Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[alexsa]

Yes but the new 25 mw design which is going to be ordered next year has a 130m USD budget, so the prices aren't that high.

No argument, still a lot of money while being cheaper taht a warship of comparible size (noting this is in USD) and is socnsitent with the price rises. Prices are not comeing down either despite the GFC.

It is also importnat to note the commercial hulls are generally contracted at delivery for just the vessel and contracted equipement. It does not include spares (beyond that required for immediate repairs as specified by Class, training or ongoing support. the in service cost is likley to be quite a bit higher.

 

[MrConservative]

From the Otago Daily Times

`Otago' not yet with Navy By Debbie Porteous on Tue, 24 Nov 2009

The Royal New Zealand Navy has not acquired new patrol vessel Otago despite a report in last week's trans Tasman political newsletter

A spokesman for Defence Minister Dr Wayne Mapp, who is in Canada this week, said the report was inaccurate.

The Government and the ship's builders were still in contract negotiations over issues with the vessel.

The ship would not be commissioned or accepted by the navy until those negotiations were completed to the satisfaction of all parties, the spokesman said.

It had previously been reported the ship was overweight, among other issues that did not meet the Defence Force's original specifications to builders.

It was hoped the 85m patrol vessel, which was originally scheduled to visit her home port of Dunedin at the end of 2007, would be delivered before Christmas, the spokesman said.

It is understood it is not expected in Dunedin until part-way through next year.

http://www.odt.co.nz/your-town/dunedin/83203/otago039-not-yet-with-navy

So nothing is going to happen until negotiations are settled. Possibly part-way next year.

The OTD has been following the OPV story closely over the last couple of years and getting the scoops at times. Seeking answers and not merely relying on NZDF press releases.

 

[RWC]

Icebreaking patrol vessels:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat-smamat/documents/STXM_920_AOPS_DELMS_STXM_WG2_Presentation.pdf

These will be a lot more expensive than the Mackinaw though.

 

[Sea Toby]

Icebreaking patrol vessels:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat-smamat/documents/STXM_920_AOPS_DELMS_STXM_WG2_Presentation.pdf

These will be a lot more expensive than the Mackinaw though.

Canada has seen what New Zealand attempted to do with their ice strengthened OPVs. Canada is worried about Global Warming, and much more ship traffic along their northern shores. Both the USA and Canada operate smaller icebreakers to open ports. Canada looked at and almost bought icebreaking OPVs, but alas, the price was too high. Thus, a rethink. At the moment they have decided to go with a new polar icebreaker and a few medium sized icebreakers to replace those they have in their inventory today.

It was thought the icebreaking OPVs were a good idea, that is until last winter. Its now considered they won't be powerful enough to break the ice up north. They are back to possibly adding a few ice strengthened OPVs similar to New Zealand again...

As I noted before, illegal fishing vessels might be found caught in first year ice. I doubt whether any ship outside of an icebreaker will be found in serious polar ice. But if the world fishing boats start building ice breaking trawlers, this could be a Canadian answer, icebreaking OPVs...

 

[Sea Toby]

A link to the USCG's icebreaking tugs used to keep ports open. They aren't as large as an OPV. They work with the Mackinaw to keep the Great Lakes ports open. However, last winter they were not powerful enough to keep Lake Erie open. Thus this year's potential and expected order for a second Mackinaw.

USCG Katmai Bay class icebreaking tug - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Sea Toby]

Discussing icebreakers, STX will build a new South African icebreaker for 116 million Euros. I would think this would be a good icebreaker for New Zealand if New Zealand ever chose to build one.

STX Finland to Build Icebreaker for South Africa | News | YLE Uutiset | yle.fi

 

[RWC]

Canada has seen what New Zealand attempted to do with their ice strengthened OPVs. Canada is worried about Global Warming, and much more ship traffic along their northern shores. Both the USA and Canada operate smaller icebreakers to open ports. Canada looked at and almost bought icebreaking OPVs, but alas, the price was too high. Thus, a rethink. At the moment they have decided to go with a new polar icebreaker and a few medium sized icebreakers to replace those they have in their inventory today.

It was thought the icebreaking OPVs were a good idea, that is until last winter. Its now considered they won't be powerful enough to break the ice up north. They are back to possibly adding a few ice strengthened OPVs similar to New Zealand again...

As I noted before, illegal fishing vessels might be found caught in first year ice. I doubt whether any ship outside of an icebreaker will be found in serious polar ice. But if the world fishing boats start building ice breaking trawlers, this could be a Canadian answer, icebreaking OPVs...

Unlike the ice strengthened Protector OPVs, the Canadian versions will be icebreakers, able to break up to 1m of ice. The program is delayed by a strategic review of shipbuilding in Canada, but it is on-going. There was talk in the media that breaking 1m of ice was insufficient, but since it exceeds the icebreaking capacity of Canada's five medium icebreakers, that was really just media fluff. There hasn't been a powering issue and thus far, there is no talk of returning to ice-strengthened OPVs.

I recommended that ship as suitable for NZ as a patrol ice breaker because it is a healthy blend of seakeeping performance vs. ice breaking performance. Ice is lighter in Antarctica (less multi year), but seas are heavier to get to the ice. There are not too many patrol ships in the world that have that particular blend of characteristics. The only one I'm aware of that is in service is the Norwegian MV Svalbard.

Also, it seemed we were talking Navy ships, rather than CG ships, and the Canadian ships will be commissioned naval vessels.

 

[RWC]

Discussing icebreakers, STX will build a new South African icebreaker for 116 million Euros. I would think this would be a good icebreaker for New Zealand if New Zealand ever chose to build one.

STX Finland to Build Icebreaker for South Africa | News | YLE Uutiset | yle.fi

Looks like a direct copy of their current ship, the SA Agulhas, which as far as I'm aware is an ice strengthened research vessel, not an icebreaker. I could be wrong.

If NZ is in the market for a research icebreaker, the Nathaniel B. Palmer, operated by the US National Science Foundation is a pretty good Antarctic icebreaker. She may be getting a little long in the tooth these days, but I'm pretty sure she still holds the record for Antarctic ice penetration and was built for a reasonable price.

 

[recce.k1]

OPV delivery update

I'll post the full article (as usually misc items from the Stuff website disappear after a few days etc).

Last patrol ships due for delivery
By HANK SCHOUTEN - The Dominion Post
Last updated 05:00 03/12/2009

The navy will finally take possession of two new offshore patrol ships next year, two years after they were due in service.

The ship builder must run one more test before the $90 million ships, HMNZS Otago and Wellington, are handed over.

They were expected to be delivered to Auckland in January or February, Defence Minister Wayne Mapp said yesterday.

The ships are the last of seven ships built under the $500 million Project Protector contract. They should all have been in service two years ago.

The multi-role HMNZ Canterbury was the first to be commissioned, but it was beset with problems. An independent report last year estimated modifications would cost $20 million.

The contract was awarded to Australian shipbuilder Tenix Defence in 2004. BAE Systems Australia, which later took over the company, has been involved in lengthy talks to sort out design and safety problems. It is understood that it is costing BAE more than $50m to fix problems with the new fleet.

A flaw with the system that launched inflatable seaboats from the patrol ships led to the death of Able Seaman Byron Solomon, 22, who drowned when the inflatable boat he was on capsized in 2007.

Dr Mapp said a final test would be carried out this month to see if inflatable boats could be launched safely while the ships were travelling at about five knots.

"People are confident that the test is going to work OK, but they need to see, given what happened to Able Seaman Solomon."

BAE had also solved a problem with the weight of the ships, which meant an ice-strengthening band was too low in the water to protect the hulls from Antarctic ice damage.

Some other problems were still subject to mediation, but Dr Mapp said he was happy with the way they had been dealt with so far.

 

[jchan77]

I came across this on the net. Any good???

NZ Naval Future: (Cost: ~$4-4.5bil [not including options])



4 Modern Frigates (German design or FREMM - Used for naval blockade and escort)
2 Multi-Role Vessels (Current design, but larger and uparmed.)
2 Fleet Tankers/Replenish
4 Offshore Patrol Vessels (Used for patrol of Ross Sea and Pacific ocean)
8 Inshore patrol vessels (2 to be based in each region for patrol)
12 Naval Helicopters (NH90 due to long range)

If finances are avaliable in 3-5 years, a submarine capability will be established.

 

[MrConservative]

NZ Naval Future: (Cost: ~$4-4.5bil [not including options])



4 Modern Frigates (German design or FREMM - Used for naval blockade and escort)
2 Multi-Role Vessels (Current design, but larger and uparmed.)
2 Fleet Tankers/Replenish
4 Offshore Patrol Vessels (Used for patrol of Ross Sea and Pacific ocean)
8 Inshore patrol vessels (2 to be based in each region for patrol)
12 Naval Helicopters (NH90 due to long range)

If finances are avaliable in 3-5 years, a submarine capability will be established.

Why on earth have 2 tankers for only 4 frigates – when you have probably a max of two frigates on patrol at any one time.

The RNZN have said in Navy Today no less that they are interested in a JSS type vessel anyway. That covers the extra MRV/Sealift and tanker capability. Realistically a JSS all we need in terms of tankers for a small Frigate force.

There may well be three frigates built eventually when it is time to replace the ANZAC’s but that is a few years down the track. I have heard on the rumour mill that 3 is possible and Dr Mapp has hinted that the Navy “must have capabilities at the high end and low end.” Recce had a post on this a couple of pages back – go look.

Why are you going to buy 12 NHF-90’s? You only need a max of 6 airframes to keep the 3-4 ships that would be DLOC at any one time.

Submarines: We had some old salt at the DF Review I attended raise the whole ‘submarine’ thing – after everybody in the room gave each other silent uncomfortable looks, a former senior naval officer gently lectured on the fact it would take 5 years of current NZDF defence spending alone and 15 years to bring into service a small submarine force. Finances will be unlikely to be ever available for Submarines.

 

[swerve]

NZ Naval Future:

4 Modern Frigates (German design or FREMM - Used for naval blockade and escort)
2 Multi-Role Vessels (Current design, but larger and uparmed.)
2 Fleet Tankers/Replenish
....

Why not just make your MRVs able to refuel & replenish the smaller vessels (& make them a bit bigger while you're at it), & drop the tanker/replenishment ships? With a navy that size, two tankers is an unnecessary luxury.

[Edit]
Ah. Already covered by MrConservative

 

[Sea Toby]

A link to the USCG's icebreaking tugs used to keep ports open. They aren't as large as an OPV. They work with the Mackinaw to keep the Great Lakes ports open. However, last winter they were not powerful enough to keep Lake Erie open. Thus this year's potential and expected order for a second Mackinaw.

USCG Katmai Bay class icebreaking tug - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unfortunately a new Mackinaw icebreaker didn't get past second base. It was not included in the joint conference bills. Most likely we'll have to wait for another cold winter for another attempt. At least we got to first base this year....

 

[Sea Toby]

Finally Chile has ordered their ex-US Newport LST replacement, an Enforcer 8000, a ship New Zealand did not buy, choosing the Canterbury instead. For those who think New Zealand chose incorrectly, it appears Sweden is going to buy and build a modified Canterbury geared more as a tender than as a patrol ship with both ships having ro-ro ferry capabilities. Sweden is typing their MRV as a combat support vessel. Whereas Chile's small Enforcer LPD will cost 93 million Euros, Sweden is planning to spend in the neighborhood of 60-70 million Euros for their L-10 MRV. Currently one of Sweden's support tenders is much smaller and approaching 35 years in age requiring replacement. While I am not certain Sweden has purchased the ship yet, the government has confirmed they will do so...

Sweden's MRV appears very similar to the Canterbury. Its helicopter hangar will be located further aft, with only one landing spot on its flight deck. The spaces where the Canterbury's hangar is located will be used as work shops for the tender. There will be no RHIBs alcove, their landing craft will use davits instead beside the superstructure. A very interesting design...

Its been interesting how different nations with different requirements have bought different ships to fill their sea lift role. Its also interesting that many of the nations that bought used Newport LSTs a decade or more ago are now buying replacements as the Newports approach 40 years in age.... Many of these nations are buying small sized amphibious ships although Australia is buying larger...

 

[Lucasnz]

Finally Chile has ordered their ex-US Newport LST replacement, an Enforcer 8000, a ship New Zealand did not buy, choosing the Canterbury instead. For those who think New Zealand chose incorrectly, it appears Sweden is going to buy and build a modified Canterbury geared more as a tender than as a patrol ship with both ships having ro-ro ferry capabilities. Sweden is typing their MRV as a combat support vessel. Whereas Chile's small Enforcer LPD will cost 93 million Euros, Sweden is planning to spend in the neighborhood of 60-70 million Euros for their L-10 MRV. Currently one of Sweden's support tenders is much smaller and approaching 35 years in age requiring replacement. While I am not certain Sweden has purchased the ship yet, the government has confirmed they will do so...

Sweden's MRV appears very similar to the Canterbury. Its helicopter hangar will be located further aft, with only one landing spot on its flight deck. The spaces where the Canterbury's hangar is located will be used as work shops for the tender. There will be no RHIBs alcove, their landing craft will use davits instead beside the superstructure. A very interesting design...

Its been interesting how different nations with different requirements have bought different ships to fill their sea lift role. Its also interesting that many of the nations that bought used Newport LSTs a decade or more ago are now buying replacements as the Newports approach 40 years in age.... Many of these nations are buying small sized amphibious ships although Australia is buying larger...

Do you have a link at all Sea Toby for the Swedish version of Canterbury.

Happy New Year

 

[regstrup]

Do you have a link at all Sea Toby for the Swedish version of Canterbury.

Happy New Year

This is the best official sketch, I have seen so far:

There is not much data around about the size and specs of the ship. Not even on the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration (FMV) or on swedish forums.

 

[Sea Toby]

I am not even sure whether the Swedish ship is directly linked to the Canterbury or Merwede. But its a similar ferry designed for the Swedes. I read somewhere the Swedish ship will be 140-145 meters in length, but I cannot recall where. So she will be a longer in length and a little more expensive than the Canterbury. Sweden intends to buy two L10s to replace two of their old tenders. This ship will be much larger than what they have now, but by no means is this ship large in comparison to others. It will have to be larger to provide sufficient vehicle cargo and accommodation spaces...

Different nations are facing more and more UN deployments. Many lack sufficient sea lift and are having difficulties supporting their forces abroad. A ro-ro ship is the cheapest and easiest solution to their problems...

Its interesting that Sweden is following New Zealand's modified ferry MRV solution instead of buying a more expensive amphibious ship.

 

[swerve]

Sweden set to sail ahead with multirole support ship

Commander Kjell-Ove Schramm, L10 requirements officer, said that following an initial analysis phase, "the decision was taken that the requirements were to be stated for a single type of vessel for fleet logistic support and replenishment as well as providing the amphibious lift and sea lift role".

 

[Lucasnz]

Sweden set to sail ahead with multirole support ship

Thanks for the information everyone.

I'm taken with the similarities in the baseline drawings to Canterbury. Given some of the similarities in the proposed usage of the Swedish vessel I would be interested in learning how they plan to overcome the Weight / Sea Keeping issues that are apparent in Canterbury.

I curious because RORO ships are designed to run near max displacement most of the time, my old man with 40+ years in the merchant navy was telling me this before Canterbury was even laid down. I don't have a problem with merchant vessels been converted for military use, but RORO ships seem to have more issues associated with them when used outside of the sealift role.

 

[Sea Toby]

Thanks for the information everyone.

I'm taken with the similarities in the baseline drawings to Canterbury. Given some of the similarities in the proposed usage of the Swedish vessel I would be interested in learning how they plan to overcome the Weight / Sea Keeping issues that are apparent in Canterbury.

I curious because RORO ships are designed to run near max displacement most of the time, my old man with 40+ years in the merchant navy was telling me this before Canterbury was even laid down. I don't have a problem with merchant vessels been converted for military use, but RORO ships seem to have more issues associated with them when used outside of the sealift role.

When the ship is doing a sea lift mission she will be loaded down, both with troops and supplies, and when she is doing her tendering mission she will mostly be anchored... Sweden has no intentions of using her as a ocean patrol vessel. Something I think New Zealand has given up on...I still think New Zealand may use the Canterbury for supply missions to Antarctica... We'll see...