Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
Ah thanks for reminding me. I had seen Xavier's report earlier last week and didn't connect the dots, so went back and had another look. It can replenish solids not liquids,
so I stand corrected. In the video below Xavier's report on the BMT ELLIDA vessel starts at 8 minutes.WRT Ellida... not a bad concept but the devil's in the detail, which there doesn't seem to be a lot of. Here's my reckoning... with Tankers and LPDs the key to meeting outputs is bulk... the capacity to deliver bulk fuel & supplies on the one hand and on the other the capacity to deploy sufficient numbers (in bulk) of vehicles. Storage on board of either requires on it's own a considerable percentage of the hull capacity.
So IMHO to do both in one hull they are effectively mutually-exclusive. Either it is a tanker with some vehicle & dock space or it's a LPD with limited fuel delivery capacity... the 195M version may do this better at a pinch, but a down sized version would seriously impact the ability to either well... I'd be concerned it becomes a jack of 2 trades & master of neither! Remember the dock reduces a LPD's internal capacity as well so to have the same lane metres (pure vehicle capacity) as Canterbury the LPD has to most likely be 20-30 metres longer off the bat.
Yes perhaps it'd work as Canterbury's replacement so it works alongside Aotearoa & the new LPD but I'm not sold on a down-sized one.... and I'd still like to see the stats for the 195M version.
EDIT: and then I bother to read the previous properly... ok turns out it isn;t a tanker... certainly the BMT blurb strongly suggested it!
Last edited:
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The Ellida design might be something the RCN should consider as no pollies here will ever support a LHD acquisition. For HADR applications this is likely the best option the RCN could hope for. Unfortunately, we would have to pay extra in order to have it built by SeaSpan.
Would NZ ever consider an Indonesian build? The Indonesians were after 2 or 3 of this type. Possibly with a UK fitout. I feel the Koreans would like to sell you a Korean design.
For NZ type 31e
For NZ type 31e
- 5" /54 mk45 mod 4 upgrade
- 2 x Torpedo launchers
- Some sort of solid state radar (UK/AU/CA would sell you something)
- CMS330(?) Just changed to it, but would be unique to NZ ships.
- I wonder if you would keep a 40mm up front, and a Phalanx out back, or go the twin 40mm route. Old Phalanx units could probably be sold onto Australia.
- 24 Camm be enough? I presume so.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Still think the T31 is a risky choice given the limitations on upgrading due to its size. Given the increasing tensions in the Asia pacific region which will likely get worse in the decades to come, future proofing with a larger design seems reasonable. NZ at least can see how well this ship delivers on its promises as no purchase will occur any time soon. Also, three versions of the T26 will be underway as well. A $500 million ship today might not seem like a bargain 15 years from now.
They've dropped the e from Type 31 recently. No, I don't think we'd go with an Indonesian build, preferring mature and well established shipyards - less risky. That'd be my take on it anyway.
Personally, I think that Phalanx has passed its use by date because the 20 mm calibre is too small now, lacking the range and hitting power to knock down coming missiles far enough away from the ship to limit damage from momentum of the incoming missile, especially if it's a supersonic one. My preference would be for two 35 mm guns with one mounted fo'rd and the other aft above the hangar. Failing that then two 40 mm guns in the same positions. IF we acquired on in the near future i.e., < 10 years, I would probably go with the CMS300, but when replacing the ANZAC frigates, the Combatss-21 CMS would be a far better CMS; both are LM CMS products. I would also think that we would want 24 tactical length Mk-41 VLS, for Sea Ceptor SM2 / 6, AShM and possibly ASROC. The ExLS for extra Sea Ceptor and decoys, plus it has the advantage of being able to easily fitted around the ship, because it doesn't penetrate the deck. Our NZGs of both political persuasions would probably squirm, and squeal at acquiring SM2 / 6, AShM and ASROC, however it doesn't mean that the ships can't be fitted for but not with.
My point for wanting that number of VLS is that the ships can easily integrate with an allied / coalition force and have the capability to have both defensive and offensive weapons systems to contribute to the forces defence and offence capabilities without being a liability. Hand in hand with that, there would have to be a good sensor, computing data networking and comms systems as well. It comes down to having capabilities and platforms that are system of systems within themselves, but also meld seamlessly into a larger system and set of systems contributing >100% to those systems.
What size limitations? It's 6,000 tonnes.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I was under the impression it was considerably smaller, my bad. Still, the T26 has an extra 11 meters in length and the beam has an extra meter. Whether this extra volume is available for expanded kit might not be the case of course. I guess the final sum for 5 ships will be an important factor as to the success of this project as will be the actual T26 project for comparison.
The other significant advantage of the T26 is the ASW capability and 'quiet hull'. Noting the increased number of submarines being aquired by regional powers ASW cannot be undersold. The T31 (if it follows the parent design) will not have rafted machinery and the stated fit is just adequate. True, remotely operated vessels can be carried that would give it an area towed array capacity which would increase effectiveness ... but the T26 can do this and has an immensely capable mulit static ASW suite.
It really comes down to the percieved threat. The UK can work with this as they have 8 T26 on order, however, if the T31 (or similar cheaper unit) was purchased ny NZ as the sole frigate type then that will be their ASW capability. It would not be possible to retrofit the machinery rafting (it can be fitted at build as there is space and weight for it) and a significant systems upgrade to improve ASW capability will not be easy. At the end of the day it comes down to the RNZN and NZ government setting their priorities but once they have they are pretty well stuck with it.....
Decision made now will have to consider likely changes to the external environment.
Last edited:
I agree about the rafting of the machinery but unlike Australia, NZ is looking at a GP frigate rather than a specialised variant. The build can include the machinery rafting, low band hull and a towed array sonar, plus a good ASuW and AAW capability. With that, we would still have a good quality frigate for a cost that is somewhat less than the T26. Interestingly the USN & RN speak highly of both the Iver Huitfeldt and Absalon classes, so I wouldn't be overly concerned that it doesn't meet with some Australians approval. IF it is chosen by the NZG, it'll be serving in the RNZN to carry out NZG policy objectives, not in the RAN.
Yes I agree, you would have a good frigate with those modifications but you would get it at a greatly increased price, rafting machinery is an hideously expensive exercise with huge ramifications to ship services, pipework et al.
Size is also an issue for NZ. I would presume that you would wish to keep all sustainment work, including dockings in house so that would entail either the modification to Devonport or purchase of a floating dock or is there an alternative which the T31 equipped RNZN could use?
The dock at DNB is the largest in NZ, from memory, but there has been a push by industry for a large dock to be established somewhere within NZ. Picton was one suggested location. I don't think that DNB has any room for further expansion of the dock. The dock is leased by Babcock from the RNZN. The current preference appears to be for a floating dock.
Rafting being expensive would be par for course and whilst we would prefer it for obvious reasons, the pollies don't think like we do unfortunately. We'll just have to wait and see what happens. There are a minimum of 4 elections between now and 2030, and a lot can and will happen between now and then.
And right on cue, in today's online NZ Herald: Devonport dry dock eyed by Government for possible shift to Northport
Just in case you don't have a premium subscription here's the core text:
The Government is investigating shifting the Devonport dry dock to Whangarei waters as part of its considerations on relocating the Ports of Auckland operations to Northland.
Associate Finance and Regional Economic Development Minister Shane Jones said the Government had allocated several million dollars to Northport for a commercial analysis on the costs of creating a drydock near Whangarei.
"We are keen to see if there is some scope for relocation of the dry dock."
The ship repair and maintenance dock at the Devonport Naval Base is owned by the Ministry of Defence.
Jones said the dry dock was a valuable facility "but no longer fit for purpose".
A Defence spokesman has confirmed Jones' understanding that the dry dock cannot service naval vessel the HMNZS Canterbury or the new KiwiRail ferries. It will not be able to service the new ship the HMNZS Aotearoa when it arrives in New Zealand in April. All these vessels are too big for the dry dock.
The facility has been leased to Babcock Australasia, part of the global aerospace and defence company Babcock, or its legacy companies, since 1994.
No-one from Northport, a deep water commercial port at Marsden Point near Whangarei, would comment on anything about the commercial study, citing a non-disclosure agreement imposed by the Government.
Northport is 50 per cent owned by the listed Port of Tauranga, and 50 per cent by Marsden Maritime. The Ports of Auckland has a nearly 20 per cent stake in Marsden Maritime, which is majority-owned by the Northland Regional Council.
Port of Tauranga chief executive Mark Cairns declined to comment, citing a confidentiality agreement.
The total Devonport Naval Base is 22 hectares and has a land value of $134.7 million, said CoreLogic. The dry dock is about one third of the total area.
Babcock, which is believed to be open to working at Northport, has been approached for comment.
The dry dock, the official name of which is the Calliope Graving Dock, named for its location at the foot of Calliope Point, was the largest dock in the Southern Hemisphere when it opened in 1888.
Defence records say the Navy purchased it in 1986. The last modifications to the facility were in 1996 to accommodate ANZAC-class frigates.
>>> the article then goes off on another tangent...
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
But Nelson port recently won an deal to expand its port to up to 230 metres,which gives us another option too, if someone can post he link?
A quick perusal of Nelson’s facilities and industrial capacity doesn’t indicate that it would be suitable for a major fleet base.
Surely Northport is more suitable.
Port of Nelson (New Zealand): Information and Characteristics
Port Nelson. Nelson Tasman region gateway to the world
I would agree that Whangarei would be better suited than Nelson. Plenty of deep water near the oil refinery and heaps of room onshore for facilities expansion. Nelson is hemmed in and would require reclamation works.
@ASSAIL Nelson's a good port for a run ashore
The RNZN has 6 chefs, 3 stewards, 1 weapons technician and 1 electronics technician deployed aboard HMS Queen Elizabeth for OP WESTLANT 19 at the request of the RN to help alleviate a RN shortage of support personnel. The deployment is for 4 months and will be a great experience for the personnel involved. Little bit of jealousy on my part
Navy Today September 2019
Navy Today September 2019
May only need rafting/insulation on one set of engines. I think they will get reasonable capability out of it if it is selected.
Subs are likely to be a significant threat going into the future, but given the budget one I think NZ will handle with their cheaper frigates and dismounts and aircraft. Australia would appreciate any significant capability being sought by NZ. Australia clearly wanted the deluxe anti-submarine capability, it was one of the key design considerations for the Hunters. Its entirely possible it a type 31 would exceed AWD ASW capabilities. As an Australian I would be wrapped if NZ decided to acquire 3 x type 31's with surface and subsurface capability. I think most in the ADF and the AusGov would think the same. Australia's ship building plan does not depend on NZ buying or partnering on any program. Doesn't mean we won't put in an offer for a build.
Awww.. not even sometimes? I think the Anzac program leaves a bitter taste for many a Kiwi. But I do think its much more likely that the NZ replacement frigates will be operating in and around the south pacific region, while Australia's "frigates" are more likely to go into the South China Sea, the Gulf, and other heavily contested spaces, in the back yard of peer adversaries.
I still think the NZ gov will be put off by the size of the Type 31 and would prefer something much, much smaller, cheaper and more OPV like.
Even so, the UK will manage T26/T31 combined fleet, so I can't imagine Australia and NZ balancing their needs and wants with what they have will be too difficult.[/QUOTE]