Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[Sea Toby]

With the government having accepted the Canterbury so swiftly, and with her RHIBs alcoves issues, the government will take their time accepting the other ships. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

And I also recall the government paid for operating these ships this year. Any delays will only save the government operational money. There is no hurry to start EEZ patrols. As it is, the government chose to man the new patrol ships, which only need a handful of technical workers each, whereas the second Anzac frigate was robbed of her technical people to man the new patrol ships. Of course, the government is recruiting as many technical people as they can, and offering bonuses to re-enlist as many as possible in the navy.

This is somewhat disturbing, as these ships and these technical billets have been known for several years. Unfortunately, the government hasn't moved earlier to fill or keep these billets.

 

[ThePuss]

I was just looking up the Wikipedia page for the IPV's. It mentions that the boats are going to be multicrewed with 6 full crews for a combined 950 patrol days a year.

I was wondering if anybody has heard anything offical about this or if this is just a another case of some random writing anything they like and posting it on Wikipedia. Im thinking the latter is more likely to be the case because isnt the RNZN strugling to crew the protector fleet as it is ?.

I apologies if this has been covered before but I have been on deployment the last six months and have been kind of out of the loop.


Also I relise that the IPVs chances of getting a 25mm are about as good a slab of beer lasting a week at my place:dance , but that deck between the foc'sle and the bridge looks capable of taking one if the wip aerials where relocated and the navy managed to twist the governments arm.

I think I made a mistake by mentioning the feasibility of mounting a 25mm on the IPV's. Myself being a techo im only really interested in the "IF" it can be mounted as opposed to weather or not it should be.


Getting back to my original question, are the IPV's going to be multicrewed or not?

 

[Sea Toby]

If you are going to get 900+ days of patrols out of them, they have to be multi-crewed. Sailors don't like to spend most of their time at sea, like the rest of us they have families to attend to.

4 ships x 300 days = 1200 days at sea.
4 ships x 250 days = 1000 days at sea.
4 ships x 200 days = 800 days at sea.
4 ships x 150 days = 600 days at sea.

Obviously, to get 900+ days at sea New Zealand either needs 6 crews or 6 ships. With 4 ships and 4 crews we are expecting the crews to spend 225 days at sea to get 900+ days at sea. With 4 ships and 6 crews we are expecting the crews to spend 150 days at sea. 150 days at sea is almost half a year at sea. Any more time at sea, I doubt whether any sailor will re-enlist.

I read recently an Anzac class frigate requires over 40 technical personnel to operate. I have also read recently that a IPV requires 3 or 4 technical personnel. 6 crews x 3 personnel is 18 personnel. The OPVs require 7 or 8 technical personnel. 2 ships x 7 personnel is 14 personnel. One of the Anzac frigates when not in service has been robbed of its technical personnel to man the patrol ships.

It appears New Zealand will also have to rob the techincal personnel to from an non-operational OPV to meet ends meet until they get their technical personnel squared away.

The OPVs are expected to get around 300 days at sea, added with 100 from the MRV to reach 400 days at sea.
2 ships x 150 days = 300 patrol days at sea.
1 MRV x 100 days = 100 patrol days at sea.

Of course, the MRV will also require amphibious days at sea, not to mention being available for short term emergencies after disasters and UN missions.

And as it is the Anzacs are operating half a year at sea each. While the Anzac frigate and OPV are laid up when not in operation, its hope the drydock personnel and shore based personnel will fill technical positions.

Last year, when one of the Anzacs went to Japan, many US sailors stationed there had to help New Zealand get some of their systems operational in their spare time.

 

[Lucasnz]

Last year, when one of the Anzacs went to Japan, many US sailors stationed there had to help New Zealand get some of their systems operational in their spare time.

Just wondering do you have an external reference to this?

I was just looking up the Wikipedia page for the IPV's. It mentions that the boats are going to be multicrewed with 6 full crews for a combined 950 patrol days a year.

I was wondering if anybody has heard anything offical about this or if this is just a another case of some random writing anything they like and posting it on Wikipedia. Im thinking the latter is more likely to be the case because isnt the RNZN strugling to crew the protector fleet as it is ?.
.

I don't think thats happening anymore. There was some comment recently that the Navy didn't get the extra personnel it needed. It's increasing its dependence on the RNZNVR. Recent RNZNVR changes include recuriting ex regular personnel into their orginal branch, rather than a VR branch. In addition the wages and conditions of service for the RNZNVR are now aligned with the RNZN (Seagoing allowance, superanuation etc). I know of at least one Rockie who's serving on Canterbury at present.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

On the subject of frigate refits and value for money, I just had a email from Wayne Mapp, National spokeperson for Defence, and he indicated his opinion that NZ's ANZAC's will be replaced when the Aussies replace theirs.

 

[Sea Toby]

Just wondering do you have an external reference to this?



I don't think thats happening anymore. There was some comment recently that the Navy didn't get the extra personnel it needed. It's increasing its dependence on the RNZNVR. Recent RNZNVR changes include recuriting ex regular personnel into their orginal branch, rather than a VR branch. In addition the wages and conditions of service for the RNZNVR are now aligned with the RNZN (Seagoing allowance, superanuation etc). I know of at least one Rockie who's serving on Canterbury at present.

I read it at the Yankee Sailor, a very good source and site for scuttle butt at this link: http://www.yankeesailor.us/?cat=75

 

[ThePuss]

"Despite a quarter century of chill between the U.S. and New Zealand over NZ’s anti-nuclear stance, we just wrapped up a visit of HMNZS Te Kaha here in Japan. As usual, sailors will be sailors, so a lot of official and unofficial exchanges, tours and (ahem) ”social activities” took place. We even had the opportunity to help them with a few repairs that were beyond the capabilities of their ship’s force."

It is nothing unusual for a navy to help with intermediate and depot level maintenance for a visting allied ship, especially if it's urgent(and the US and NZ are allied....to a degree). As for yank sailors coming in to fix the ship in their spare time I really doub't it and it is not how I read the article.

 

[Todjaeger]

Having been lurking lately, I have had cause to think about the RNZN OPV's. Checking the blueprints I have to ask, can the OPV's be "upgunned" with a 57mm or 76mm without requiring substantial modification and redesign? From what I recall of discussions earlier in this thread as information on the standard 57mm or 76mm OTO (Breda or Melara?) guns, they would both protrude beneath #2 deck, partial into the central passageway, as well as ships magazine and small arms locker, washroom and hatch to belowdeck.

Could anyone confirm this?

-Cheers

 

[alexsa]

Having been lurking lately, I have had cause to think about the RNZN OPV's. Checking the blueprints I have to ask, can the OPV's be "upgunned" with a 57mm or 76mm without requiring substantial modification and redesign? From what I recall of discussions earlier in this thread as information on the standard 57mm or 76mm OTO (Breda or Melara?) guns, they would both protrude beneath #2 deck, partial into the central passageway, as well as ships magazine and small arms locker, washroom and hatch to belowdeck.

Could anyone confirm this?

-Cheers

Even if you rearrange the internals ther is the issue of te mass of the mounting. From memory the mass of the 76mm mounting with compentents is about 8.5 tonne with the rotary mag loaded with 80 to 85 rounds, depending on model (but not including reloads). On top this you have to add the structural arrangements to support this mass and is recoil as well as the reconfiguring of the sapces below. Reconfiguring tends to add wieght as structural support for desks get moved and this must be compensated for. There will of course be a small deduction for the 25mm deletion.

This begs the question, has weight been worked into the desigg that would allow the applicaiton of such top wieght wiht imposing operational restirctions on the vessel (i.e. limited free suface in DB tanks or minimum fuel/ballast requirements, limits on the container mass that can be carried on deck). This is a real risk given the gun deck is three decks above the WL and would be well above the transverse CoG.

It may be that the design has this capacity but this aspect is more important than rearranging the bulkhead in the deck below

 

[alexsa]

It seems the 57mm is not much ligher coming at between 6.5 and 7.5 tonnes depending on mark and up to 14 tonnes with 1000 rounds. It wouel be hoped that some ammunition could be carried lower down but this would require additional reconfiguration and ammunitions hoists.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNSweden_57-70_mk123.htm

 

[Lucasnz]

Having been lurking lately, I have had cause to think about the RNZN OPV's. Checking the blueprints I have to ask, can the OPV's be "upgunned" with a 57mm or 76mm without requiring substantial modification and redesign? From what I recall of discussions earlier in this thread as information on the standard 57mm or 76mm OTO (Breda or Melara?) guns, they would both protrude beneath #2 deck, partial into the central passageway, as well as ships magazine and small arms locker, washroom and hatch to belowdeck.

Could anyone confirm this?

-Cheers

You are correct, substantial internal modifications would be required. I don't think there is sufficent deckhead on 1 deck to mount a 76mm when you look at the clearance given on the Oto Melera website and the plans. It's interesting to note that with 1,000 rounds of ammuntion the 57 is around 1,000 kg lighter than the 76mm with 80 rounds, per the Navweapons sight. I think the weight issue would sugges that the 57mm is the way to go. It would probably require fewer modiciations to the interior.

 

[alexsa]

You are correct, substantial internal modifications would be required. I don't think there is sufficent deckhead on 1 deck to mount a 76mm when you look at the clearance given on the Oto Melera website and the plans. It's interesting to note that with 1,000 rounds of ammuntion the 57 is around 1,000 kg lighter than the 76mm with 80 rounds, per the Navweapons sight. I think the weight issue would sugges that the 57mm is the way to go. It would probably require fewer modiciations to the interior.

I think you read that wrong. Note 2 states:

2) These mounting weights do not include ammunition. The Mark 3 mounting with 1,000 rounds ammunition has a total weight of 30,865 lbs. (14,000 kg).

Howver why bother with the risk and cost of fitting such a gun to an OPV. Unless you intend fiting a proper fire cntrol system (more top weight) and other defensive systems for a broader range of roles (still more top weight) it seems a pointless waste of a lot of money for limited benifit, particularly where the budget is tight and you want to update the ANZACs. Modificaions tend to cost more that built in capability (unless it is planned for in the original design) and the 25mm is perfectly satisfactory for the OPV role. The gun and combined with the helo, deck container and ice class rating make this a very good OPV.

 

[Sea Toby]

Frankly, I do not think the USCG medium and high endurance cutters have ever fired their main guns in anger in the EEZ patrol roles. Their Reliance class of medium endurance cutters have had older 25-mm mounts since the 1960s. Yes, they have test fired them, but not in anger. Of course, its a different story with drug smugglers who sometimes tend to run.

As EEZ patrol ships, they do not need a bigger gun, the 25-mm is enough. Even in a SAS role, troop insertion role, these guns are enough to strafe a beach along with their helicopters.

While the Irish wish for a larger ship, they are very happy with their Roisin class OPVs, they are better than any of their previous OPVs. While they use their Peacocks for more inshore patrols, they use their Roisins to patrol their 200 mile EEZ limits. The Irish don't have frigates with five inch guns (127-mm), so they have used their Roisins to escort their army's equipment sailing in a cargo vessel to Liberia, their Roisins having three inch guns (76-mm). And again, I do not think the Irish have ever fired their guns in anger either recently.

A 25-mm Bushmaster gun is powerful enough to cut through the thin steel of a fishing vessel or yatch, and through their engine block. There is no need to sink a vessel in the EEZ patrol role.

 

[KH-12]

Frankly, I do not think the USCG medium and high endurance cutters have ever fired their main guns in anger in the EEZ patrol roles. Their Reliance class of medium endurance cutters have had older 25-mm mounts since the 1960s. Yes, they have test fired them, but not in anger. Of course, its a different story with drug smugglers who sometimes tend to run.

As EEZ patrol ships, they do not need a bigger gun, the 25-mm is enough. Even in a SAS role, troop insertion role, these guns are enough to strafe a beach along with their helicopters.

While the Irish wish for a larger ship, they are very happy with their Roisin class OPVs, they are better than any of their previous OPVs. While they use their Peacocks for more inshore patrols, they use their Roisins to patrol their 200 mile EEZ limits. The Irish don't have frigates with five inch guns (127-mm), so they have used their Roisins to escort their army's equipment sailing in a cargo vessel to Liberia, their Roisins having three inch guns (76-mm). And again, I do not think the Irish have ever fired their guns in anger either recently.

A 25-mm Bushmaster gun is powerful enough to cut through the thin steel of a fishing vessel or yatch, and through their engine block. There is no need to sink a vessel in the EEZ patrol role.

The USN has never launched an ICBM from one of their SSBN's in anger either, should they rip them all out them , just because you don't actually use a weapon does'nt mean that it does'nt play an important role as a deterant, frankly you can hardly even see the 25mm gun on the OPV's from a distance, I'm sure that some dodgy shark fin fishing vessel will give you more respect when they see a 57mm turrent pointing at them we are not talking about NZers's fishing in runabouts here, there was the case in the 1970's when the A4's were required to stop a taiwanese squid boat, that was paying no attention to a navy patrol boat armed with 0.5cal.

As President T Roosevelt said "Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far" :sniper

 

[alexsa]

, I'm sure that some dodgy shark fin fishing vessel will give you more respect when they see a 57mm turrent pointing at them we are not talking about NZers's fishing in runabouts here, there was the case in the 1970's when the A4's were required to stop a taiwanese squid boat, that was paying no attention to a navy patrol boat armed with 0.5cal.

As President T Roosevelt said "Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far" :sniper

If you are so far away form the fishing boat that the 25mm is not visible then you are not ready conduct boarding operaions, lets be honest.

if a 57mm was desired it should have been designed in at inception (even if not fitted) otherwise you are looking at cnsiderable cost to upgrade the vessel for a more visible gun without a significant capability upgrade (unless you add the FCS and other systems............. and the top weight) or any improvment in the abiliyt of the vesel to carry out is core function as an OPV.

I would love Australia to have a decidcated vesel like this for southern ocean work in lieu of civilian chartered tonnage fitted with GPMG's and 50 cals (less than your OPV) with some customs crew (There some real limitations in such an arrangement). However the point is that the Oceanic Viking (whcih is slower and less heavilly armed than the RNZN OPV) is still effective in its role even without a 57mm to intimidate fishermen.

 

[Todjaeger]

if a 57mm was desired it should have been designed in at inception (even if not fitted) otherwise you are looking at cnsiderable cost to upgrade the vessel for a more visible gun without a significant capability upgrade (unless you add the FCS and other systems............. and the top weight) or any improvment in the abiliyt of the vesel to carry out is core function as an OPV.

I quite agree re a 57mm or 76mm/62 being mounted on a RNZN OPV. My question/point had more to do with the fact that it would require substantial modification to become viable. As such, not the sort of thing that could be feasibly done quickly, even if a need was felt.

As far as any upgrade requirements for electronics, radar, etc would it really require substantial upgrades and additions? My general impression was that USCG cutters, a number of which are corvette, OPV or frigate-sized and mount either a 76mm/62 or 57mm and generally have a might "lighter" I suppose, radar/FCS fitout. Light enough that a cutter could not be upgraded to something comparable to a USN vessel because there just is not enough generation capacity aboard.

In many respects, I forsee the OPVs and IPVs of Project Protector performing some similar roles to that of USCF vessels. A key difference between the two though is that a USCG vessel is not considered one of the "pointy bits" since there are USN ships, while a RNZN OPV might find itself the only thing available to act as a "pointy bit."

BTW does anyone know what the radar and electronics fitout of the OPVs and IPVs are to be yet? Still have not found any information as to types, bands, etc.

-Cheers

 

[Lucasnz]

I quite agree re a 57mm or 76mm/62 being mounted on a RNZN OPV. My question/point had more to do with the fact that it would require substantial modification to become viable. As such, not the sort of thing that could be feasibly done quickly, even if a need was felt.


BTW does anyone know what the radar and electronics fitout of the OPVs and IPVs are to be yet? Still have not found any information as to types, bands, etc.

-Cheers

If an upgrade is not viable, which many seem to think, then the only real option NZ has, is to use the OPV's as MCM vessels (modular) and acquire corvettes with the ability to operate in the Pacific. Personally I think that upgrading the OPV's would allow NZ to make the max use of an asset but the costs would kill the idea.

So this raises the question - Do we need to goto a 2 frigate, 4 corvette navy. Similar to what was attempted after WWII and what we had during the Korean war? I think the short answer is yes, but which way an LCS type vessel or a ANZAC hull with K-130 sensors etc. Both offer advantages.

In terms of electronics on the OPV, I managed to find the fire control and HFDF manufacturer, but nothing at all the radars or sonar.

 

[ThePuss]

If an upgrade is not viable, which many seem to think, then the only real option NZ has, is to use the OPV's as MCM vessels (modular) and acquire corvettes with the ability to operate in the Pacific. Personally I think that upgrading the OPV's would allow NZ to make the max use of an asset but the costs would kill the idea.

So this raises the question - Do we need to goto a 2 frigate, 4 corvette navy. Similar to what was attempted after WWII and what we had during the Korean war? I think the short answer is yes, but which way an LCS type vessel or a ANZAC hull with K-130 sensors etc. Both offer advantages.

In terms of electronics on the OPV, I managed to find the fire control and HFDF manufacturer, but nothing at all the radars or sonar.

If NZ was serious in wanting to offload the OPV's to get something with a little more "OMPH" I would love for Australia to buy the OPV's to help mitigate the cost of new kiwi vessels.

The two ship OPV fleet is exactly what Australia needs to patrol the sothern ocean. The could either be operated by the navy or crew them with a Customs/Merchant combination like the Southern Viking.

The Southern Viking is a move in the right direction, With it we are not wasting a half billion dollar frigate and 200 sailors chasing Patagonian toothfish pochers (been their, done that...even got the tee shirt). But it falls far shot of being ideal in my (humble) opinion as it is too slow and most importantly dose not carry a helicopter so currently it is unable to conduct boardings in bad weather and lets face it......its the southen ocean!. Also if the poachers refuse to stop, fast roping a boarding team onboard is much better option than creating a international incident by firing a 50 cal into them.

Also these ships would be ideal to patrol Christmas Island to stop the "hordes".
Apperently the ACPB's can do it unlike a FCPB but I reckon they are still a bit to small for the job.

Sorry if this post is more about the RAN than the RNZN

 

[alexsa]

.............................. or your you could operate as an OPV as intended (or apparnetly as an MCM as well). The current NZ plan does not seem to look beyond this. If you want more capability it would seem a mistake to blow money on trying to turn a very good OPV into a very poor multi role vessel.

Better idea is to plan toward the ANZAC replacement becauese, realisticly, that is wher your next combatants will come from.

 

[Sea Toby]

The reason why the OPVs have the range they do is because of the fuel they carry. By the time one installs a larger gun and the weapon systems to go along, you lose the fuel storage, and thus the range. Corvettes are great for navies in the Baltic, and the Mediterrean, or the Persian Gulf. Unfortunately corvettes, with their lesser range, are not appropriate for the Pacific Ocean. To get the range one has to increase the ship to store the fuel, and viola, you are looking at a frigate. There is a reason why frigates are considered the least warship suitable for most navies.....

New Zealand requires a warship which can circumnavigate New Zealand without refueling, a warship which can sail not only to Sydney but Perth and beyond, say East Timor without refueling, and a warship which can show the flag with their allies in Singapore. Unless each corvette has a replenishment oiler alongside, no corvette would be able to reach Singapore. To prove this last statement, when was the last time a corvette from Singapore reached Auckland?

Remember when the old Leanders couldn't reach Tahiti without refueling? I dare say a ship a third the size of a frigate will never be able to have the same range with similar weapon systems aboard. I am not even sure a ship with a considerable shorter center line length can carry the same weapon systems.