Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[recce.k1]

I dont think we will see our NH90s operating off the ships much , its been discovered that the stroke of the undercarriage (how much it compresses) is not enough unless the platform is very much stationary , The various array of aerials are too low....Bugger eh.

Wow, that sounds extremely serious! Can you clarify/elaborate any further?

I mean does that mean the NH90 (and the Aussie MRH90?) is totally unsuitable for ship use?

Or is it a matter of needing to purchase/operate the navalised NFH90? Or another platform eg Superlynx/Seahawk etc?

And do you mean the aerials underneath the NH90?

What have we gotten ourselves into !!!???

 

[Sea Toby]

I dont think we will see our NH90s operating off the ships much , its been discovered that the stroke of the undercarriage (how much it compresses) is not enough unless the platform is very much stationary , The various array of aerials are too low....Bugger eh.
As for the mighty herks they are stuffed! they might get a new wiring set up and dash but the major prob of the worn out engines /props and associated systems is still the same...should have taken lockheeds offer of a swap and cash difference for new Js ....another bugger!

I agree with the Hercules. Let's hope in a few years a New Zealand government does accept an offer for new J models. Over 40 years in age, they should be replaced and paid off. I think the same way with the Orions as well.

 

[recce.k1]

WhatonearthwasIthinkingbefore?! Of course the NH90 won't be operating off RNZN ships much. It's always been stated that the Canterbury is designed to transport 4x NH90's to its destination, but that it will embark/operate the Seasprite.

Even ADF Army Blackhawks and NZ Hueys operate on RAN/RNZN LPA's/MRV in safe sea-states and good weather etc. They, like the NH90 aren't a navalised helo whereas the Seasprite is (or RAN Seahawk is etc) with all the modifcations and extra safety features that entails (and the ability to land on a pitching ship etc).

(However whether the NH90 will have more constraints than say ADF Army Blackhawks might be the issue)???

In a NZ context, the Seasprite will be fine to operate off the Canterbury (and having a search radar will be of benefit for use in poor-weather/night time operations. However NH90 offers a better payload and range etc, so perhaps the Seasprites, with its weapon systems, should stick to the ANZAC Frigates, and NZ should be looking at purchasing say 3 or 4 NFH90's (or Seahawks etc), with search radar and optional fitted-for-but-not-with weapon systems, embarked on Canterbury to support day to day operations instead of the Seasprite etc. It could then airlift special forces or troops to land and back to ship again if necessary, pretty much 24/7 and in rougher weather, something that could easily be a typical scenario around the South Pacific etc.

Perhaps NZ should lease (or buy) one NFH90 off the production line and bring it back to NZ to trial on the Canterbury (and the ANZAC's/OPV's)? We seemed to trial aircraft after the second world war (eg Meteor jet) before we put them into service (in our case the Vampire, the Meteor proved unstable I think), so why not? There's commonality with the NH90 in terms of support etc.

Ahem, APA discuss similar issues here . Seems commonsense but how fair is what is being written?

 

[Todjaeger]

WhatonearthwasIthinkingbefore?! Of course the NH90 won't be operating off RNZN ships much. It's always been stated that the Canterbury is designed to transport 4x NH90's to its destination, but that it will embark/operate the Seasprite.

Even ADF Army Blackhawks and NZ Hueys operate on RAN/RNZN LPA's/MRV in safe sea-states and good weather etc. They, like the NH90 aren't a navalised helo whereas the Seasprite is (or RAN Seahawk is etc) with all the modifcations and extra safety features that entails (and the ability to land on a pitching ship etc).

(However whether the NH90 will have more constraints than say ADF Army Blackhawks might be the issue)???

In a NZ context, the Seasprite will be fine to operate off the Canterbury (and having a search radar will be of benefit for use in poor-weather/night time operations. However NH90 offers a better payload and range etc, so perhaps the Seasprites, with its weapon systems, should stick to the ANZAC Frigates, and NZ should be looking at purchasing say 3 or 4 NFH90's (or Seahawks etc), with search radar and optional fitted-for-but-not-with weapon systems, embarked on Canterbury to support day to day operations instead of the Seasprite etc. It could then airlift special forces or troops to land and back to ship again if necessary, pretty much 24/7 and in rougher weather, something that could easily be a typical scenario around the South Pacific etc.

Perhaps NZ should lease (or buy) one NFH90 off the production line and bring it back to NZ to trial on the Canterbury (and the ANZAC's/OPV's)? We seemed to trial aircraft after the second world war (eg Meteor jet) before we put them into service (in our case the Vampire, the Meteor proved unstable I think), so why not? There's commonality with the NH90 in terms of support etc.

Ahem, APA discuss similar issues here . Seems commonsense but how fair is what is being written?

Having read through the APA article I find it questionable... No real surprise there. In fact, the very first sentence is incorrect.

Since the announcement of Government's intention to replace Navy’s six remaining Westland Sea Kings in 2010[1] with 46 NH Industries MRH90 helicopters, the ADF has designated the NH90 the Multi Role Helicopter or MRH90, industry has also raised the prospect of the MRH90 replacing the extant Sikorsky S-70B-2 Seahawk in about 2016.

Yes, the MRH90 is the Australian version of the NH90 TTH. Yes, 46 of them are being purchased in total. Yes, the RAN currently is retiring 6 Westland Sea Kings. Lastly, yes the MRH90 will be taking the place/role currently fufilled by the Sea King within the RAN. AFAIK though, the rest of the information and the way is seems to be presented is incorrect or misleading.

Given that APA is involved, I am uncertain whether this situation has arisen due to misunderstanding or an attempt to deliberately manipulate and mislead people.

To give a little background, the ADF is/has started on a helicopter rationalization programme. The intended goal of which is reducing the logistics and support burden the ADF faces in supporting the various helicopters used. What had been the anticipated path to reaching that goal was to reduce the different various types of helicopters used by the RAN and Army from 11 different designs to ~5 designs. IIRC the RAN Fleet Air Arm was itself composed of ~45 different helicopters of 4 separate designs just a few years ago, admittedly this included 11 Super Seasprites which never actually saw service, but one does get the picture.

Now, onto what I see as actually be a problem with the APA article.

For starters, the MRH90 is primarily for Army use which is why a version of the NH90 TTH was selected vs. the NFH90. AFAIK of the 46 on order, ~40 of them are intended for Army service. IIRC of those intended for RAN service, they are intended primarily for ship-to-ship and ship-to-shore personnel and equipment movement, like the current transport role of the Sea King. They often will be operating from the forthcoming LHD's and in support of Army operations, to the point where the RAN MRH90's are painted with the same camo pattern as the Army MRH90's.

In Army service, I believe they are replacing the UH-1 helicopters which are just recently retired from service, and possibly replacing some if not all of the S-70A Blackhawk helicopters in the near future as well. This is somewhat less certain but future orders are a possibility if more are needed.

In service with the Navy, I do not expect to see the MRH90 deployed from the frigates or the AWD once they enter service, simply because the sort of role the MRH90 fills is not conducted by the RAN combatants.

This in turn means that the MRH90 not being (currently) compatible with the RAST system used by RAN warships is of less importance. I also have to question what seemed to be said by APA on various heli recovery methods at sea. The implication I drew from the article was that the various NH90 versions do not, and can not, be made to work with RAST. I personally find this hard to believe, that a variant or modification could not be developed... After all, RAST is fairly widely used.

The last piece I have to question, is the suggestion that the MRH90 would be replacing the S-70B Sea Hawks in ~2016. I do recall reading that it was desired to replace the various Blackhawk/Sea Hawk designs with various NH90 designs. This in part was because the helicopter performance of the NH90 (cargo capacity, weight carrying, etc) is supposed to be superior to that of the S-70A/B. From what I understand, there had been compliants about the Black Hawk being somewhat underpowered in hot conditions. What I do not recall is that the MRH90 version is what is to replace the RAN's Sea Hawks. IMO this is incorrect (if any Oz DefPro's and or Aviation Pro's can confirm, it would be great) as there is already a navalized version of the NH90 which has the onboard sensors, weaponry, etc which is used for ASW, ASuW and the other sorts of missions the S-70B's currently undertake. The only real question in my mind, is whether or not the weapons and avionics fitout of the NFH90 would suit the RAN, and if not, how much and how willing would the RAN be to have a custom fitout designed and tested, vs. chosing a MOTS NFH90 or some other design. Given the wonderful experience the RAN had with the SH-2H(A) Super Seasprite it could very well mean that the RAN will only go with a MOTS design. This in turn could mean that a version of the S-70B was retained, as the RAN seems to wish to continue using US-sourced lightweight torpedoes and similar weapons. Nevermind the capabilities available from new versions of the Sea Hawk like the MH-60R 'Romeo' which seem to provide significantly greater situational awareness to the crew and supporting vessels, as well as greater flexibility in terms of mission response and armament.

-Cheers

 

[greenie]

From the birdies Ive been talking to youve hit the nail on the head Recce.k1, Canterbury was only designed to be a very large taxi not a tactical sea lift as described by some and so the flight deck and operations has many limitations (abeit they are behinde in the sea trials) , at this point its not even certified for dual helo ops, rear spot for flying ,front for parking/set up.
As for the NH90 I find it allmost criminal that this machine would have been selected with this prob known ,but after the last few years nothing suprises me now!

 

[recce.k1]

Even as a "taxi" the Canterbury is still a useful naval asset for us (but if the former Govt wanted a "taxi" perhaps they should have spent the $35M to stabalise the Charles Upham instead)??

The Coles report and media reporting is saying that the Canterbury will have to be operated with limitations (and other issues need resolving eg LCM's suffer from lateral movement when being moved by the cranes etc).

If the economy weren't on decline I'd be suggesting the Canterbury be designated a training vessel and a new proven Sealift design be bought etc. This isn't said to belittle the Canterbury and its crew, but it would be a great training asset eg for the basics ie offloading at sea, supporting resupply of the outer islands that tie up the Frigates & strategic sealift etc.

Last weekend's NZ Herald did a major 2 page story on defence in particular the Navy and its problems with the Canterbury/Project Protector:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10553297

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10553294

 

[mattyem]

at this point its not even certified for dual helo ops, rear spot for flying ,front for parking/set up.
As for the NH90 I find it allmost criminal that this machine would have been selected with this prob known ,but after the last few years nothing suprises me now!

When on deployment we landed french and australian helos on the rear of the deck, im not sure where you got your information on certification. Ive been serving on her for a year as an engineer and havnt herd anything about it. It is not on our operation defect list

 

[mattyem]

in terms of the nh90 and issues of operating from sea, there is a sea variant the NFV

"The primary role of the NFH version is autonomous anti-submarine warfare (ASW) and anti-surface unit warfare (ASuW), mainly from naval ships. These aircraft are equipped for day and night, adverse weather and severe ship motion operations.

Additional roles include anti-air warfare support, vertical replenishment (VERTREP), search & rescue (SAR) and troop transport."

So surely taking this into mind, modifying and NH90 or 2 for sea would be too much of an issue.

 

[greenie]

Firstly, I would like to not be seen to be knocking the crew, as we all in service have had to deal with equipment and various government depts who have at some point been testing
As for my info it comes from a serving FDO and one ex fly boy, I dont think it has reached the defect list as it is part of the ships trials and just not completed yet, I think it also has something to do with developing flight procedures for two aircraft,ie arrival and departure ,OK when at anchor but not while underway, sorry testing my memory.
It would not be economic to retro the airframes at a later date, as the airframe structure would need too much "beefing up" ,it has to be done in the build process, ....but if a decision was made now it would be easy to do on the production line.

 

[recce.k1]

Projector Protector progress

Good news, the Govt and BAE have reached an agreement whereby BAE will supply 8 new RHIB's for the 7 ships at their cost. Things seem to be progressing and although the DefMin hasn't named a date when the patrol vessels will be commissioned, according to the news article he hopes he will be able to soon.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10554988
New Navy ships 'in action soon'
4:00AM Wednesday Feb 04, 2009

Six new Navy ships languishing in Whangarei and Melbourne are expected to be in action soon, after safety issues delayed their commissioning for more than a year.

The Labour Government ordered seven new ships under the $500 million Project Protector scheme.

They were all due to be commissioned before the end of 2007 but the Navy has accepted and commissioned only one - the multi-role HMNZS Canterbury - and that has been dogged by safety and design issues.

One of the main issues had been the 7.4m rigid-hulled inflatable seaboats carried in alcoves on either side of the ship.

They were found to be unsuitable and prevented the ship going to sea.

They were also the same design as the boats to be supplied to the other six ships.

But Defence Minister Wayne Mapp said BAe Systems, the company which built the ships, had agreed to provide eight new inflatable seaboats worth $500,000 each.

HMNZS Canterbury was commissioned in Melbourne in June 2007. During heavy seas in the Bay of Plenty in its first voyage around New Zealand the next month, it lost one of its seaboats from its storage alcove on the side of the ship, about 6m above the waterline.

The wrecked boat was later found on Great Barrier Island more than 100km to the north.

The seaboat issue and other issues on the 9000-tonne Canterbury kept the ship alongside for months last year after an independent report said modifications costing $20 million were needed.

The seaboat problems were also largely responsible for delaying the formal commissioning of the other six ships in the fleet - four 340-tonne, 55m inshore patrol craft and two 1600-tonne, 85m offshore patrol vessels built in Melbourne.

Dr Mapp said after touring the Devonport naval base last week that the commissioning of the other six ships was looking "very promising"and he hoped to make an announcement soon.

The issues with the seven ships were the problem of the previous Labour Government, he said.

Former Defence Minister Phil Goff was "responsible for a lot of those problems - a bad contract in many respects, some poor thinking through at the initial stages of what was needed".

Dr Mapp said the same seaboats would be installed on the rest of the Project Protector fleets.

"BAe Systems has recognised that the previous seaboats were not suitable for the purpose and [has] agreed to supply the new ones."

- NZPA

 

[MrConservative]

The HMNZS Endeavour will soon be back in service after a year alongside getting rectification work so it complies with recent IMO tanker rules. Will be able to last until 2013. Navy are said to be looking at its replacement. Will be interesting to see what a new Defence Minister does in overseeing this project. Their has been talk of a Joint Supply Ship as per what the Canadians wished for a one stage. I would rather us play safe and buy a regular OTS doubled hulled tanker and not try to get all "creative" as per Project Protector.

 

[Lucasnz]

The HMNZS Endeavour will soon be back in service after a year alongside getting rectification work so it complies with recent IMO tanker rules. Will be able to last until 2013. Navy are said to be looking at its replacement. Will be interesting to see what a new Defence Minister does in overseeing this project. Their has been talk of a Joint Supply Ship as per what the Canadians wished for a one stage. I would rather us play safe and buy a regular OTS doubled hulled tanker and not try to get all "creative" as per Project Protector.

The navy doesn't really need a fleet tanker like Endeavour now that the fuel hungry Leanders have gone. While the large capability was useful in East Timor New Zealand is still short on lift capability. Obtaining a Joint Support ship gives the navy the best of both worlds and Merwede (Go here) happens to have one that would have a high degree of compatability with Canterbury. The advantages that would bring in the area of logistics and training for the navy can not be understated.

 

[Sea Toby]

Merwede's ship you mentioned is twice as large as the Endeavour and Canterbury, and will cost at least twice as much. The cheapest solution is to buy another South Korean tanker of similar size as the Endeavour.

Plus, I feel the Canterbury will provide as much sea lift as New Zealand requires. If not a cargo ship can always be leased.

 

[Lucasnz]

Merwede's ship you mentioned is twice as large as the Endeavour and Canterbury, and will cost at least twice as much. The cheapest solution is to buy another South Korean tanker of similar size as the Endeavour.

Plus, I feel the Canterbury will provide as much sea lift as New Zealand requires. If not a cargo ship can always be leased.

Canterbury provides a company lift capability only and could meet the majority of our needs it can't meet them all The only issue I have with the lift capability is that leasing commerical vessels delays deployments. This was evident in Bosina and ET.

 

[MrConservative]

Merwede's ship you mentioned is twice as large as the Endeavour and Canterbury, and will cost at least twice as much. The cheapest solution is to buy another South Korean tanker of similar size as the Endeavour.

Plus, I feel the Canterbury will provide as much sea lift as New Zealand requires. If not a cargo ship can always be leased.

Agreed. The design concept of the Joint Support Ship will have to be fully introduced into another navy before we should go anywhere near it. Now is not the time to run before we can walk.

The tanker role is one of the few remaining regional asset contributions that the RNZN still provides. It is needed on that basis for as much political reasons which are just as vital as operational in the grand scheme of things.

It is quite possible that plans are afoot next decade for a third frigate. That with the political dimension and the general low cost of building a very good Korean small fleet tanker, it is the sensible choice.

 

[Sea Toby]

Canterbury provides a company lift capability only and could meet the majority of our needs it can't meet them all The only issue I have with the lift capability is that leasing commerical vessels delays deployments. This was evident in Bosina and ET.

The Canterbury is sufficient to lift an enlarged company group for sudden emergencies nearby. She is not large enough to lift a battalion for UN operations abroad. But any NZ battalion deployment abroad won't be hasty, a considerable amount of time and planning will be involved, leaving plenty of time to lease a cargo vessel. With the Canterbury a company group can be lifted quickly, while the rest of the troops could arrive later with a leased ship.

There is a reason why New Zealand bought this sized ship, they really don't have the capacity to do larger quick deployments. Well, not without a considerable amount of time planning such an operation. And most likely, outside of the South Pacific, New Zealand would not be involved in the first wave. Much alike Bosnia, New Zealand would contribute troops for the second or third wave.

 

[recce.k1]

IMO, from my perspective (from recent history such as ET etc), the bulk of a NZ troop deployment seem to be in the second wave (excepting the SAS & sometimes a high-readiness company of course, which tend to go in with the Aussies), so I don't think we need large troop lift (eg batallion size) on a ship.

It seems NZ troops bound for the Asia-Pacific region are usually flown in anyway (hence I'd rather see NZ lease or buy two C-17's from Boeing etc).

So I have no problem with the Canterbury only carrying 1 or 2 Army company's. Should be sufficient for a Fiji type stand-off/forced civilian evacuation etc, or for dropping off a coy or platoons to various island groups if there was civil unrest or a civil defence emergency etc. If backup was needed fly in more troops assuming an airfield is secured.

Whilst I like the concept of a JSS, perhaps though for NZ's immediate needs to replace Endeavour, a "slightly bigger" Endeavour might be the way to go.

Could it be "slightly bigger" to accomodate other stores (apart from fuel, av fuel and water) eg some containers, or ordanance etc, and have a side door to allow port-to-port unloading/loading of a few vehicles eg trucks, LOV's and engineering vehicles eg bulldozers (not primarily LAV's but make allowances for just in case etc)? Or could we have a small hospital fitted (like Canterbury) for any civil defence or military operations support? Could it be ice-strengthen to allow it to take cargo to Antarctica to support the NZ-US ice programmes etc? I'm not sure that it would need to transport troops (otherwise it might as well be a JSS type ship) but what about having accomodation/mess facilities for maybe a couple-of-dozen troops or civilian agency personnel? If so, would this still be a "cheap" COTS ship to build by the Koreans or will it become a nightmare like Project Protector (i.e. another unproven - as in unbuilt before - design)? Unlike Canterbury it wouldn't need LCM's etc, but just a couple of RHIB's, as it would rely on port facilities to unload. Plus of course it would have a decent helo hanger and landing spot etc.

Bearing in mind this "political dimension", perhaps something similar to Endeavour but with some of these extra abilities or others could prove useful in a practical context for NZ in the Pacific and Antarctic region etc. But just don't let the Govt try and also turn it into some sort of patrol ship as Canterbury was also supposed to have been!

Anyway, some Project Protector news below (I'll post the whole article as these Fairfax links tend to disappear after a few days). It possibly appears that the IPV's are having the last hurdles sorted (the RHIB's) so it would be great if they are finally certified by Lloyds and brought into service soon.

As for the OPV's, whenever they can be brought into service will also be fantastic. But due to their weight issues and questionable Southern Ocean abilities I'm still of the opinion that another type of vessel should be sought for Southern Ocean patrol and SAR down there etc. (For several years we've had Greenpeace/Sea-Sheppard/Japanese Whalers transiting NZ's (& AU's) area of responsibility for SAR and no means (ship wise, well apart from the ANZAC Frigates) of keeping an eye on them or assisting if they got into trouble. Also any nation could be raiding fish stocks or other natural resources and we need the means to keep tabs and deter etc).

What are our options? How about a third Frigate instead?

Or how about another 2 ice-strengthen patrol boats of a different design or improved design (on the existing OPV design)? Is there already a proven design already out there (if so what, the UK's OPV(H) doesn't appear to have a helo hanger etc)?

Otherwise ... how about a new OPV based on the proven ANZAC Frigate design? It would be good for joint NZ-AU shipbuilding again in these depressed times. Keep the gun/magazine space, but drop the SAM to free up some space. Because the engine plant would be automated, we could save on crewing. In fact it wouldn't need the same amount of crewing as the ANZAC Frigate design as it won't be a combat ship with most the associated crewing and redundancy required, thus there would be the space to carry some troops or civil agency personel like the current OPV's are designed to do. Plus ample room for future weight growth & ice strengthening and/or room for fitted-for-but not with additional basic weaponry for local defence needs (as opposed to war fighting or task force needs) i.e. have ASW sonars & torps, CIWS, air/sea search radar (have ESSM then?) & gun. No need for anti-shipping Harpoon as it ain't a Frigate but merely a vessel with good self-defence systems if it found itself in harms way but an exception for ASW systems because we have a wide area to patrol and we don't have enough ASW equipped ships as it is, plus due to the need to counter the increase in subs in A-P reagion etc (if the ANZAC OPV were to encounter one or be on hand to search for them in times of hostilities). IMO in the South Pacific or Southern Ocean regions, we are more likely to encounter submarines or disguised raider or mine laying ships (not hostile warships) hence the gun and torps (& helo) can take care of these threats. But some anti-missile defence would be useful in case the raiders packed some sort of anti-ship missile on board ... or if the ANZAC Patrol Ship ventured over ET way again on escorting duties etc.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominionpost/4847306a6479.html

Navy's $500m ships may be unsuitable for the job
HANK SCHOUTEN - The Dominion Post | Saturday, 14 February 2009

Some of the navy's new ships may be incapable of doing what they are required to do, Defence Minister Wayne Mapp says.

The delivery of six new patrol ships has been delayed by more than a year because of warranty problems, while a series of problems has plagued the new multi-role ship Canterbury, which was delivered in 2007.

Dr Mapp said problems with the Project Protector ships were being tackled separately in an effort to speed things up. He expected to make an announcement soon on the delivery date for four inshore patrol ships, which have been tied up in Whangarei.

Delays in getting the ships were affecting navy morale and overcoming the problems was a top priority, Dr Mapp said.

Contractor BAE Systems had recognised the original sea boats put on all ships were not suitable and agreed to replace all 14 Gemini rigid-hulled inflatable boats with $500,000 Zodiacs.

That effectively resolved all certification problems that had delayed the inshore patrol ships for the past year.

Dr Mapp said contractors were still working on problems with the Canterbury, including the placement of its boats and docking arrangements for its cargo-carrying barges. There were also weight problems with the $90 million offshore patrol craft.

It was possible the contractor might be unable to fix all the problems and some of the ships might never meet the contract specifications, Dr Mapp said.

The Canterbury might not be able to remain on patrol in storm-force-seven seas, as required.

The Defence Ministry would be looking for a financial settlement but Dr Mapp would not put a figure on potential compensation. The shipbuilding contract was worth $500 million.

Meanwhile, Dr Mapp was meeting his Australian counterpart Joel Fitzgibbon in Sydney yesterday for talks on defence ties and plans being worked on by both governments.

He is also flying to Poland, where ministers from 30 countries that have contributed forces to the International Stabilisation Force in Afghanistan are meeting.

New Zealand has 132 troops in Afghanistan, where a provincial reconstruction team has been deployed for the past six years. The Government is expected to announce an extension of that deployment, rather than offer more forces. "New Zealand is pretty heavily stretched already with deployments to East Timor and the Solomons. Our region will always take first priority."

 

[MrConservative]

IMO, from my perspective (from recent history such as ET etc), the bulk of a NZ troop deployment seem to be in the second wave (excepting the SAS & sometimes a high-readiness company of course, which tend to go in with the Aussies), so I don't think we need large troop lift (eg batallion size) on a ship.

It seems NZ troops bound for the Asia-Pacific region are usually flown in anyway (hence I'd rather see NZ lease or buy two C-17's from Boeing etc).

So I have no problem with the Canterbury only carrying 1 or 2 Army company's. Should be sufficient for a Fiji type stand-off/forced civilian evacuation etc, or for dropping off a coy or platoons to various island groups if there was civil unrest or a civil defence emergency etc. If backup was needed fly in more troops assuming an airfield is secured.

Whilst I like the concept of a JSS, perhaps though for NZ's immediate needs to replace Endeavour, a "slightly bigger" Endeavour might be the way to go.

Could it be "slightly bigger" to accomodate other stores (apart from fuel, av fuel and water) eg some containers, or ordanance etc, and have a side door to allow port-to-port unloading/loading of a few vehicles eg trucks, LOV's and engineering vehicles eg bulldozers (not primarily LAV's but make allowances for just in case etc)? Or could we have a small hospital fitted (like Canterbury) for any civil defence or military operations support? Could it be ice-strengthen to allow it to take cargo to Antarctica to support the NZ-US ice programmes etc? I'm not sure that it would need to transport troops (otherwise it might as well be a JSS type ship) but what about having accomodation/mess facilities for maybe a couple-of-dozen troops or civilian agency personnel? If so, would this still be a "cheap" COTS ship to build by the Koreans or will it become a nightmare like Project Protector (i.e. another unproven - as in unbuilt before - design)? Unlike Canterbury it wouldn't need LCM's etc, but just a couple of RHIB's, as it would rely on port facilities to unload. Plus of course it would have a decent helo hanger and landing spot etc.

Bearing in mind this "political dimension", perhaps something similar to Endeavour but with some of these extra abilities or others could prove useful in a practical context for NZ in the Pacific and Antarctic region etc. But just don't let the Govt try and also turn it into some sort of patrol ship as Canterbury was also supposed to have been!

Anyway, some Project Protector news below (I'll post the whole article as these Fairfax links tend to disappear after a few days). It possibly appears that the IPV's are having the last hurdles sorted (the RHIB's) so it would be great if they are finally certified by Lloyds and brought into service soon.

As for the OPV's, whenever they can be brought into service will also be fantastic. But due to their weight issues and questionable Southern Ocean abilities I'm still of the opinion that another type of vessel should be sought for Southern Ocean patrol and SAR down there etc. (For several years we've had Greenpeace/Sea-Sheppard/Japanese Whalers transiting NZ's (& AU's) area of responsibility for SAR and no means (ship wise, well apart from the ANZAC Frigates) of keeping an eye on them or assisting if they got into trouble. Also any nation could be raiding fish stocks or other natural resources and we need the means to keep tabs and deter etc).

What are our options? How about a third Frigate instead?

Or how about another 2 ice-strengthen patrol boats of a different design or improved design (on the existing OPV design)? Is there already a proven design already out there (if so what, the UK's OPV(H) doesn't appear to have a helo hanger etc)?

Otherwise ... how about a new OPV based on the proven ANZAC Frigate design? It would be good for joint NZ-AU shipbuilding again in these depressed times. Keep the gun/magazine space, but drop the SAM to free up some space. Because the engine plant would be automated, we could save on crewing. In fact it wouldn't need the same amount of crewing as the ANZAC Frigate design as it won't be a combat ship with most the associated crewing and redundancy required, thus there would be the space to carry some troops or civil agency personel like the current OPV's are designed to do. Plus ample room for future weight growth & ice strengthening and/or room for fitted-for-but not with additional basic weaponry for local defence needs (as opposed to war fighting or task force needs) i.e. have ASW sonars & torps, CIWS, air/sea search radar (have ESSM then?) & gun. No need for anti-shipping Harpoon as it ain't a Frigate but merely a vessel with good self-defence systems if it found itself in harms way but an exception for ASW systems because we have a wide area to patrol and we don't have enough ASW equipped ships as it is, plus due to the need to counter the increase in subs in A-P reagion etc (if the ANZAC OPV were to encounter one or be on hand to search for them in times of hostilities). IMO in the South Pacific or Southern Ocean regions, we are more likely to encounter submarines or disguised raider or mine laying ships (not hostile warships) hence the gun and torps (& helo) can take care of these threats. But some anti-missile defence would be useful in case the raiders packed some sort of anti-ship missile on board ... or if the ANZAC Patrol Ship ventured over ET way again on escorting duties etc.

Sounds as though something along the lines of a couple of Thetis Class and task specific S/flex modules is what your looking for?? Ice strengthened and the A109 should fit in the hanger if the Lynx could.

 

[Sea Toby]

I mentioned earlier in this thread we are stuck with the OPVs. In my mind it would be cheaper adding a few meters of length plug to these ships to overcome their overweight problems than to build another new ship which would stretch the navy's already crewing problems. Cruise ships have been plugged before and within a year at modest cost.

I wouldn't mind a slightly larger replenishment oiler with a small vehicle deck to replace the Endeavour and possibly accommodations for 30-50 or so troops. New Zealand doesn't require another Canterbury sized sea lift ship.

 

[recce.k1]

Alas, according to one of the naval members here a few weeks ago I think, reckoned the OPV's couldn't be plugged??? Perhaps the situation is an extensive and costly redesign would be needed and more then anything because of the time delays in getting the OPV's into service, morale and retention problems, mean that the two already built ships just need to get into service ASAP.

Absolutely, of course we need to keep the exisiting two OPV's (accept certain operational limitations).

But remembering that the maritime patrol review advocated 3 or 4 OPV's to meet govt objectives, we are 1 or 2 short, hence the suggestion to build another two.

Maybe a Thetis or "ANZAC/Meko OPV" variant could be an option for another two ships and give NZ a much needed capability boost (and backup for the ANZAC Frigates).

Otherwise maybe the cheapest option is to build another 2x extended OPV's, i.e. based on the current design but several metres longer or more, to allow for the weight/growth issue, and to accomodate a better self defence system and sea/air search radar. I'm still of the opinion that ASW is important for a maritime nation such as NZ with wide ranging areas of responsibility throughout the region so fit sensors and torps - yes the cost will increase due to this. There are advantages of course of having commonality with the existing OPV's, eg training and engineering reasons etc.

Remember it has been reported that the OPV's will probably have a shortened life due to the weight issue. Any Govt defence whitepaper or new patrol review should be assessing a new OPV design anyway. But with the advantage of taking time to get it right (as there are no major time constraints this time to get OPV's 3 & 4 into service). A capable new OPV (for 2012-2015 etc) could be a useful as an interim filler until NZ joins the ANZAC II Frigate replacement programme (as a replacement won't be needed to around 2023 or thereabouts from memory) and orders 3 or 4 such types!

An ideal fleet of 4 Frigates, 4 OPV's and support vessels seems like a prudent and basic minimal RNZN fleet to me!