarship candidates from those countries.

As I’ve said in previous posts, an IPV deployed on rotation and working with the Pacific PBs would give a huge boost to capability through training and mentoring.
Although the RAN provides engineering and organisational support (through posted personnel) to each client state there’s only so much support that can be given by sitting at the base desk. At sea in company support surpasses all.

 

[MrConservative]

Working on using Niue as a NZDF Pac Is base I have done a bit of quick research and leaving out French, Australian and US territories the following distances from Niue in nautical miles:

Niue to Distance (nm)
Cook Islands 587
Fiji 666
Kiribati 1436
Marshall Islands 1564
Nauru 1748
Ohakea, NZ 1468
Samoa 351
Solomon Islands 1842
Tokelau 578
Tonga 316
Tuvalu 946
Vanuatu 1244
Wallis and Fortuna 546​

These distances were calculated using Google Earth. Given that the King Air 350i max range is 1806 nm then the Solomon Islands would require an intermediate refuelling stop and possibly the Marshall Islands and Ohakea depending upon winds and other weather conditions. At 2335 m, the runway at Niue is about 300 m longer than Whenuapai and approx 100 m shorter than Ohakea.

Tokelau are wanting us to build a runway.

Tokelau resumes search for airport site

Cook Islands, Fiji, Samoa, Tokelau and Tonga are kind of in our "patch" where are the others are traditionally or historically closer and more associated with Australia, France or the US.

Tuvalu and Wallis & Fortuna though no long standing "colonial ties' are pretty close geographically. Those 7 nations could do with both greater impact from both regular IPV presence and frequent visits from King Air's of which a couple could be forward based in for example Niue. A joint maritime co-ordination centre could be built there to enhance the wider work of QUAD.

 

[Xthenaki]

Working on using Niue as a NZDF Pac Is base I have done a bit of quick research and leaving out French, Australian and US territories the following distances from Niue in nautical miles:

Niue to Distance (nm)
Cook Islands 587
Fiji 666
Kiribati 1436
Marshall Islands 1564
Nauru 1748
Ohakea, NZ 1468
Samoa 351
Solomon Islands 1842
Tokelau 578
Tonga 316
Tuvalu 946
Vanuatu 1244
Wallis and Fortuna 546​

These distances were calculated using Google Earth. Given that the King Air 350i max range is 1806 nm then the Solomon Islands would require an intermediate refuelling stop and possibly the Marshall Islands and Ohakea depending upon winds and other weather conditions. At 2335 m, the runway at Niue is about 300 m longer than Whenuapai and approx 100 m shorter than Ohakea.

The current ship handling facilities at Alofi would have to be vastly improved and sufficient ship berthing facilities if a suitable wharf and breakwater is built. The predominant wave climate appears to be from the east, so Alofi being on the western side of the island is in the island's lee. The predominant wind direction appears to be from the north west to north east quadrant. However the wind and wave factors can only be determined properly by a significant study. View attachment 46161
From the nautical chart it appears that the the water depth there allows room for decent berthing of ships up to a draught of 6+ metres if it is extended out to the 9 m isobath (line of equal depth). The 5 m isobath is quite close in and the 10 m isobath is not that far out. In fact the 5 m isobath runs quite close in to the shore by what appears to be rock or coral shelves, as seen in the image below.
View attachment 46162

I am not an engineer so I cannot comment upon the feasibility on constructing a wharf and breakwater here, but if it was to go ahead as a NZ soft power project it would significantly increase NZ's presence and mana within the South Pacific. If the facilities were constructed to withstand significant cyclone damage then they could be used to predeploy emergency aid for the region.

Another option would be to use Tonga as the hub instead of Niue, but Tonga has had some unrest over recent years and could be a riskier option in that aspect. It is has a significant PRC development presence, hence it may be in NZG's interest to dig deep and go all out to replace the PRC in Tonga, buying Tonga's debt then building a NZDF Pac Is hub there. The money such a development would bring into Tonga would be more than welcomed. Mind you the same can be said for Niue or an other South Pacific nation.

Niue as an air base - yes but Alofi as a port - not my preferred option. It is exposed and subject to swell under certain conditions. My preferred option would be Pago Pago (American Samoa)) offers a brilliant harbour and an international airport on Tutuila. Another alternative is Apia. Upolu provides both port and airfield.- in adverse weather a run to Pago Pago is only about 70 N/m. Neiafu provides a good harbour at Vava'u and Nukualofa the airfield. Closer to NZ = Fiji Is has it all

 

[KiwiRob]

To be honest I can't see the poms getting the Arrowhead 140 for 250 million quid without drastic cuts to capability. It is based on the OMT Iver Huitfeld FFG and I feel that if we went directly to OMT, bypassing Babcock, we'd get a better deal because we wouldn't have to pay for all the pommy alterations to the design, and that's where all the added expense will be - pommy unique specific requirements that get pommy work share.

From what spoz had posted earlier, I don't think we need a GT. The specs for the Iver Huitfeld state that with four diesels it can attain 28+ knots.

The latest published book cost (2014) for the Iver Huitfeld is US$353 million, so an Asian build with OMT overseeing the build, plus sensors weapons etc., could cost somewhere in the region of NZ$700 - 850 million depending upon fitout, built to NZ requirements.

I can’t tell you all the things I’ve learnt about the Ivers and the Arrowhead 140 (NDA) but I will say that the Ivers were built incrediably cheap, they used a lot of commercial land market building solutions, the big difference is the RN aren’t getting all the air warfare equipment which is where the big savings are being made, but they are getting a better basic ship if they buy the 140.

The design has to be altered because a lot of the equipment used on the Iver is no longer in production. If NZ was going to buy one we would be better off with the Babcock version than the Iver its based on.

 

[Todjaeger]

I can’t tell you all the things I’ve learnt about the Ivers and the Arrowhead 140 (NDA) but I will say that the Ivers were built incrediably cheap, they used a lot of commercial land market building solutions, the big difference is the RN aren’t getting all the air warfare equipment which is where the big savings are being made, but they are getting a better basic ship if they buy the 140.

The design has to be altered because a lot of the equipment used on the Iver is no longer in production. If NZ was going to buy one we would be better off with the Babcock version than the Iver its based on.

I could be mistaken, but it sounds like you are saying that portions of the Iver builds were done to commercial as opposed to naval building standards, is that correct? I seem to recall reading that something similar occurred with the Absalon-class support vessels as well as the current RNZN OPV's.

From a functional standpoint that is fine, but from a damage control standpoint, building to commercial as opposed to naval or commercial naval standards would be problematic.

 

[beegee]

I can’t tell you all the things I’ve learnt about the Ivers and the Arrowhead 140 (NDA) but I will say that the Ivers were built incrediably cheap, they used a lot of commercial land market building solutions, the big difference is the RN aren’t getting all the air warfare equipment which is where the big savings are being made, but they are getting a better basic ship if they buy the 140.

The design has to be altered because a lot of the equipment used on the Iver is no longer in production. If NZ was going to buy one we would be better off with the Babcock version than the Iver its based on.

Yes, but if NZ employed OMT to design us a frigate it wouldn't be an Iver clone, it would be tailored to meet NZ's requirements. Just like OMT's bid for the Aussie frigate had a double helicopter hanger and a towed sonar, things the Ivers don't have.

I'd be happy with either option. I think the basic design would be a good fit for NZ, long range, good size, good speed, low manning requirements and plenty of growth potential.

 

[beegee]

From a functional standpoint that is fine, but from a damage control standpoint, building to commercial as opposed to naval or commercial naval standards would be problematic.

The captain of the HDMS Peter Willemoes addresses those very concerns in the following video at 23:34:

 

[ngatimozart]

I could be mistaken, but it sounds like you are saying that portions of the Iver builds were done to commercial as opposed to naval building standards, is that correct? I seem to recall reading that something similar occurred with the Absalon-class support vessels as well as the current RNZN OPV's.

From a functional standpoint that is fine, but from a damage control standpoint, building to commercial as opposed to naval or commercial naval standards would be problematic.

The OMT Iver and Absalon builds were done using commercial build philosophy and techniques meaning savings in costs and time due to modernising the design and build process so that it mirrored the commercial shipbuilding process. Modern technologist such as IPM and open architecture systems were used that ensured bespoke expensive systems were avoided, making future upgrades easier, plus allowing quick re-rolling. All the cabling and pipework are not hidden behind bulkheads, decks, and or deckheads, meaning that they can be easily and quickly accessed for repair and replacement. Modern commercial ship build standards appear to be ahead naval ship build standards in most aspects, because regulatory requirements for commercial ship builds have become stricter since WW2, due to international organisations like the UN and the IMO. Where naval ships and commercial ships differ of course, is in purpose and protective systems.

 

[ngatimozart]

Niue as an air base - yes but Alofi as a port - not my preferred option. It is exposed and subject to swell under certain conditions. My preferred option would be Pago Pago (American Samoa)) offers a brilliant harbour and an international airport on Tutuila. Another alternative is Apia. Upolu provides both port and airfield.- in adverse weather a run to Pago Pago is only about 70 N/m. Neiafu provides a good harbour at Vava'u and Nukualofa the airfield. Closer to NZ = Fiji Is has it all

I agree that Alofi has potential problems and from a coastal science POV once you alter one area on a coast you change another further along the coast. So by building a breakwater the coast down stream from it will change with unintended consequences.

A classic case of this is the Port of Timaru. Timaru has a mixed sand gravel beach as a result of a northerly sediment stream from the Waitaki river to the south. A South Island east coast mixed sand gravel beach is very dangerous because where the single wave breaks there is a 6 m drop off with about a 45 degree angle face to the berm. If you get caught in that gravel you die because you will not get out of it. Until the port was built all supplies had to be brought ashore in longboats through the surf. IIRC a breakwater was built there in the 1870's. As a result of the breakwater a fine sand beach formed to the north side of the port at what is now called Caroline Bay, which is a real nice safe swimming beach. Each year Caroline Bay progrades (increases in width) by about 6 m. However further up the coast, there is erosion that is a result of the breakwater, so whilst Caroline Bay is a positive unintended consequence of the breakwater, the erosion is a negative unintended consequence that could have significant detrimental economic impacts for the region.

The reason Mr C suggested Niue was because of it centrality relative to the rest of the island nations. A well built and probably costly breakwater would most likely take care of your concerns, but I do have a couple of my own.

• Where would the materials for the breakwater come from? What is needed for the breakwater is what is known as armour rock, which is a rock that is hard enough to take the continual wearing of the seas on it, something like basalt or granite. So is that available on the island? If not where is the closest source?
• What will the impact be in the island's infrastructure? What will the cost be to mitigate NZDF's impact upon it?

Whilst I said Tonga may have so issues, I think that I would be the next best option. Certainly far better than Fiji because IMHO Fiji is to risky, both politically and security wise, due to it's recent history.

 

[KiwiRob]

The OMT Iver and Absalon builds were done using commercial build philosophy and techniques meaning savings in costs and time due to modernising the design and build process so that it mirrored the commercial shipbuilding process. Modern technologist such as IPM and open architecture systems were used that ensured bespoke expensive systems were avoided, making future upgrades easier, plus allowing quick re-rolling. All the cabling and pipework are not hidden behind bulkheads, decks, and or deckheads, meaning that they can be easily and quickly accessed for repair and replacement. Modern commercial ship build standards appear to be ahead naval ship build standards in most aspects, because regulatory requirements for commercial ship builds have become stricter since WW2, due to international organisations like the UN and the IMO. Where naval ships and commercial ships differ of course, is in purpose and protective systems.

Not just commercial shipbuilding technics but some of the systems on board aren't even certified for marine use.

The UN and IMO aren't driving shipbuilding standards it's the classification societies like DNV-GL. BV, RMRS, RINA and Lloyds that establishes and maintains technical standards for the construction and operation of ships.

 

[Todjaeger]

Not just commercial shipbuilding technics but some of the systems on board aren't even certified for marine use.

The UN and IMO aren't driving shipbuilding standards it's the classification societies like DNV-GL. BV, RMRS, RINA and Lloyds that establishes and maintains technical standards for the construction and operation of ships.

From what I can recall, Lloyds (and likely some of the others) have developed some "commercial" standards for warship construction which has been somewhat different than some of the national standards used by some navies for warship construction. Not being in the industry, I freely acknowledge my understanding of what would be the same, and what would be different would be, "limited." I would imagine that some areas of potential difference would be in areas like fire protection/fire suppression, size/number of watertight compartments, fire breaks, cable runs, etc.

I also seem to recall that some OPV's built since 2000 had been built to commercial shipping standards as opposed to some sort of naval standard. The primary concern there being that a typical commercial ship just would not have some of the features which would aid a vessel in damage control, or increase survive ability in the event hostile action.

 

[KiwiRob]

You have Lloyd’s Rules and Regulations for the Classification of Naval Ships, DNV GL have there version Rules for Naval and Naval support vessels.

 

[swerve]

Yes. Rules from the commercial classification societies for classifying naval vessels, not rules for civilian ships. IIRC there are different subsets of the commercial rules for different categories of naval ship, so an auxiliary would be built to different rules from a destroyer.

 

[hauritz]

I have no idea why any nation would want to build frigates using commercial shipping standards. NZ needs to look at the most capable ship it can afford and I am not convinced that the Type31 ... whichever ship that turns out to be ... is the answer.

This region will become increasingly more contested over the next 30 years and buying equipment that isn't up to the task of dealing with this problem is just a waste of money.

My first preference would still be for NZ to buy the Type 26. If they can't afford the Australian Aegis equipped version then just get the UK version. If they can't afford that then look at the US FFG(X). There are lots of other candidates which offer a lot more proven capability than theType 31 will be designed to deliver.

 

[John Fedup]

It is all about national will and understanding why this stuff is needed. Unfortunately the NZ and Canadian electorates don't get this, hence the pollies can divert funds to what gets them re-elected. Can't speak for NZ but in Canada's case, I think the US should bring defence expenditures into the NAFTA talks rather than pissing around with dairy BS (Canadian tariffs and US overproduction). The US is better off with a proper Canadian defence contribution than appeasing over-producing MN dairy farmers with their frigging ultra-filtered milk.

 

[t68]

It is all about national will and understanding why this stuff is needed. Unfortunately the NZ and Canadian electorates don't get this, hence the pollies can divert funds to what gets them re-elected. Can't speak for NZ but in Canada's case, I think the US should bring defence expenditures into the NAFTA talks rather than pissing around with dairy BS (Canadian tariffs and US overproduction). The US is better off with a proper Canadian defence contribution than appeasing over-producing MN dairy farmers with their frigging ultra-filtered milk.

I personally think your reading too much into it. That philosophy exists in a Australia too if the government of the day decided that they will reduce the size of the ADF I think the debate will last about a week in the media then the general population would just move on after all we had four Squadrons of Mirage 2 in Malaysia and 2 Australia, for economic reasons at the time we dropped back to 3 and brought the Malaysia aircraft home and at the same time pilot hours where reduced down to 17:5 hrs per month. It’s not all beer a skittles here as you Canadians are going thru something similar from your hierarchy, every new generation of kit is reduced from the previous.