kiwipatriot69
Active Member
Just out of curiosity, what ,if any, ice protection would Hmnzs manuwanui have, I'd imagine a former Norwegian vessel such as this would have a high level of durability,would be more so than the Ops we currently have?
Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
While you are correct that they can go further in ice conditions the point I was trying to make is that it is of little use as the established pack ice is too thick and to get anywhere useful you have to be able to master the established pack ice. For instance to get to Mcmurdo or Scott you need a full blown Icebreaker and that applies to the vast majority of the Antarctic coast, There is almost no where USEFUL that a HDW can go that a normal ice strengthened cannot and I would not consider being able to skirt in and out of the edges of the pack ice useful. Any possible target ships be they fishing or whaling won't be strong enough to go there either. If we want our presents felt in a solo effort to stake our claims, we would need a proper icebreaker.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Like Canada, both types of vessels should be in the NZ fleet. As our and NZ’s pollies tend to short change CG and naval services, bad outcomes are most likely. I have serious doubts as to whether Canada will ever renew our heavy icebreaker fleet. Junior talks a big line on the green house warming threat but you can bet your last dollar he sees CO2 emissions as an excuse to ignore heavies.
Depends what you mean by a "proper icebreaker". Those are exceptionally expensive. The HDW is as capable as theAurora Australis, for example, and even Australia's new icebreaker Nuyina is limited to a maximum of 1.65m of ice at 3 knots continuous (and is rumoured to cost $1Billion AUS). Correct me if I'm wrong but both those vessels visit those locations you mention above, and don't seem to have any real problems doing so. It should be noted that of Canada's 19 currently active ice breakers, only 6 are rated higher than PC5. One meter of ice is actually quite a lot, and represents the thickest you are likely to encounter for about 7 months of the year in the Arctic. Also remember that the rating is continuous. These ships can deal with thicker ice as well for short periods of time. The HDW has a PC 4 rated bow, and can smash though ice up to 2 m thick, though not continuously.
As @ngatimozart points out above, the HDW will allow you to get places you can't get now, earlier, and for longer, and so represents a good compromise. And, at a through-life cost of $400 million (CAN), is actually a pretty good deal. And, HDW may not be able to get you into the most remote and ice-bound parts of Antarctica, but she would still be able to patrol around the periphery all year round, thus denying other vessels access, which is the point, really, of such a vessel.
Is it? You are attempting to argue semantics without an adequate understanding or knowledge of naval operating procedures, ship handling, the cryosphere or more specifically in this case polar ice, ice shelves, ice flows and oceanography. Also define a normal ice strengthened ship. From the material posted by myself and Alexsa you will note that in fact there are many different classes of ice strengthened ships from those with minimal, such as the Protector Class OPV to full on icebreaking. @Rob c just to reinforce Calculus's reply from my research, IIRC the ice thickness into McMurdo during the summer is about 2m of new ice.
Yes although I believe that the ice climate in the Arctic is different to the Antarctic because the Antarctic ice shelves are fed from fast moving ice sheets off an an ice cap that is, from memory, 4km thick at the pole. There is also evidence that whilst some of the the ice shelves may be increasing in area, they are decreasing in thickness and their feet are retreating as they (feet / toes on the sea floor) melt due to warmer water being circulated within the lower component of the water column.
The HDW would be a great platform for the RNZN and NZ Inc offering far greater capability than the current Protector Class OPV does in the Southern Ocean and Antarctic Ocean.
Antarctic supply vessels have to be able to break ice continuously as you will be severely limited in when and where you can resupply and be required to drag across the ice any supplies basically making it not fit for purpose. Antarctic ice is different from Arctic ice. You are only really aiming to break through 1 year of ice in Antarctica, no ship is going to carve through a glacier a kilometer thick, any older ice, multiyear or residual ice is strictly no go zone and starts at 2 m thick and goes up.. Plus you need to make reasonable speed why breaking ice, and there is limited backup if you get stuck out there. Almost all the sea ice that forms in Antarctica in winter melts and floats away in summer. The ice breaking allows earlier resupply of the base, and safer and later exit from the base. And to do its experiments.
The MV Xue Long - Wikipedia which gotten to 88.2 north the Artic (2010) got stuck in Antarctica ice in fairly mild conditions (2012). They also ran into some heavier ice...
There are also other considerations than the ice thickness, the southern waters are particularly testing in terms of sea-keeping.
Australia also doesn't need year round access to Antarctica, AFAIK no one operates icebreakers in the winter. Australia is also building a 3km long paved Antarctic runway, so year round access will be provided by that by a319 and C17's.
RSV Nuyina is an extremely high spec vessel. It has aspects of its specifications like a high end ASW combatant, research and science vessel, resupply vessel and ice breaker. Its not just an icesmasher. Its designed to handle sea states above 9 (or 9 plus wave height), and Beaufort 12 winds or greater. Temperatures -30 +45 degrees Celsius. It can operated science and deploy experiments in seastate 5. I believe the billion dollar cost is throughout its entire lifetime.
NZ really probably needs to look at what it needs and partnerships with other nations. Australia has massive plans, and the US has massive resources. Something to do summer patrols might be completely appropriate. Sea keeping and capability might be greater priorities than ability to break ice.
The MV Xue Long - Wikipedia which gotten to 88.2 north the Artic (2010) got stuck in Antarctica ice in fairly mild conditions (2012). They also ran into some heavier ice...
There are also other considerations than the ice thickness, the southern waters are particularly testing in terms of sea-keeping.
Australia also doesn't need year round access to Antarctica, AFAIK no one operates icebreakers in the winter. Australia is also building a 3km long paved Antarctic runway, so year round access will be provided by that by a319 and C17's.
RSV Nuyina is an extremely high spec vessel. It has aspects of its specifications like a high end ASW combatant, research and science vessel, resupply vessel and ice breaker. Its not just an icesmasher. Its designed to handle sea states above 9 (or 9 plus wave height), and Beaufort 12 winds or greater. Temperatures -30 +45 degrees Celsius. It can operated science and deploy experiments in seastate 5. I believe the billion dollar cost is throughout its entire lifetime.
NZ really probably needs to look at what it needs and partnerships with other nations. Australia has massive plans, and the US has massive resources. Something to do summer patrols might be completely appropriate. Sea keeping and capability might be greater priorities than ability to break ice.
Last edited:
Why do you suppose this. This vessel is declared as a Special Purpsoe Ship but ... like many Norwegian vessels .. I suspect the vessel does not comply with the Special Purpose Ship (SPS) code as they have not ratified it. But the will still declare the vessel as an SPS vessel and rely on the relaxations in the SPS code with regard to carrying extra bodies (as special purpsoe personnel) without complying with the structure, LSA and stability requirements such relaxations rely upon. It is a source of irritation to some regulators.
You should never assume.
As far as I can tell she would be DNV ICE C (as opposed to 1C) making her a C class vessel under the Polar Code. It means she can handle light ice with the assistance of a breaker when necessary.
The Question I was asking, is with a maximum ability of 1.2m in new ice what logically can the HWD really contribute when your own figures say that there is a min of 2m of ice at Macmurdo
The question I am asking here is what are these places lets be a little more specific, as for the semantics I am not the one dragging out figures which fail to answer the basic question as to why is it better how well will it fulfill its basic function of patrolling the southern ocean . The other point that is ignored is that when senior naval officers have stated that shorter vessels in the southern ocean are a problem, why would we go and get a shorter vessel when we know it will spend the vast majority of its time patrolling in the open water of the southern ocean. I would have assumed that the first priority would be to have a vessel that fulfills its basic function to a high standard firstly and then if you can with the money add the extras. I did hear a rumor the RNZN had an incident on a protector in the southern ocean that could have caused the loss of the ship in the extreme weather of the time. I do stress that it was a rumor . The other point I think is valid is that due to the very large area that we are responsible for is that we need a ship with a reasonably fast transit speed to enable it to get quickly between contacts and for this higher transit speed you also are better off with a longer vessel.
If you looked at the specs for the HDW you will note that it's bow is spec'd to PC4 so it can bash through 2m ice as per Calculas's reply if you bothered to read it in full. Why do you require a longer vessel for a higher transit speed? Do you understand the concept of hull speed? The KDW is not shorter than the Protector Class OPV it being 18m longer. In fact I suspect that it's hull length at the waterline maybe even longer than the 18m difference. Secondly, high transit speeds chew through fuel reducing range and time on station - tends to play havoc with fuel economy. If a suspicious contact is located then that is different and speed becomes a necessity, hence the ship will proceed to intercept at the fastest speed possible. Ships Charlie Oscar will determine that speed based on his / her knowledge, skill and experience.
You are not providing actual proof apart from overheard conversations and rumours, which cannot be verified. Now come back with verifiable evidence to support your claims and maybe we have something to discuss.
Having served in both the RNZAF & RNZN, sailors aren't as soft as airmen and are used to being at sea, chasing their scran (food) across the mess table during Officer Of the Watch (OOW) manouevres (for some reason always held at meal time - bloody officers
) or during roughers and dealing with all that Tangaroa (Neptune) throws at us. How many times in your service career did you stand night watches or pull night duty? My time in the RNZAF it was only when I volunteered for guard duty and duty Cpl. In the RNZN it was everytime aboard ship or I went to sea - 1 watch on 2 watches off 24/7 and during the day we still worked in our off watches. If alongside the watches were 1 day on 2 days off and unless on leave, you worked the off watch days and had the evenings nights off. Not like the RNZAF where it basically was 0800 - 1700 Mon - Fri with weekends, off unless night flying was on or aircraft AOG requiring urgent repair.This will be what is being referred to: Navy ship in capsize near-miss with 75 on board
This was written well before Mark became Minister of Defence or the most recent DCP was published so what he's being quoted as saying in the article with regard to capability needs to be possibly tempered with what the DCP has outlined since - which is actually light on detail.
A bit of politicking in that I think; I’ve been visiting the far Southern Ocean on and off since the early 1970s, and my admittedly subjective assessment is that the weather down that way is marginally less bad than it was 50 years ago.
As for heavy weather seamanship, Assail’s an expert and I’m not, but it seems to me that close to capsize is unlikely in a well found ship well handled even in the circumstances described, although you probably had to be there. I wonder if it was the COs first trip to the area?
As for heavy weather seamanship, Assail’s an expert and I’m not, but it seems to me that close to capsize is unlikely in a well found ship well handled even in the circumstances described, although you probably had to be there. I wonder if it was the COs first trip to the area?
Last edited:
I clearly stated that the statement was rumor twice so it would only be taken as that. My personal view is that unless a HDW can cut a path for Aotearoa, which unless the ice is at its minimum it clearly cannot why would you want to go there in the first place. Mind you global warming may change that. The basic requirement will be for the southern ocean patrol ship will be to hunt wrongdoing in the southern ocean were it will be in some of the worst sea conditions on the planet and will met some ice flows. I agree with you regarding how a intercept speed will be arrived at, however higher speed may be required from time to time as suggested by the protectors speed requirement. I do understand what hull speed is about as it is a fairly simple concept (the formula is. hull speed in knots equals 1.34 times the square root of the waterline length in feet (HS = 1.34 x √LWL) ) as this equates to the the length of the wave created by the boat when it equals the length of the boat and if the boat tries to go faster it basically is trying to climb uphill on its bow wave. I have owned boats and sold the last one a few months ago as it was at 5.7m getting to big and me too bloody old. however these were not displacement hulls. The question still remains as to how would an HDW types ice capability be usefully used on a regular basis to make it viable as its normal targets in the southern ocean won't normally be capable of penetrating the pack ice.
I understand that the Heavy Icebreaker USCG Polar Star as usual will be the pathfinder for Aotearoa through the Ross Sea at the head and tail of the summer research season. Furthermore, I suspect that the SOPV may require somewhat decent ice capability as though the Aotearoa is the primary logistics vessel to the Ross Sea over summer, the SOPV may provide a back-up if the Aotearoa is required to support a NZDF taskforce.
I was thinking the same.
Provided you maintain control, forget your plans for required speed and direction and put the ship on the most comfortable/surviveable course and speed there shouldn’t be extreme risk. If control is lost through either poor handling or rogue seas a situation could arise.
I have had a PB on her beam ends during a cyclone when trying to leave harbour but a quick change of plan allowed a difficult but safe few hours.
I'll have to try & find sources but I've read somewhere (1) as expected Aotearoa will follow USCG Polar Star into the berth (2) Aotearoa expected to only do an Antarctic delivery voyage every 2nd year which surprised me at the time, but given (I expect) she will primarily only be doing fuel delivery & maybe returning waste oil then once every 2 years is probably understandable. I am assuming she'll mainly do fuel runs as she has a very limited TEU capacity.
Given the SOPV is expected to be capable of RAS from Aotearoa the latter will likely venture into the Southern Ocean to support SOPV each year each then presumably only do a re-supply mission every other year.
A valid question, perhaps, but one that is best put to the RNZN directly. One would have to assume that the RNZN brass have a valid reason to ask for such a capability (SOPV), and also that if they thought they needed an ice breaker they would have asked for that as well. The SOPV requirement, if I am understanding this correctly, is for an ice-capable patrol vessel, for use in the SO, at a cost of $300-600 Million. The consensus here in this forum was the HDW design is a good fit, from both a cost and capability perspective, for the RNZN's SOPV requirement. This was not a discussion about the merits of having an ice breaker, of which there very well may be some. I would like to point out that this concept (ice-strengthened polar-region patrol ship) is validated by the fact that the Russians are currently building a similar vessel, which is very similar to the HDW in concept, though larger and more capable still (Project 23550 patrol ship - Wikipedia).
Last edited:
Another reason the RNZN might want an SOPV with enhanced ice capabilities is for search and rescue operations. We in Canada have seen a sharp rise in the number of ships (including cruise ships) that are transiting the Arctic during the late Spring and Summer months, and there have been accidents already (https://www.highnorthnews.com/en/arctic-cruise-ship-runs-aground-canadas-northwest-passage[URL]https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/cruise-ship-clipper-adventurer-nunavut-judgement-1.3973937[/URL]). The RCN has stated publicly that the AOPVs will be fitted out to assist with such operations.
An ice strengthened patrol ship makes huge sense, but to assume RNZN asked for such in the first instance may not be the case. Govt sets the direction for Defence and in all probability the earlier OPV were Govt level responses in relation to the heat on them by other parties (domestic & other Antarctic treaty partners) relating to issues like well publicised toothfish poaching & growing concerns about territorial claims and resources etc. I don't doubt that RNZN would've been involved in discussions about how best to increase Southern Ocean patrol & SAR coverage, but I have a gut-feel the SOPV is purely a RNZN request as the result of limits on current OPV performance in the S.O. and therefore RNZN will simply be looking to provide the same roles with the SOPV as they do with the OPV. AFAIK there hasn't been any open suggestion by Govt or RNZN about the need for anything other than a patrol vessel. However I certainly wouldn't say no to something like a HDW in the RNZN. The DCP does say it will be civ-spec with minimal specialised military capability.
May as well place the SOPV in the context of the DCP19
The delivery of a specialised Southern Ocean Patrol Vessel will allow for fisheries patrols to monitor a greater area of the Southern Ocean. With the ability to refuel at sea from HMNZS Aotearoa, this vessel will also improve the ability of the Defence Force to maintain fisheries patrol throughout the fishing season. pg9, DCP19
Preserving the Southern Ocean and New Zealand’s marine living resources
81. In the coming years it is likely that a range of factors will lead to an increase in resource competition, impacting on access to and sustainability of marine resources in New Zealand, the Pacific, and the Southern Ocean. Pg14 - DCP19
82. An opportunity exists for New Zealand to better support the sustainability of marine resources in the Southern Ocean and in New Zealand’s Exclusive Economic Zone. Monitoring and mitigating the effects of climate change will also require continued support to New Zealand’s civilian presence in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean. Pg14 - DCP19
83. Towards these ends this Defence Capability Plan 2019 includes the delivery of a dedicated Southern Ocean Patrol Vessel. The capabilities of this vessel will be primarily for use towards supporting other agencies in the Southern Ocean and around New Zealand. Built to commercial specifications, the vessel will have minimal specialist military capabilities. Pg14 - DCP19 (Obviously complying with the Antarctic Treaty 1961)
84. This vessel will be used by Defence alongside other Government agencies in the Southern Ocean and the waters of New Zealand, allowing the Otago Class
offshore patrol vessels, and their eventual replacements, to focus on the South Pacific. Pg14 - DCP19
85. While the operation of this vessel will be Defence-led, it will be able to support non-Defence functions including the gathering of scientific data. Pg14 - DCP19
(NIWA, DOC & Antarctic New Zealand would be obvious candidates)
118.2 Offshore Patrol Vessels – the coincidence of the summer fishing season in the Southern Ocean, and the cyclone season in the Pacific creates demands on the two Offshore Patrol Vessels that often exceed the capacity of a two ship fleet; Pg20 - DCP19
Southern Ocean Patrol Vessel
193. The Navy’s existing patrol capabilities are not able to meet the changing requirements of New Zealand’s maritime domain. The inshore and offshore patrol vessel have provided significant value during their service lives, but are increasingly operationally limited as the ships age and regulations evolve. With expectations to operate with increasing frequency in the South Pacific and the Southern Ocean, the existing vessels do not provide the optimal fleet for our maritime domain. Pg32 - DCP19
194. Acquisition of a Southern Ocean Patrol Vessel will occur in the mid-2020s. The new vessel will provide dedicated patrol capabilities to other Government agencies within New Zealand’s sovereign waters and the Southern Ocean. Built to commercial standards, the vessel will significantly increase the level of capability and safety for operations in the Southern Ocean, allowing for a broader patrol area and the ability to stay within fishing grounds for greater durations. This will allow the remaining offshore patrol vessels greater capacity to respond in the Pacific. Pg32 - DCP19