Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[kiwipatriot69]

So one missile per cell then, I thought the launchers could fit more?

 

[Gibbo]

Edda Fonn / Manawanui in grey... Royal New Zealand Navy

Must be steaming out to NZ under her civvy name.

 

[MrConservative]

So one missile per cell then, I thought the launchers could fit more?

The compact vertical launch 3-cell ExLS system is not yet available so they went with the mushroom farm ala Type 23.

 

[ASSAIL]

Edda Fonn / Manawanui in grey... Royal New Zealand Navy

Must be steaming out to NZ under her civvy name.

She has to retain her markings, ie name and IMO number and Port of Registry, as a registered vessel. She could not complete an international voyage without them
These can only be removed after she commissions.

 

[40 deg south]

https://venturaapdr.partica.online/apdr/apdr-february-2019/responsive

The latest edition of APDR (free access, but you have to create a log-in) has he following timeline for delivery of the Edda Fonn:

• Jan 2019 MV Edda Fonn completes all commercial work for owner Østensjo Rederi

• Feb 2019 MV Edda Fonn enters Denmark shipyard for diving and hydrographic modifications

• April 2019 Work complete and vessel sets off for NZ

• May 2019 Arrives in NZ where further shipyard work will take place at Devonport Naval Base

• November 2019 Vessel commences phased release into RNZN operational service This new Navy ship will be commissioned as HMNZS MANAWANUI (A09) before the end of 2019.

 

[htbrst]

An indication of the biggest ship New Zealand could produce inhouse at the moment - an exploration vessel (yacht) for one of our richest people launched from Foxton yesterday. She was fabricated and moved by road from Palmerston North - a land locked city just under 50kms away from her launching point. Painted grey so already being mistaken for a frigate by some

• 480 tonnes when carrying its full load of 76,000 litres of fuel, 14,000 litres of water and 14,000 litres of sewage.
• Built by Palmerston North company Profab Engineering, the 40-metre-long and 12m-wide catamaran is one of the largest boats constructed in New Zealand.

Edit..From the comments section on one of the stuff articles:

RogueWeka:
I'll fill in some gaps for those interested.
Overall length 39.5 metres, Beam 12 metres. The tri-deck catamaran was built for charter in the South Pacific.It has the ability to launch and retrieve a 13 metre sportsfish yacht. Accommodation is for up to 12 guests split across five staterooms, including four double cabins that are convertible into twins and one twin cabin with Pullman berths. Meanwhile, the crew quarters allows for a staff of up to ten people.The Beast include a 9.3 metre amphibious tender, a 4.5 metre rescue boat and a teppanyaki-style barbecue on the upper deck. Power will come from a pair of Caterpillar C32 engine

Michael Hill's colossal boat The Beast launches at Foxton Beach
Michael Hill's massive catamaran to launch from Foxton Beach

(picture DAVID UNWIN/STUFF)
​

 

[ngatimozart]

An indication of the biggest ship New Zealand could produce inhouse at the moment - an exploration vessel (yacht) for one of our richest people launched from Foxton yesterday. She was fabricated and moved by road from Palmerston North - a land locked city just under 50kms away from her launching point. Painted grey so already being mistaken for a frigate by some


Edit..From the comments section on one of the stuff articles:



Michael Hill's colossal boat The Beast launches at Foxton Beach
Michael Hill's massive catamaran to launch from Foxton Beach

(picture DAVID UNWIN/STUFF)
​

Ugly looking beasty. I thought he'd have a golf course on it though

We probably could build them bigger, but this one was built in Palmerston North and transported by road about 45 km by road to Foxton Beach for launching.

Google Maps

 

[steel jo]

curious choice of colour - each to his own i guess

 

[t68]

curious choice of colour - each to his own i guess

its retro, all the rage in WWI

 

[kiwipatriot69]

its retro, all the rage in WWI

Let's hope he's not sailing it in disputed territories in the South China seas, his markings might confuse the PLA ,thinking its an unmarked navy warship!

 

[Gibbo]

Let's hope he's not sailing it in disputed territories in the South China seas, his markings might confuse the PLA ,thinking its an unmarked navy warship!

Let's spin a story to Hicky Hagar & some of these other 'conspiracy theorists' that it's actually a top secret spy vessel... we'll have them in hysteria over their soy-vegan latte's before you know it! Or maybe we're all being fooled and it's secretly the new littoral operations capability!

Which brings me back to reality... I found this online & it makes interesting reading comparing the planned LOSC with the Manawanui that we're getting instead.

Defence Technology Review : DTR OCT 2016, Page 33

...basicallly the Manawanui will actually be capable of doing about 90% of what the LOSC was going to do... arguably it's not as MilSpec and I doubt it'll have the weapons planned for LOSC but I think she'll be a great asset.

 

[htbrst]

Biofouling regulations that took effect in May have started causing issues, including for a "foreign military ship"... its a long article but here are some important snippets that include some push for a bigger dry dock:

Biosecurity threat sees dirty-bottomed boats ordered out of New Zealand waters

Our tough national biofouling regulations are a world first, and despite getting four years warning of the impending changes, they are a rude shock for shipping operators who fail to keep things pristine below the waterline

The Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI) has taken action against 14 vessels that have fallen foul of new regulations officially introduced last May to keep out potentially invasive marine organisms and devastating aquatic diseases.

Those targeted included a foreign military ship, four bulk carriers, five container vessels and a tanker.

Aside from the practicalities of requiring a ship to have been cleaned 30 days before arrival in New Zealand, the lack of a big enough dry-dock to sort this out in country is also a factor... particularly when the requirements will extend to coastal shipping in the future..

MPI recommends long stay vessels clean their hulls and niche areas less than 30 days before arrival in New Zealand and that includes cruise liners visiting multiple ports and sensitive marine areas like Fiordland.

Vessels that can't do that can submit craft risk management plans outlining biofouling prevention methods, providing photos and videos as proof of cleanliness.

...Preston says New Zealand desperately needs a dry dock able to take ships up to 240m long (the one at Devonport has a limit of 170m).

Vessels normally go into dry dock for a full marine survey and hull clean every five years, and he says many of the vessels targeted by MPI have one year to go before they are due for a trip to dry dock.

"It's a very expensive exercise to just put a ship in a dry dock to get the hull cleaned, then go back in 12 months to finish off the survey work."

New Zealand Shipping Federation chief executive Annabel Young says the standards for coastal waters are set by regional councils. They differ from each other, and are often inconsistent with those used by MPI.

"If you try to get people to clean their ship between every port, and if you are a ship that goes from port to port to port, cleaning between every port, that adds a day every time."

Like Preston, she says a dry dock capable to servicing large commercial vessels is the real answer.

MPI is sympathetic, but Lubarsky says their hands are tied. "MPI can only approve [existing facilities], we can't go out and say somebody has to build a dry dock, we can only approve an available facility, and they have to come to us and show us they have all the systems in place to manage the biosecurity risk."

No contribution from MPI towards a dry dock then..

 

[ngatimozart]

Biofouling regulations that took effect in May have started causing issues, including for a "foreign military ship"... its a long article but here are some important snippets that include some push for a bigger dry dock:

Biosecurity threat sees dirty-bottomed boats ordered out of New Zealand waters

Aside from the practicalities of requiring a ship to have been cleaned 30 days before arrival in New Zealand, the lack of a big enough dry-dock to sort this out in country is also a factor... particularly when the requirements will extend to coastal shipping in the future..

No contribution from MPI towards a dry dock then..

Yep I read that earlier today. It does make a good case for a large drydock say in New Plymouth or Whangarei, with funding from the Minister of and Champion of the Regions Regional Development Fund of say ~30% NZDF providing 55% and industry the remainder. MPI supplying funding? LOL.

 

[steel jo]

↑
The scariest thing about the Type 31 from a New Zealand perspective is the possibility of this ship replacing the ANZACs... unless it's the Arrowhead 140.
The Arrowhead 140 is the capable option, the Leander is the cheap option. I fear the Leander. It gives me nightmares, I see one with a kiwi on the side and I wake up screaming in a cold sweat. For the sake of the RNZN (and RN) please, please, please select the Arrowhead 140. Thank you. (From RN Forum by BeeGee)


Surely a south korean buy/build must be an option for NZ if the tanker is ok?

 

[Todjaeger]

Surely a south korean buy/build must be an option for NZ if the tanker is ok?

Not necessarily. A great deal will depend on which design gets selected and then the resulting negotiations on IP rights, or possibly even on the initial requirements in the RFP.

From my POV, the potential issues with a S. Korean build would be more related to issues/concerns the designer has about their warship design IP being disseminated. Or IMO more likely, the designer would have a preferred builder or perhaps a list of builders, none of which might be in S. Korea. Using BAE as an example, I could easily see BAE being fairly happy with a Kiwi order for Type 26 or Type 31 frigates, and not really caring if they were produced in a UK or Oz yard owned or run by BAE or a BAE subsidiary. OTOH BAE might not be quite so happy with having either Type 26 or Type 31 frigates built in a foreign shipyard that was not owned/run by a division of BAE, and the yard was not in the country which ordered the build.

 

[KiwiRob]

Ugly looking beasty. I thought he'd have a golf course on it though

We probably could build them bigger, but this one was built in Palmerston North and transported by road about 45 km by road to Foxton Beach for launching.

Google Maps

Alloy Yachts built bigger, so did Fitzroy. Our superyacht industry died after the GFC.

 

[John Fedup]

Superyacht opportunities are somewhat limited now to German yards building for Arab and Russian clients, big boats are too non-PC. The industry needs Li-ion batteries powering high effiency electrical motors even more than naval submarine projects along with vegetable based lubricants, solar panel hulls and superstructures plus windmills for recharging.

Seriously, like NZ, Canada had a few yacht builders that died off after the financial crash. Aluminum tariffs imposed by the US on Canada will finish off a couple of more yards.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

The original RFP for the LOSC had two 25 mm weapons plus HMG. Looking at some of the recent pictures of the Edda Fonn in the shipyard it doesnt look like there are too many spots that 2200 pounds of mount and gun could be located. Is it unreasonable to expect the 25 mm as standard or is this too much for the vessel and its role?


Is there another mount or mounts available in the inventory or would new be required if chosen for installation?

On another point I am assuming the REMUS AUV will be the AUV of choice as it is in service with I believe 4 in total.

 

[hauritz]

↑
The scariest thing about the Type 31 from a New Zealand perspective is the possibility of this ship replacing the ANZACs... unless it's the Arrowhead 140.
The Arrowhead 140 is the capable option, the Leander is the cheap option. I fear the Leander. It gives me nightmares, I see one with a kiwi on the side and I wake up screaming in a cold sweat. For the sake of the RNZN (and RN) please, please, please select the Arrowhead 140. Thank you. (From RN Forum by BeeGee)

Surely a south korean buy/build must be an option for NZ if the tanker is ok?

There will be many options open for NZ circa 2030. I wouldn't dismiss the possibility they might even go the Type 26 route. By then the production lines in Canada, Australia and the UK will be in full swing and it may be possible for NZ to pick up a bargain. One step down will be the US FFG(X) and a whole raft of other Euro designs. I kind of like the look of some of the new Japanese and Korean designs as well.

In a way, the advantage NZ has is that it doesn't have a domestic naval shipbuilding industry to appease so it can just go all out looking for the best value warship available.

 

[ngatimozart]

↑
The scariest thing about the Type 31 from a New Zealand perspective is the possibility of this ship replacing the ANZACs... unless it's the Arrowhead 140.
The Arrowhead 140 is the capable option, the Leander is the cheap option. I fear the Leander. It gives me nightmares, I see one with a kiwi on the side and I wake up screaming in a cold sweat. For the sake of the RNZN (and RN) please, please, please select the Arrowhead 140. Thank you. (From RN Forum by BeeGee)


Surely a south korean buy/build must be an option for NZ if the tanker is ok?

Yes, and they did build the Endeavour as well, but by a different yard. @beegee probably has Uncle Helun (Clark) in his nightmare as well which would drive a man to multiple drinks.

Not necessarily. A great deal will depend on which design gets selected and then the resulting negotiations on IP rights, or possibly even on the initial requirements in the RFP.

From my POV, the potential issues with a S. Korean build would be more related to issues/concerns the designer has about their warship design IP being disseminated. Or IMO more likely, the designer would have a preferred builder or perhaps a list of builders, none of which might be in S. Korea. Using BAE as an example, I could easily see BAE being fairly happy with a Kiwi order for Type 26 or Type 31 frigates, and not really caring if they were produced in a UK or Oz yard owned or run by BAE or a BAE subsidiary. OTOH BAE might not be quite so happy with having either Type 26 or Type 31 frigates built in a foreign shipyard that was not owned/run by a division of BAE, and the yard was not in the country which ordered the build.

The Type 31e Arrowhead 140, is based on the OMT Iver Huitfeld FFG, so yes Babcock, Harland & Wolf et al., would want it built in their yards. However acquiring a license for the Iver Huitfeld design from OMT, fitting it out to NZ specs and building it in a yard of our choice circumvents Babcock et al., as long as we don't slavishly follow their upgrades. As Mr C has pointed out previously on this thread:

No one is talking about going to OMT and asking for a Frigate designed from scratch for NZ. OMT produced an evolved design for SEA 5000 based off the F370 Iver, to be OZ built and iirc was to include dual hangers, greater emphasis on ASW than the original F370 Iver and substantially cheaper than the F100 and Type 26 designs. That may fit the bill.

A further OMT refresh of the RAN Iver proposal for the RNZN should not be shatteringly expensive in terms of billing hours (as naval architects they will make their coin in the royalties, design transfer and licensing of the build). With the hull built and foundational machinery installed in a SK contracted superyard like HHI at Ulsan, with the CMS, radar, sensor, asw, weapons fitout (other than RIM-116 dumped for CAMMS) of the FFG(X) from LM and Raytheon as sole source providers and integrators, it may end up being more expensive than a UK built Type 31e Arrowhead but it would be substantially more capable and close to the performance of the FFG(X) and yet less expensive than the USN platform.

If one looks at the possible future candidate frigate platforms for the RNZN from other 5 Eyes Navies (As the apple will likely not fall too far from the tree) we are left with one of the following:

The Canadian future surface combatant, the UK Type 26 and the RAN Hunter Class. Each of those three will be very expensive and would mean that getting a much needed 3rd Frigate would be much more difficult. Or the USN FFG(X) - cheaper than the first three but still not an inconsiderable cost NZ$1.2B, or the Iver based Type 31e Arrowhead, the cheapest and less capable offering - arguably not quite able to cut the mustard in a highly contested Indo-Pacific region post 2030. Finally the 6th alternative, my tweak on NG's proposal above, a refreshed Iver hull fitted with US sourced MTOS systems, sensors, weapons that substantially mirror the FFG(X) capabilities and can like the Hunter Class and FFG(X) connect, distribute and contribute with and for each other.

The RNZN Anzac Class are now very different than other MEKO 200 hulls out there - the hull and COTS machinery is the basic bit. It is the CMS, sensors, radars, weapons fit out that are widely different, the bespoke part, the business end. Our post FSU Anzacs are closer to the Halifax Class in that regard than the RAN Anzacs. They seem comfortable with that.

Fitted out with something like LRASM, CEC, AEGIS, Sea Ceptor, SM-2 / 6, Combat-SS21 CMS, 2 x 35 mm Millennium guns, towed sonar array MT30 gas turbine, MTU Diesels etc., will make ,as Mr C says, a substantial platform that mirrors the Hunter class capabilities.