Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

Gibbo said:
Not sure I can quite picture what is required here... the FC530 RHIB is 5.3m long so if this is intended as some sort of 'mother' craft I can't see it being much larger... interesting nonetheless!....or am I just reading too much inti it...is it just a trio of FC530 with cradles & trailers!?!



This RFT is an invitation to Tenderers to submit a Tender to Defence for the Littoral Warfare Systems Littoral Manoeuvre Craft contract opportunity.

Background:
The LMC is one of a series of systems being procured as part of the Littoral Warfare Systems Project which seeks to provide the Royal New Zealand Navy deployable maritime capabilities, known as HMNZS MATATAUA with an improved ability to detect and respond to underwater threats through the provision of new and updated systems.

Littoral Warfare missions are supported by a number of boats, which are primarily controlled by MAT. Boats are a key enabler for the LW Force, with the majority of operations taking place either on or from them.

The LMC will be delivered as part of the LWS project. Its primary purpose is to tactically project Expeditionary Reconnaissance and Mine Counter Measures teams, complete with FC530 RHIB, from HMNZS MANAWANUI or a coalition platform over the horizon to the objective area. Once there, it will host the tactical commander, and act as a Control Point and communications relay.

The scope of this tender is to include:
1. Three boats;
2. Support System;
3. An initial set of spare parts;
4. Two trailers (non-road);
5. Two cradles suitable for transit on ships; and
6. Weather resistant covers for each of the LMC.

Defence acknowledges that the Tender preparation period will encompass the traditional New Zealand and Australia Christmas holiday period, when many companies have a shutdown period. As a result, Defence has extended the Tender Closing Time by three weeks from Defence’s originally intended RFT period to allow potential Tenderers sufficient time to prepare a strong Tender while still permitting staff to take holiday leave.
Click to expand...

The way I read the background info is that in the planned use, a FCS530 RHIB would have aboard the 'tactical commander' whom I presume would be the senior NCO, warrant, or junior commissioned officer in command of Expeditionary Recon and/or MCM team embarked. With the RHIB also set to be a Control Point and comms relay, I would assume this is expected to be between personnel deployed from the RHIB and the supporting shit, which sounds like it will be HMNZS Matataua. With the control point requirement, then the RHIB might also have an ROV or UUV operator embarked as well. If the RHIB is expected to carry out tasks ahead of/away from the mothership (Matataua) over the horizon (~15 n miles) then having both someone in direct contact with any MCM divers would provide advantages. Similarly, any comms used by personnel away from the RHIB would quite likely have difficulties communicating directly with the ship, so some sort of repeater/relay would be good as well.
 
Lucasnz said:
...I tend to agree with Nighthawk.NZ about caliber size for NGFS (with the 76mm being marginal), but in the context of CIWS capability , constabulary operations and wider support and development via the US the 57mm would be suitable...
Click to expand...

NGFS is one of those subjects that can be argued from both sides of the coin, in relation to the calibre of the round being used.

You reference 57 & 76mm in the discussion & I would happily state that BOTH could be used for NGFS. The BAE Mk 110 (Bofors 57mm of old), might be a smaller calibre, but the gun has a max rating of 220RPM, although in the hands of a good, well-oiled operating crew, 120 - 180 RPM would be my estimate.

https://www.baesystems.com/en/download-en/20190516215049/1434555371489.pdf

The Leonardo (Oto Melara of old) 76/62 SR Naval gun has a max rating of 120RPM, although in the hands of a good, well-oiled operating crew, 100 - 110 RPM would be easily achievable.

Both guns have a maximum range of approx. 9 Nautical miles / 16Km (using standard HE ammo), the 76mm only pulls ahead on this aspect by utilising 'alternate' (read as expensive) munitions, such as the Vulcano variant that has been developed for it.

Being stood-off from land by 8 - 9 miles makes the vessel doing the shooting a very small target, but you can still be seen / targeted....

SA
 
Todjaeger said:
The way I read the background info is that in the planned use, a FCS530 RHIB would have aboard the 'tactical commander' whom I presume would be the senior NCO, warrant, or junior commissioned officer in command of Expeditionary Recon and/or MCM team embarked. With the RHIB also set to be a Control Point and comms relay, I would assume this is expected to be between personnel deployed from the RHIB and the supporting shit, which sounds like it will be HMNZS Matataua. With the control point requirement, then the RHIB might also have an ROV or UUV operator embarked as well. If the RHIB is expected to carry out tasks ahead of/away from the mothership (Matataua) over the horizon (~15 n miles) then having both someone in direct contact with any MCM divers would provide advantages. Similarly, any comms used by personnel away from the RHIB would quite likely have difficulties communicating directly with the ship, so some sort of repeater/relay would be good as well.
Click to expand...

Yes I guess so... Manawanui has the large davit port-side which AIUI was added with the purpose of carrying the LMC and early artist impressions of Manawanui show a RHIB with cabin but I'm picking the requirement has changed... with 2 cradles required I guess the intention may be to deploy 2 x FC530 from that davit as required.
 
I must admit I'm a little confused at this requirement as well: don't the Matataua littoral warfare group already have the two small Rapid Environmental Assessment (REA) boats Tapaku & Tarapunga for these roles. Surely one of those boats (if not both) could be carried by HMNZS Manawanui. If I recall, the REA boats are small enough to be carried inside a C-130, and have been carried on the aft deck of the HMNZS Wellington OPV to Fiji in the past.
 
Systems Adict said:
NGFS is one of those subjects that can be argued from both sides of the coin, in relation to the calibre of the round being used.

You reference 57 & 76mm in the discussion & I would happily state that BOTH could be used for NGFS. The BAE Mk 110 (Bofors 57mm of old), might be a smaller calibre, but the gun has a max rating of 220RPM, although in the hands of a good, well-oiled operating crew, 120 - 180 RPM would be my estimate.

https://www.baesystems.com/en/download-en/20190516215049/1434555371489.pdf

The Leonardo (Oto Melara of old) 76/62 SR Naval gun has a max rating of 120RPM, although in the hands of a good, well-oiled operating crew, 100 - 110 RPM would be easily achievable.

Both guns have a maximum range of approx. 9 Nautical miles / 16Km (using standard HE ammo), the 76mm only pulls ahead on this aspect by utilising 'alternate' (read as expensive) munitions, such as the Vulcano variant that has been developed for it.

Being stood-off from land by 8 - 9 miles makes the vessel doing the shooting a very small target, but you can still be seen / targeted....

SA
Click to expand...

A couple of things, one being sort of a pet peeve of mine regarding many of the gun data sheet ROF claims... The manufacturer will usually state that nn rounds per minute can be fired, when the reality is usually less than that, sometimes by quite a bit. In the case of the 57 mm Mark 110 Mod 0, the claim for the gun is a ROF of 220 RPM, when the gun can have 120 ready rounds, and another 80 rounds held in four different cassettes to load into the ready round magazine. The mounting magazine can hold ~1,000 rounds total, but a gun would require a crew to start reloading the cassettes in the hoist from the magazine before 220 rounds would be able to get into/through a Mk 110. Not sure that a gun crew could realistically replenish a 20 round cassette in the time one would be available after close to one minute of fire.

A similar situation exists with the various iterations of the Italian OTO 76mm gun, with a drum or ammunition feed system holding 70 to 85+ ready rounds. In both cases, the gun will exhaust the readily available rounds before one minute of firing, if fired at full rate.

The other thing which tends to get me is that people sometimes look at some of the spec sheets (or sometimes the vendors gloss over some of the data differences) and seem to sort of cross max and effective ranges. The max range listed for the Mk 110 is ~9 n miles or 17 km while the Mk 75 (76 mm) per the USN has a range of 10 n miles or 18.4 km. I agree that there is not much of a significant distance between those two. However, I have come across a listed Effective range for the Mk 75 of ~8 km when firing a 6 kg HE shell. I have not come across an effective range for the Mk 110 I consider accurate since the shell weight data is wildly off and seems to have been for a 127mm gun.

That effective range IMO would be important for something like NGS as that is not just a matter of getting a round or barrage out far enough, but getting the shells to hit or burst where needed, and not have them end up raining down on the friendlies who called in a fire mission. That regards I think of it being much like many of the modern service rifles where the max range is xx distance to indicate how far a fired bullet could travel The much shorter effective range is more likely only be out to ~300 m or less, and can give an idea how far away a target can accurately be engaged.

I remember the issue having come up before, regarding the 40 mm gun to be fitted to the RAN's Arafura-class OPV's, with IIRC the thought put forward being that since the gun likely had a max range of ~12.5 km, then it would be possible for the OPV's to provide NGS. Again, the problem with that is that while the 40mm shells might be able to be fired at, and even hit objects 12.5 km away, accuracy would likely be quite problematic.
 
Lucasnz said:
You're almost starting to look like an LCS (Cringe), with the exception that NZ would trade speed for range and endurance and an all steel hull.

I tend to agree with Nighthawk.NZ about caliber size for NGFS (with the 76mm being marginal), but in the context of CIWS capability , constabulary operations and wider support and development via the US the 57mm would be suitable. In terms of ASW I would be looking for a wider surveillance capability (.i.e. towed array) vs HMS with the ships helicopter providing localized surveillance.

One issue is crew size. With that sort of capability you need a crew of at least 70 as the LCS discovered in order to provide for sustained operations.
Click to expand...
G'day Lucas, complaints of the season.

No definitely not an LCS - shudder which I believe that the USN saw as frigate on the cheap. No just as a straight corvette and not looking at NGS. If NGS is required then that is what the FFG are for. A hull mounted sonar and two twin LWT launchers would be great, but I really think that it's a really big ask going for a towed array. The GOTD are going to really struggle to accept both corvettes and FFG so that's one of the reasons why a variant of Mr C’s Vards with armour in the appropriate places etc., and built as a warship would be feasible. After all the Protector Class OPV are VARD 7-085 OPV, so this could be sold as an upgraded variant which gives greater operational flexibility, given the current geopolitical and geostrategic environment. It's capable of both constabulary operations as a significant proportion of its taskings, but at the same time it is capable of combat operations when called upon.
 
Todjaeger said:
A couple of things, one being sort of a pet peeve of mine regarding many of the gun data sheet ROF claims... The manufacturer will usually state that nn rounds per minute can be fired, when the reality is usually less than that, sometimes by quite a bit. In the case of the 57 mm Mark 110 Mod 0, the claim for the gun is a ROF of 220 RPM, when the gun can have 120 ready rounds, and another 80 rounds held in four different cassettes to load into the ready round magazine. The mounting magazine can hold ~1,000 rounds total, but a gun would require a crew to start reloading the cassettes in the hoist from the magazine before 220 rounds would be able to get into/through a Mk 110. Not sure that a gun crew could realistically replenish a 20 round cassette in the time one would be available after close to one minute of fire.

A similar situation exists with the various iterations of the Italian OTO 76mm gun, with a drum or ammunition feed system holding 70 to 85+ ready rounds. In both cases, the gun will exhaust the readily available rounds before one minute of firing, if fired at full rate.

The other thing which tends to get me is that people sometimes look at some of the spec sheets (or sometimes the vendors gloss over some of the data differences) and seem to sort of cross max and effective ranges. The max range listed for the Mk 110 is ~9 n miles or 17 km while the Mk 75 (76 mm) per the USN has a range of 10 n miles or 18.4 km. I agree that there is not much of a significant distance between those two. However, I have come across a listed Effective range for the Mk 75 of ~8 km when firing a 6 kg HE shell. I have not come across an effective range for the Mk 110 I consider accurate since the shell weight data is wildly off and seems to have been for a 127mm gun.

That effective range IMO would be important for something like NGS as that is not just a matter of getting a round or barrage out far enough, but getting the shells to hit or burst where needed, and not have them end up raining down on the friendlies who called in a fire mission. That regards I think of it being much like many of the modern service rifles where the max range is xx distance to indicate how far a fired bullet could travel The much shorter effective range is more likely only be out to ~300 m or less, and can give an idea how far away a target can accurately be engaged.

I remember the issue having come up before, regarding the 40 mm gun to be fitted to the RAN's Arafura-class OPV's, with IIRC the thought put forward being that since the gun likely had a max range of ~12.5 km, then it would be possible for the OPV's to provide NGS. Again, the problem with that is that while the 40mm shells might be able to be fired at, and even hit objects 12.5 km away, accuracy would likely be quite problematic.
Click to expand...
Rounds per minute is a glossy brochure concept pushed by manufacturers which has little bearing on reality.
The exception to that is with CIWS where the object is to create a wall of depleted uranium/lead, the more the better.
Medium caliber guns when used in either NGS or ASuW take a more measured path mainly because, by definition, Max Effective Range is defined as a single round having a 2% chance of hitting a target.
So rounds are fired, wait, call of shot wait, correct, another round, adjust again wait for result (at MER that takes tens of seconds) adjust, fire again and wait and finally...fire for effect.
A medium caliber gun in AAW is simply a Hail Mary and more than a few rounds is a waste.
 
chis73 said:
I must admit I'm a little confused at this requirement as well: don't the Matataua littoral warfare group already have the two small Rapid Environmental Assessment (REA) boats Tapaku & Tarapunga for these roles. Surely one of those boats (if not both) could be carried by HMNZS Manawanui. If I recall, the REA boats are small enough to be carried inside a C-130, and have been carried on the aft deck of the HMNZS Wellington OPV to Fiji in the past.
Click to expand...

Yes I've asked questions about these 2 boats as well but no-one has taken the bait... there has been no mention of them for a few years and no talk about them in relation to Manawanui so I suspect they turned out to be lemons and were quietly disposed of. At around 10m in length they were a reasonable size for a LWC altho they may have wanted a lower freeboard to deploy REMUS etc.
 
Gibbo said:
Yes I've asked questions about these 2 boats as well but no-one has taken the bait... there has been no mention of them for a few years and no talk about them in relation to Manawanui so I suspect they turned out to be lemons and were quietly disposed of. At around 10m in length they were a reasonable size for a LWC altho they may have wanted a lower freeboard to deploy REMUS etc.
Click to expand...
They're still around AFAIK. They're workboats for MAT and from IIRC were mentioned in a recent Navy Today. They wouldn't have been discarded because they're fitted out shallow water specialist hydrographic boats. This means that they have a high end echo sounder, likely a multibeam, a high accuracy 3 axis real time motion detector which uses accelerometers, surveyquality GPS and other accurate position fixing devices with sub cm accuracy. You just cannot do that from any RHIB or other boat that happens to be loafing in the port.
 
Gibbo said:
Yes I've asked questions about these 2 boats as well but no-one has taken the bait... there has been no mention of them for a few years and no talk about them in relation to Manawanui so I suspect they turned out to be lemons and were quietly disposed of. At around 10m in length they were a reasonable size for a LWC altho they may have wanted a lower freeboard to deploy REMUS etc.
Click to expand...

Aren't those the ribs that were for sale on trademe last year, black ex military ribs on trailers.
 
ASSAIL said:
Rounds per minute is a glossy brochure concept pushed by manufacturers which has little bearing on reality.
Click to expand...
You are dead right on this, I prefer the old term of "sustained rate of fire" over a significant period of time.
 
ngatimozart said:
G'day Lucas, complaints of the season.

No definitely not an LCS - shudder which I believe that the USN saw as frigate on the cheap. No just as a straight corvette and not looking at NGS. If NGS is required then that is what the FFG are for. A hull mounted sonar and two twin LWT launchers would be great, but I really think that it's a really big ask going for a towed array. The GOTD are going to really struggle to accept both corvettes and FFG so that's one of the reasons why a variant of Mr C’s Vards with armour in the appropriate places etc., and built as a warship would be feasible. After all the Protector Class OPV are VARD 7-085 OPV, so this could be sold as an upgraded variant which gives greater operational flexibility, given the current geopolitical and geostrategic environment. It's capable of both constabulary operations as a significant proportion of its taskings, but at the same time it is capable of combat operations when called upon.
Click to expand...
Happy new year.

Really then were starting to look at something along the French Floreal or Danish Thetis. That would certainly distinguish between the Corvette / FFG. I'm not sure a VARD design would fit the role. While I like the VARD 7-100 / 110, crew size is such you could operate a Type 31. Taking into account the expanded capabilities on top of the current OPV you would need a core crew of at around 60 plus flight crew of 11. If you were looking at medium intensity operations (i.e. which seems to be where the focus is in the South Pacific - unless I've missed something) and damage you're looking at a fight, float, move philosophy in terms of damage control with a crew that size (noting my caution in terms of the reliability of automation after damage has occurred).

I would suggest keeping the current 22kts max speed (whole of life) but increase the endurance to 45 days. Regardless of which way you go the electronics outfit is going to be a key cost driver. That said the withdrawal dates are around 2035, the same as the ANZAC's so who knows which way the wind will blow in terms of replacement.
 
ngatimozart said:
They're still around AFAIK. They're workboats for MAT and from IIRC were mentioned in a recent Navy Today. They wouldn't have been discarded because they're fitted out shallow water specialist hydrographic boats. This means that they have a high end echo sounder, likely a multibeam, a high accuracy 3 axis real time motion detector which uses accelerometers, surveyquality GPS and other accurate position fixing devices with sub cm accuracy. You just cannot do that from any RHIB or other boat that happens to be loafing in the port.
Click to expand...


Certainly hope so, sounds like a lot of effort was put into them to ensure they can be moved by RNZN vessel, or C130 as required. More latterly images showed them with pennant numbers A07 & A08 ... excuse my ignorance but does that indicate a commissioned vessel?
 
Gibbo said:
Certainly hope so, sounds like a lot of effort was put into them to ensure they can be moved by RNZN vessel, or C130 as required. More latterly images showed them with pennant numbers A07 & A08 ... excuse my ignorance but does that indicate a commissioned vessel?
Click to expand...
The ISC's Takapu and Tarapunga had those pennant numbers, so I presume that the numbers have been carried over to identify each of the REA hulls. I don't know if they are commissioned or not, because I think that they are more a tender than an actual ship. IIRC they are either a fibreglass or metal hull.
 
ngatimozart said:
The ISC's Takapu and Tarapunga had those pennant numbers, so I presume that the numbers have been carried over to identify each of the REA hulls. I don't know if they are commissioned or not, because I think that they are more a tender than an actual ship. IIRC they are either a fibreglass or metal hull.
Click to expand...

pretty sure they are only a tender, but I could be wrong... and 90% sure aluminum hull...
 
Just to take a foreign policy point of view, so taking the Type 31 means that New Zealand has ruled itself out of having a navy that can participate in anything close to a high intensity warfare environment against a first-rate navy, so in the foreseeable future, the only roles that the navy will seen adequately equipped to be sent to are peacekeeping roles in the South Pacific, or something like anti-piracy patrols? The problem with the Type 31, is that unlike a Hunter Class or a fully upgraded ANZAC class, it is not really a ship that is adequate to be sent to the SCS in a military action against the PLAN, as least in its Royal Navy configuration.
 
Last edited:
Todjaeger said:
I will be honest in stating that I would think the RNZN would value an increased ASW capability more than an increased air defence capability, assuming that one is really going for a corvette-sized and scoped vessel and not an all-around capable GP frigate. Including some air defence capability via Sea Ceptor and then in the future presumably a Sea Ceptor-variant of CAMM-ER would make sense, and likely without requiring major additions to a ship's size, displacement and topweight. I would want some ASW capabilities included in large part due to the importance of having a number of platforms involved and working together to protect a convoy, or sanitize an area where a hostile sub is suspected. Given the long distances that Kiwiland is from, well, everything... then I would want more protection from subsurface vs. aerial threats.



Not really. 8 Mk 41 VLS cells could carry more air defence missiles, or if strike length a small number of LACM's. Yes, they could potentially be fitted with 8 VL-ASROC, they only add ~10 km additional reach to a ship's potential ASW capability. IMO that potential advantage fitted aboard a rather small combatant like a corvette is quite literally outweighed by the space, clearance requirements, and mass/displacement required to fit such a VLS and it's missile loadout. One of the standard LWT launchers is the Mk 32, which means that a Mk 41 is not required to deploy LWT's from a corvette.
Click to expand...

Is a Type 31 adequately armed for an environment like the South China Sea, against what the PLAN has? A Type 26 would be more appropriate. It seems that the RN is intending the Type 31 to be more of a colonial gunboat with a limited anti-air capability for low threat environments like the Carribean or anti-piracy patrols. So I get it that in the foreseeable future, and perhaps permanently, New Zealand is basically ruling out sending naval ships to help Australia in case of a military action against China? This is based on the weapons load out I see being discussed here for a Type 31. I thought that for ASW, the P-8 is already the platform for that? So in case, the RNZN can concentrate on having a capable all-around frigate that is capable of all defensive and offensive roles that can be sent into the South China Sea as part of a naval task group with Australia, for example. And fitting for the Type 31 for the ASW role would also require a towed sonar array. It is interesting for note how fully Australia has upgraded the ANZAC, so that it is now capable of fleet and area defence with medium range missiles, compared to the limited upgrades New Zealand has carried out.
Is it a good long run strategy for the RNZN to be opting out of being able to send ships to high threat environments for as long as we can see because of its choices of ships? Advantage of the ANZAC class is it it can be upgraded into a first-line frigate, something you cannot do with a more limited platform, that said I am not sure that the Type 31 was the right choice for the Royal Navy, maybe opting for a smaller number of Type 26s is a better idea over a larger number of vessels that are less capable. What about something like the Belharra class, which is more capable than the Type 31, but smaller than a Type 26?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top