Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Sailors drug dealing at Devonport Naval Base uncovered by test cheating inquiry

Sailors drug dealing at Devonport Naval Base uncovered by test cheating inquiry

Oh bugger... !
Not just the RNZN. Three RNZAF airmen have been up before a Courts Martial for the same offences last week. One received 85 days in the Services Corrective Establishment at Burnham Military Camp followed by a dishonourable discharge. Haven't heard what the other two have got yet. Stupid boys.
 

At lakes

Well-Known Member
DEFENSE STUDIES: ST Engineering Positions Endurance 170 for Potential Overseas Customer

ST Engineering displayed a model of their Endurance 170 at the Singapore Air Show " a senior representative of the company, who prefers not to be named, clarified that the product was conceived in response to a potential contest overseas". I have read articles about several potential customers including Malaya and even Indonesia. Its known that Singapore is interested in this sort of vessel and the New Zealand DCP stated that the RNZN should acquire a similar capability in the mid to late 20's. Question. Is the RNZN gearing up to issue a RFI on a potential contest in the near future?. I would think that the capability offered by this vessel would be ideal for the RNZN.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
DEFENSE STUDIES: ST Engineering Positions Endurance 170 for Potential Overseas Customer

ST Engineering displayed a model of their Endurance 170 at the Singapore Air Show " a senior representative of the company, who prefers not to be named, clarified that the product was conceived in response to a potential contest overseas". .
Thanks for sharing this article on the Endurance 170 design that competed to meet UAE’s requirements in 2017 — ST Marine teamed up with local UAE shipyard ADSB to propose an LHD design to the UAE Navy. This design did not win a contract.
I have read articles about several potential customers including Malaya and even Indonesia..
There is slim to zero chance of Malaysia or Indonesia adopting this design. The Indonesians will support their local industry designs.

The Malaysians under Dr M have needlessly engaged in multiple acts of hostility. For background, on 25 Oct 2018, Malaysia unilaterally and arbitrarily extended the Johor Bahru Port Limits. This is over and above Malaysia’s 1979 map that extended the boundary lines of Malaysian territorial waters to both the east and west of Singapore, and intruded on Singapore’s port limits. Apart from the fact that Singapore has never accepted their 1979 territorial claims, the Oct 2018 purported extension of the Johor Bahru Port Limits goes beyond what even Malaysia itself claimed as its territorial waters. Out of the blue, Malaysia is claiming these territorial waters that belong to Singapore. On 5 Nov 2018, Singapore issued a Third Person Note (TPN) via demarche. Singapore also issued a second TPN via demarche on 29 Nov 2018 to protest the Port Circular and Notice to Mariners.

Airspace management over southern Johor also came into the spotlight on 4 Dec 2018, after Singapore and Malaysia traded conflicting views over the issue. Under the current arrangement, management of the airspace over southern Johor is delegated to Singapore, meaning that Singapore provides air traffic control services in that airspace. This arrangement was agreed upon in 1973 by Malaysia, Singapore and other regional states, and subsequently approved by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). A bilateral agreement was then signed between Malaysia and Singapore in 1974. As expected, Malaysia says it now wants to reclaim this "delegated airspace." Some Malaysian politicians in power are testing for resolve and think that they can win as hostile neighbours. Bersatu are mistaken to think that they can unify Malaysia by making enemies of their neighbours and their failure at governance must be shown up. As such, Dr M will not consider buying naval vessels from Singapore (as he needs to rally Malaysians an imagined external threat).
DCP stated that the RNZN should acquire a similar capability in the mid to late 20's. Question. Is the RNZN gearing up to issue a RFI on a potential contest in the near future?. I would think that the capability offered by this vessel would be ideal for the RNZN.
This topic was discussed a while ago in this thread — the RFI is likely to be much later. But I caution that while the JMMS requirement from Singapore is firm, but the size of the ship and fitting out details have yet to be defined. Currently, ST Marine have started design work on the MRCV (likely based on the Vanguard 130 design) which is the project on hand — the aim is to have the first ship in the water by the end of 2025.

Beyond technical considerations, at this stage there are strategic ones (eg. alignment of National Interests, enhancing navy to navy relations for training and support following from a down-select of a 2030 design and what would be ‘given’ free under existing defence agreements). This includes the Enhanced Partnership was launched through a Joint Declaration by PM Jacinda Ardern and PM Lee Hsien Loong in May 2019. If ST Marine is able to win the NZDF contract in the mid-2020s for an additional sealift vessel as required under DCP 2o19 (likely based on the JMMS design, which could be based on the Endurance 160 or 170 design), they may have a chance to bid for the replacements for the ANZAC class.

Let me extract parts of the 2019 DCP, below for ease of reference:

“....Recognising the high value of sealift to humanitarian and disaster relief, and the sustain-ment of deployed forces, in the mid-2020s an additional sealift vessel will be acquired. Operating alongside HMNZS Canterbury, this acquisition will provide two sealift vessels, and will greatly improve the effectiveness of the Defence Force, and the resilience of the nation, and the region.
  • The enhanced sealift vessel will have greater lift capacity than HMNZS Canterbury. The capability will provide a highly flexible military asset, including hospital facilities, planning spaces, and self-defence capabilities. It will also provide support for the deployment of a range of capabilities, including Special Forces, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and NH90 helicopters. The enhanced sealift capability will also improve the New Zealand Defence Force’s amphibious operations. Through the provision of a well dock, it will be able to conduct operations in a wider range of sea conditions, and will have the size and capacity to carry large equipment, and sufficient aviation capacity to allow extended, long duration operations. Its size will also provide for the transport of a larger number of personnel, allowing for the value of the increased size of the New Zealand Army to be realised.
TBH, I don't think we'd go with a large gun on an LHD. However if we did, it wouldn't be a 76 mm because the shell is to light for NGS, and we'd be introducing a new calibre into the RNZN. The 5" would be the gun that would be chosen because of commonality with the frigates and the heavier weight of the shell, plus the fact that the 5" gun now has Excalibur shell options. Personally, I'd replace the large gun mount with a 35 mm Millennium gun, plus another one down aft above the flyco, along with a VLS for Sea Ceptor and SSM.

View attachment 46637

This is illustration of RNZN E-170 I did a whiles back.
Use the above post by ngatimozart to go page 347 for the prior discussion. Really excited that it is possible for ST Marine to compete and possibly meet this requirement for the NZDF; and to be given an opportunity to deliver further customization according to needs.
 
Last edited:

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The enhanced sealift vessel will have greater lift capacity than HMNZS Canterbury. The capability will provide a highly flexible military asset, including hospital facilities, planning spaces, and self-defence capabilities.
I have a horrible feeling that the self defence capabilities are more likely to be the "fitted for but not with" type knowing what our governments, irrespective of whether red or blue are likely to budget for. My own opinion is that "fitted for and not with" is a waste of time unless the weapons are available at base to be able to quickly fit and that is not likely in our case.
 

Nighthawk.NZ

Well-Known Member
"fitted for and not with" is a waste of time unless the weapons are available at base to be able to quickly fit and that is not likely in our case.
And if they are there at the base then why not just fit them on the ship and save the storage space... and give the crew the training with the weapon systems... get them to know the system ie; the firing arc on the vessel, get it tested before you actually need only to find something is not compatible or there isn't actually the room... or, oh crap we forgot the red wire, or holy shit an extra 6.5 tonne + on the bow of a ship does affect how it handles...???

Like, everyone, I have never believed in the Fitted but not with concept.
 
Last edited:

swerve

Super Moderator
I have a horrible feeling that the self defence capabilities are more likely to be the "fitted for but not with" type knowing what our governments, irrespective of whether red or blue are likely to budget for. My own opinion is that "fitted for and not with" is a waste of time unless the weapons are available at base to be able to quickly fit and that is not likely in our case.
That's what Stanflex is all about. A module not on a ship is being refurbished (easier to schedule refits), or stored. A ship puts to sea without module X because it has module Y instead, or it's doing peacetime stuff where X is thought not necessary. And when a ship goes into refit all its serviceable modules are available for other ships, instead of being out of action for as long as the ship.

Not always weapons, BTW.
 

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
And if they are there at the base then why not just fit them on the ship and save the storage space... and give the crew the training with the weapon systems... get them to know the system ie; the firing arc on the vessel, get it tested before you actually need only to find something is not compatible or there isn't actually the room... or, oh crap we forgot the red wire, or holy shit an extra 6.5 tonne + on the bow of a ship does affect how it handles...???

Like, everyone, I have never believed in the Fitted but not with concept.
The fitted for but not with is ok if you have the units in the first place as in some cases this will save a significant amount of maintenance by not being exposed to the elements and the exposed position of the phalanx on Aotearoa would be an example of this, that is if they had a mount to fit, which it appears they don't.
That's what Stanflex is all about. A module not on a ship is being refurbished (easier to schedule refits), or stored. A ship puts to sea without module X because it has module Y instead, or it's doing peacetime stuff where X is thought not necessary. And when a ship goes into refit all its serviceable modules are available for other ships, instead of being out of action for as long as the ship.

Not always weapons, BTW.
This is all very well if you have module X or Y which in our case we seldom do. The original quote was in regard to the possibility of the projected logistics ship having a self defence capability which in the current political climate would likely be a "Fitted for but not with" arrangement without anything being available to fit which is not really at all about Stanflex.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I have a horrible feeling that the self defence capabilities are more likely to be the "fitted for but not with" type knowing what our governments, irrespective of whether red or blue are likely to budget for. My own opinion is that "fitted for and not with" is a waste of time unless the weapons are available at base to be able to quickly fit and that is not likely in our case.
Adding a few flex-mounted 12.7mm guns is technically a ‘self-defence’ capability.

Using such language gives them plenty of wiggle-room to address budgetary pressure / political ideological concerns as necessary...
 

kiwipatriot69

Active Member
Thanks for sharing this article on the Endurance 170 design that competed to meet UAE’s requirements in 2017 — ST Marine teamed up with local UAE shipyard ADSB to propose an LHD design to the UAE Navy. This design did not win a contract.

There is slim to zero chance of Malaysia or Indonesia adopting this design. The Indonesians will support their local industry designs.

The Malaysians under Dr M have needlessly engaged in multiple acts of hostility. For background, on 25 Oct 2018, Malaysia unilaterally and arbitrarily extended the Johor Bahru Port Limits. This is over and above Malaysia’s 1979 map that extended the boundary lines of Malaysian territorial waters to both the east and west of Singapore, and intruded on Singapore’s port limits. Apart from the fact that Singapore has never accepted their 1979 territorial claims, the Oct 2018 purported extension of the Johor Bahru Port Limits goes beyond what even Malaysia itself claimed as its territorial waters. Out of the blue, Malaysia is claiming these territorial waters that belong to Singapore. On 5 Nov 2018, Singapore issued a Third Person Note (TPN) via demarche. Singapore also issued a second TPN via demarche on 29 Nov 2018 to protest the Port Circular and Notice to Mariners.

Airspace management over southern Johor also came into the spotlight on 4 Dec 2018, after Singapore and Malaysia traded conflicting views over the issue. Under the current arrangement, management of the airspace over southern Johor is delegated to Singapore, meaning that Singapore provides air traffic control services in that airspace. This arrangement was agreed upon in 1973 by Malaysia, Singapore and other regional states, and subsequently approved by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). A bilateral agreement was then signed between Malaysia and Singapore in 1974. As expected, Malaysia says it now wants to reclaim this "delegated airspace." Some Malaysian politicians in power are testing for resolve and think that they can win as hostile neighbours. Bersatu are mistaken to think that they can unify Malaysia by making enemies of their neighbours and their failure at governance must be shown up. As such, Dr M will not consider buying naval vessels from Singapore (as he needs to rally Malaysians an imagined external threat).

This topic was discussed a while ago in this thread — the RFI is likely to be much later. But I caution that while the JMMS requirement from Singapore is firm, but the size of the ship and fitting out details have yet to be defined. Currently, ST Marine have started design work on the MRCV (likely based on the Vanguard 130 design) which is the project on hand — the aim is to have the first ship in the water by the end of 2025.

Beyond technical considerations, at this stage there are strategic ones (eg. alignment of National Interests, enhancing navy to navy relations for training and support following from a down-select of a 2030 design and what would be ‘given’ free under existing defence agreements). This includes the Enhanced Partnership was launched through a Joint Declaration by PM Jacinda Ardern and PM Lee Hsien Loong in May 2019. If ST Marine is able to win the NZDF contract in the mid-2020s for an additional sealift vessel as required under DCP 2o19 (likely based on the JMMS design, which could be based on the Endurance 160 or 170 design), they may have a chance to bid for the replacements for the ANZAC class.

Let me extract parts of the 2019 DCP, below for ease of reference:

“....Recognising the high value of sealift to humanitarian and disaster relief, and the sustain-ment of deployed forces, in the mid-2020s an additional sealift vessel will be acquired. Operating alongside HMNZS Canterbury, this acquisition will provide two sealift vessels, and will greatly improve the effectiveness of the Defence Force, and the resilience of the nation, and the region.
  • The enhanced sealift vessel will have greater lift capacity than HMNZS Canterbury. The capability will provide a highly flexible military asset, including hospital facilities, planning spaces, and self-defence capabilities. It will also provide support for the deployment of a range of capabilities, including Special Forces, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and NH90 helicopters. The enhanced sealift capability will also improve the New Zealand Defence Force’s amphibious operations. Through the provision of a well dock, it will be able to conduct operations in a wider range of sea conditions, and will have the size and capacity to carry large equipment, and sufficient aviation capacity to allow extended, long duration operations. Its size will also provide for the transport of a larger number of personnel, allowing for the value of the increased size of the New Zealand Army to be realised.

Use the above post by ngatimozart to go page 347 for the prior discussion. Really excited that it is possible for ST Marine to compete and possibly meet this requirement for the NZDF; and to be given an opportunity to deliver further customization according to needs.
What concerns me is the defence whitepaper talks of boosting the army numbers for deployment on these ships, yet not boosting the navy crew numbers or the extra Airforce pilots required for on-board helicopter operations? The current numbers for Canterbury were what, 10 aircrew? The Endurance 170 qoutes 150. So will it be deployed with only two or three helicopters like Canterbury under these circumstances? And two larger Lpd to replace Canterbury will mean additional few hundred navy personell at least.
 

Nighthawk.NZ

Well-Known Member
And two larger Lpd to replace Canterbury will mean additional few hundred navy personell at least.
Well, they have the time to grow the personal up these extra personal won't be needed for another 5 years... and 9-10 years for the LPD.

And from the DCP 2019

196. Two inshore patrol vessels will be withdrawn from service and disposed of immediately, leaving two vessels to meet the demands of domestic patrols within the exclusive economic zone. Prior to the Southern Ocean Patrol Vessel coming into service, which will give greater capacity to the offshore patrol fleet, the future of the remaining two inshore patrol vessels will be reassessed.
Indicative dates:
Initial two vessels withdrawn from service – 2020​

As we know the first two have been decommissioned, and the second two will be reassessed closer to the time as also states that the two remaining IPV's will continue to operate domestic duties and patrols. So we ill have to wait and see.

The thing I see these vessels are good for are training for all the crew (from Officers to the sailor to the to greenie fixing all the electrical issues...) and getting the real experience needed before they are let loose on a frigate or OPV... lol
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The thing I see these vessels are good for are training for all the crew (from Officers to the sailor to the to greenie fixing all the electrical issues...) and getting the real experience needed before they are let loose on a frigate or OPV... lol
yep, but those who don't wear blue suits, but sit in offices in Wellington and push paper from one side of a desk to another don't see that. All they do is count coins in one office and votes in another and as long as the pile of coins will ensure the pile of votes favour the pollie, nothing else matters. The ones who count the coins collect them and hate parting with them. Those who called for the deep sixing of the IPVs don't fully understand the benefits that they, or a similar vessel, provide to the overall navy especially in training. You can undertake training in simulators and alongside until the cows come home, but nothing, NOTHING, replaces actual sea time and that is where the real lessons are learned and all the training starts coming together. That's where the children start becoming salty adults. Best to learn things there, like working with wet ropes, on a heaving deck in the wind and rain in semi controlled circumstances, rather than being chucked in the deep end on an operational frigate or OPV with the Buffer yelling at screaming at you scaring the crap out of you. Young snotties can learn their basic watchkeeping and navigation skills on them and get that highly important sea time in. Leading hands can get to be Buffers and PO's coxswains, preparing them for the next step up the ladder. Even greenies and stokers can be let out of their cages now and again :D
What concerns me is the defence whitepaper talks of boosting the army numbers for deployment on these ships, yet not boosting the navy crew numbers or the extra Airforce pilots required for on-board helicopter operations? The current numbers for Canterbury were what, 10 aircrew? The Endurance 170 qoutes 150. So will it be deployed with only two or three helicopters like Canterbury under these circumstances? And two larger Lpd to replace Canterbury will mean additional few hundred navy personell at least.
You have an army centric Minister so it was bound to happen. Yes the army is somewhat undermanned, but it isn't as bad as the RNZN & RNZAF, and it isn't as central to the surveillance and defence of NZ's EEZ and SLOC as the RNZN & RNZAF. To that end both the RNZN & RNZAF should have at least 70% of the defence budget for the next 5 - 10 years (35% each) in order to enable them to be able to undertake the surveillance and defence of NZ's EEZ and SLOC. After all we are an island maritime nation surrounded by a tad large amount of the blue / green wobbly wet stuff.

One last thing, the pollies and bean counters love the army because it doesn't cost them as much as the RNZN & RNZAF.
 

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
One last thing, the pollies and bean counters love the army because it doesn't cost them as much as the RNZN & RNZAF.
Yep and they the pollies can say it is doing something, for example peacekeeping and the like. One of the major quotes when the F 16's were cancelled and strike wing was disbanded was that it "Had not done anything for 30 years". The fact that it was NZ's only real form of deterrent and by far our most effective form of defence was completely lost on both the government and the opposition. I remember Jenny Shipley debating with Helen Clark on the subject and neither mentioned anything about the defence of NZ in the entire debate, It was all about SAR , peacekeeping and other functions but not defence.
 
Last edited:

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Yep and they the pollies can say it is doing something, for example peacekeeping and the like. One of the major quotes when the F 16's were cancelled and strike wing was disbanded was that it "Had not done anything for 30 years". The fact that it was NZ's only real form of deterrent and by far our most effective form of defence was completely lose on both the government and the opposition. I remember Jenny Shipley debating with Helen Clark on the subject and neither mentioned anything about the defence of NZ in the entire debate, It was all about SAR , peacekeeping and other functions but not defence.
The RNZAF's ACF might not have engaged hostile forces in 30 years, but had certainly been doing important and useful things... Too bad the pollies, and ultimately the public who are supposed to hold the pollies accountable were (and many still are) too blind to see the value of the capabilities.

I am going to get rid of all my insurance... because I have never needed them.
Honestly, I do think 'selling' defence capabilities as a form of insurance might be an understandable way for both pollies, some of the more coin-minded bureaus and the public to become informed about defence.

That or one could try and get people to play the "what if?" game where a scenario, preferably a real potential scenario, gets presented and the response options need to be reviewed alongside the outcomes.
 

Gibbo

Well-Known Member
I notice from this video two sponsons have been added on the deck below the bridge, forward port and starboard. Possibly a good spot for pintle mounted MG's.
You can just make out the mountings on the sponsons which will almost certainly be manually operated .5 cal HMG's. If you move around the footage & stop & start it you can work out the likely arc of fire they have, which does look fairly comprehensive to be fair. Having said that, once again RNZN don't think covering all 360 angles of surface attack (think fast small boats) is warranted... look at the small guns on the RN's Echo class survey vessels... you certainly wouldn't mess with them if you're in a small boat.

<edit> While on the topic of Manawanui, just stumbled on this: ROV Launch & Recovery System Delivered to New Zealand Navy Sea Technology magazine
 
Last edited:

Lucasnz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The Southern Ocean Patrol Vessel program looks like its picking up speed. GETS has the following up:
  • SOPV Design and Technical RFP:
  • Pacific 2019 Industry presentation which can only be accessed via the industry section of the MOD website.
This months Navy Today indicates: Built to Commercial Specs, Ice capable to the 2017 Polar Code, Endurance of 35 days (25 on station). I quote from the article

" Why can't the ship also provide support to science and research? This would mean that the SOPV could undertake .. fisheries monitoring, but could also be tasked for resupply, scientific and logistics support to the sub-Antarctic Island and ... scientific research in the wider Southern Ocean"
Guess Treasury might have won the battle over the replacement of Tangaroa, but it does make sense to maximize the utility of the SOPV.
 

Gibbo

Well-Known Member
The Southern Ocean Patrol Vessel program looks like its picking up speed. GETS has the following up:
  • SOPV Design and Technical RFP:
  • Pacific 2019 Industry presentation which can only be accessed via the industry section of the MOD website.
This months Navy Today indicates: Built to Commercial Specs, Ice capable to the 2017 Polar Code, Endurance of 35 days (25 on station). I quote from the article

Guess Treasury might have won the battle over the replacement of Tangaroa, but it does make sense to maximize the utility of the SOPV.

While on subject of latest Navy Today, I see in the editorial a brief reference to Manawanui attending RIMPAC. In all likelihood she'll probably quickly prove to be an excellent asset to have attending, with room for a number of other member countries divers & hydropgraphers able to embark. May pickup a command / mother-ship role for the diver contingent of the exercise.
 
Top