stryker NZ
New Member
yeah thats it ive been down in the docks when endevour was in them and it was a pretty tight fit, plenty of room length wise but the drydock is just too narrow to fit the Canterbury.
Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
My Navy drinking buddies may have put me crock on the Floating Dock being able to accomodate the Canterbury.
Extract NZ Professional Skipper Magazine Issue 24
A major development in the Yacht Services division is the proposed covered floating dock, to be built at Babcock's expense. This will be 100m long by 40m wide and 30m high, and will have a capacity of about 3500 tonnes. The dock will be sited where the marina is. "The dock will be a national asset for the New Zealand marine industry," says Franklin. "The Devonport community is not opposed to the dock, but to its visual impact. I share their concerns. We are looking at various alternative designs, including a different cover."
Never a flyer for Canterbury at 9000 Tonnes!Now where's that humble pie in the fridge.
I don't know the size of the Lyttelton drydock, but it is a lot smaller than the one in Auckland. I drove past it a couple of months back, it had a larger trawler in it, with a small amount of room to spare. The largest vessel the navy sent to the Lyttelton drydock was the old "Tui".
Evaluation Time? The 2001 Maritime Forces Review.
With the second OPV HMNZS Wellington due to be launched today in Melbourne, I thought it would be time for an evaluation of the aims of the 2001 Maritime Review to discuss; i) How well did it go? ii) What can we learn from it? iii) Where do we go from here?
The 2001 Review sort to identify the options for the future size and shape of the maritime surface fleet. It was to include potential transition plans from then existing force structure. The Review was used as the basis for outlining the overall specifications for New Zealand's future maritime capabilities and how they were to be developed and achieved. It's been six years since the review come out and the Project Protector programme will be completed next year. Reading it again years later I looked to where it missed its capability targets or policy shortfalls so as a guide to what could be a future Protector II.
Selected Issues from the Review Summary that are worth a second look:
5. The Review has confirmed the retention of Canterbury (to 2005), the two ANZAC frigates, Te Kaha and Te Mana, and the tanker Endeavour to respond to the defence policy objectives associated with Australia, Asia-Pacific and global obligations. This fleet, however, would only be able to provide one frigate for such tasks for up to six months in any twelve-month period.
15. The requirement is for about 950 sea days annually performing inshore patrol tasks and about 420 days annually performing offshore patrol tasks. This Review, and consultation with civilian agencies, suggests that a mix of five small inshore patrol vessels for most of the inshore tasks and at least three capable offshore patrol vessels (OPV), plus the MRV, for the offshore tasks would meet this requirement.
25. While the addition of a MRV and a patrol force will substantially add to the Navy’s ability to meet maritime patrol requirements, there are some civilian tasks and capabilities that would not be met by this fleet mix. These include towage/salvage of large vessels, close inshore search and rescue (0-3nm), and response activity for Customs and MFish.
29. Planning the entry into service of a MRV on the retirement of Canterbury is sensible for a number of reasons. First, the MRV is needed to meet the Navy’s training requirement for sustaining sufficient personnel to operate other naval vessels. Second, the tactical sealift requirement of the MRV is part of the Government’s core requirement for a modernized land force that can be deployed to where it is required. Third, a MRV will be the most capable vessel and have utility across the range of military and civilian requirements.
31. To ensure that there is no loss in training capability within the Navy, a smooth transition from Canterbury to the MRV will be necessary. The planning process for this replacement will require a realistic timetable for any build or modification programme.
If there is to be a Project Protector Stage II - What can we take from Stage I.
With the second OPV HMNZS Wellington due to be launched today in Melbourne, I thought it would be time for an evaluation of the aims of the 2001 Maritime Review to discuss; i) How well did it go? ii) What can we learn from it? iii) Where do we go from here?
The 2001 Review sort to identify the options for the future size and shape of the maritime surface fleet. It was to include potential transition plans from then existing force structure. The Review was used as the basis for outlining the overall specifications for New Zealand's future maritime capabilities and how they were to be developed and achieved. It's been six years since the review come out and the Project Protector programme will be completed next year. Reading it again years later I looked to where it missed its capability targets or policy shortfalls so as a guide to what could be a future Protector II.
Selected Issues from the Review Summary that are worth a second look:
5. The Review has confirmed the retention of Canterbury (to 2005), the two ANZAC frigates, Te Kaha and Te Mana, and the tanker Endeavour to respond to the defence policy objectives associated with Australia, Asia-Pacific and global obligations. This fleet, however, would only be able to provide one frigate for such tasks for up to six months in any twelve-month period.
15. The requirement is for about 950 sea days annually performing inshore patrol tasks and about 420 days annually performing offshore patrol tasks. This Review, and consultation with civilian agencies, suggests that a mix of five small inshore patrol vessels for most of the inshore tasks and at least three capable offshore patrol vessels (OPV), plus the MRV, for the offshore tasks would meet this requirement.
25. While the addition of a MRV and a patrol force will substantially add to the Navy’s ability to meet maritime patrol requirements, there are some civilian tasks and capabilities that would not be met by this fleet mix. These include towage/salvage of large vessels, close inshore search and rescue (0-3nm), and response activity for Customs and MFish.
29. Planning the entry into service of a MRV on the retirement of Canterbury is sensible for a number of reasons. First, the MRV is needed to meet the Navy’s training requirement for sustaining sufficient personnel to operate other naval vessels. Second, the tactical sealift requirement of the MRV is part of the Government’s core requirement for a modernized land force that can be deployed to where it is required. Third, a MRV will be the most capable vessel and have utility across the range of military and civilian requirements.
31. To ensure that there is no loss in training capability within the Navy, a smooth transition from Canterbury to the MRV will be necessary. The planning process for this replacement will require a realistic timetable for any build or modification programme.
If there is to be a Project Protector Stage II - What can we take from Stage I.
Last edited:
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
I'll need to re-read the Maritime Review before opening my mouth however just quickly, point 15 quoted above is very interesting (and from it we can interpret how serious the govt really is/was in supporting this project & protecting NZ's borders and EEZ etc, as opposed to the rhetoric we hear).
So point 15 states that "The requirement is for about 950 sea days annually performing inshore patrol tasks and about 420 days annually performing offshore patrol tasks" and from that the Review suggested the optimal fleet numbers and composition etc.
It would be interesting to know what the actual "sea days" requirements are now in relation to having a smaller fleet in actuality (does anyone know yet?) and thus can we judge whether the actual fleet can adequately meet these requirements (or will they be over-utilised, like the ANZAC's, and thus wear out quicker than intended)?
Some media reports on the launch of HMNZS Wellington:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4254073a6479.html
http://nz.news.yahoo.com/071025/3/26hk.html
Personally I think the OPV's will be a valuable asset for what they will be tasked to do. However as most of us thrashed out here a while back perhaps a minimal armament upgrade and a better survellience system would come in handy if the vessels ever had to take on escort duties north of Australia etc and perhaps another two more to ensure more than 365 days coverage on station etc.
Potentially I think these vessels will be worked hard eg summer months on Southern Ocean/Antarctic fisheries poaching patrols, other times undertaking similar patrols in the Tasman and Pacific etc. Then these vessels are also to be used for counter-terrorism and peace keeping presence (& troop insertion etc). Unsure how the RNZN will be able to fit this all in. Let's hope post 2008 the Govt does something about this.
So point 15 states that "The requirement is for about 950 sea days annually performing inshore patrol tasks and about 420 days annually performing offshore patrol tasks" and from that the Review suggested the optimal fleet numbers and composition etc.
It would be interesting to know what the actual "sea days" requirements are now in relation to having a smaller fleet in actuality (does anyone know yet?) and thus can we judge whether the actual fleet can adequately meet these requirements (or will they be over-utilised, like the ANZAC's, and thus wear out quicker than intended)?
Some media reports on the launch of HMNZS Wellington:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4254073a6479.html
http://nz.news.yahoo.com/071025/3/26hk.html
Personally I think the OPV's will be a valuable asset for what they will be tasked to do. However as most of us thrashed out here a while back perhaps a minimal armament upgrade and a better survellience system would come in handy if the vessels ever had to take on escort duties north of Australia etc and perhaps another two more to ensure more than 365 days coverage on station etc.
Potentially I think these vessels will be worked hard eg summer months on Southern Ocean/Antarctic fisheries poaching patrols, other times undertaking similar patrols in the Tasman and Pacific etc. Then these vessels are also to be used for counter-terrorism and peace keeping presence (& troop insertion etc). Unsure how the RNZN will be able to fit this all in. Let's hope post 2008 the Govt does something about this.
Last edited:
Generally with the MRV the Government believes it is to achieve its 420 days offshore quota. With the Kahu to be retained in service for training, plus the six crews for 4 IPV's it also believes it can achieve its 950 days inshore patrol tasks. The Manawanui also does inshore patrol tasks alongside its main Dive/MCM role. The problem with this is its a bit too much like poor risk management - using the last resort back up approach as the primary modus operandi. I also think that the arbitary caps on quota days are an underestimate and should be lifted up to 1200 for Inshore and at least 600 for offshore over the next few years, because according to an MFish mate the fish pinching is rife out there. Additionally, the Kahu and the Manawanui are getting elderly. There is also the replacement of the Endevour and Resolution to consider around 2013. The Support fleet is not sexy, but it sure is important. Speaking of replacements, its always been my view that the new Canterbury is in effect a replacement the old Charles Upham, that the Southland was replaced by the Te Kaha, the Waikato replaced by the Te Mana, and that the old Wellington essentially has been replaced by the two new OPV's for EEZ work. It means that we are still yet to replace the old Canterbury as I believe we are a frigate short. Prior to 2000 we also had the following Moa Class Inshore Patrol Craft; the Moa, Hunai, Kiwi, Whakakura and Kahu. The other Moa Class vessels Tarapunga and Tapaku, whilst primarily tasked with an inshore survey role were also conducting coastal patrol duties. So a discussion could be had over the fact that their is less Naval presence in our inshore EEZ these days and we can't maintain even one frigate 24/7/365.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
So if the review suggested 3-4 OPV's and 5 IPC's (I thought I saw a figure of 7 once, must get round to re-reading it) but ordered 2 OPV's and 4 IPC's then these ships will be worked hard. And their crews will be worked hard (which will result in early discharges etc) - unless they move to multi-crews (a la RAN Armidales IPC's)?
It also means the other ships in the fleet will continue to be tasked with EEZ Patrols on occassion eg Resolution, Endeavour (yes the Endeavour has done them!) etc. I suppose that's not necessarily a bad thing if the ships were on transit and were passing through an area of interest (and provide some excitement for the crew) but again hopefully not too much pressure will be put on these auxilliary ships etc.
Regarding the IPC numbers, as well as the Moa class in the 80's we also had the initial Lake class patrol boats (and prior the old SDML's etc). Whilst I think the new Lake class IPC's (same name) are a quantum leap forward, I'm really concerned that whilst it will be fanastic that the Reservists will get to crew these boats on occassion, the Reservists won't have their own dedicated craft based in the 4 main centres. I wish the Govt also spent a miniscule amount of money and replaced these Moas - they wouldn't need anything as flash as the new IPC (or then again why not buy the same IPC for commonality reasons - they were a cheap buy) to bring the fleet back up to 8 IPC's - which as you suggest will give us more EEZ presence not less. Plus the Reservists would carry on with their local harbour mine-counter measures training (rather than occassionally as proposed on the new IPC fleet)? If we think about how post WW2 we now have oil and gas platforms and refineries and aluminium smelters and the like, important regional ports like Tauranga, New Plymouth and Bluff etc, an increased IPC fleet would provide good training for the Navy/Reservists in MCM and counter terrorism etc, useful skills to acquire if not for NZ's immediate needs then certainly for when being deployed on larger vessels in Asia and the Gulf etc.
Maybe some sea going veterans like Lucas and Nighthawk could weigh in with their thoughts on optimal inshore patrolling needs etc.
It also means the other ships in the fleet will continue to be tasked with EEZ Patrols on occassion eg Resolution, Endeavour (yes the Endeavour has done them!) etc. I suppose that's not necessarily a bad thing if the ships were on transit and were passing through an area of interest (and provide some excitement for the crew) but again hopefully not too much pressure will be put on these auxilliary ships etc.
Regarding the IPC numbers, as well as the Moa class in the 80's we also had the initial Lake class patrol boats (and prior the old SDML's etc). Whilst I think the new Lake class IPC's (same name) are a quantum leap forward, I'm really concerned that whilst it will be fanastic that the Reservists will get to crew these boats on occassion, the Reservists won't have their own dedicated craft based in the 4 main centres. I wish the Govt also spent a miniscule amount of money and replaced these Moas - they wouldn't need anything as flash as the new IPC (or then again why not buy the same IPC for commonality reasons - they were a cheap buy) to bring the fleet back up to 8 IPC's - which as you suggest will give us more EEZ presence not less. Plus the Reservists would carry on with their local harbour mine-counter measures training (rather than occassionally as proposed on the new IPC fleet)? If we think about how post WW2 we now have oil and gas platforms and refineries and aluminium smelters and the like, important regional ports like Tauranga, New Plymouth and Bluff etc, an increased IPC fleet would provide good training for the Navy/Reservists in MCM and counter terrorism etc, useful skills to acquire if not for NZ's immediate needs then certainly for when being deployed on larger vessels in Asia and the Gulf etc.
Maybe some sea going veterans like Lucas and Nighthawk could weigh in with their thoughts on optimal inshore patrolling needs etc.
Last edited:
Otago delivery
The Navy Community Newsletter in the latest Nov2 Fortnightly Devonport Flagstaff Community newspaper, covered the new ship launch in Melbourne of HMNZ Wellington. Within the article comment was made as follows"..Otago was launched by Dame Silvia Cartwright in November 2006 and is expected to be commissioned for operational sevice in the first quarter of 2008."
So there we have it, the other side of Xmas. I've heard that the delay is a result of the number of small mods the RNZN has been requesting.I was In Whangarei the other day and the first IPV looks good to go.
The Navy Community Newsletter in the latest Nov2 Fortnightly Devonport Flagstaff Community newspaper, covered the new ship launch in Melbourne of HMNZ Wellington. Within the article comment was made as follows"..Otago was launched by Dame Silvia Cartwright in November 2006 and is expected to be commissioned for operational sevice in the first quarter of 2008."
So there we have it, the other side of Xmas. I've heard that the delay is a result of the number of small mods the RNZN has been requesting.I was In Whangarei the other day and the first IPV looks good to go.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Here's a shot of the recent Wellington OPV launch from the ShipSpotting site http://www.shipspotting.com/modules/myalbum/photo.php?lid=523473 (double click on image for full screen view etc. Actually it's quite a high res shot, you can really zoom in close up and maintain detail).
It always intrigues me that there are so many civilians at these launches of RNZN ships in Melbourne. Are they familiy and friends of the Tenix contractors or is every ship launch advertised as a big event for the local community?
Here's one for our favourite Tasmanian, Tasman, a shot from ShipSpotting of the former Frigate Wellington coming into Hobart a few years ago now! http://www.shipspotting.com/modules/myalbum/photo.php?lid=488653
Last edited:
Nighthawknz
New Member
Ahhh my old ship... how I miss her...
Have to agree - Wellington was the best Leander in the fleet and had the best crew (even if we drank to much)Ahhh my old ship... how I miss her...
Happy TKO
Nighthawknz
New Member
errr I sort of remember that...Happy TKO
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Just out of curiosity, do you two lads (or anyone else) know whether there was a system on the old Leanders (or even on the new ANZAC's) to "wash down" the ships helo, to remove as much salt spray as possible after a mission etc? (There's an interesting thread on Wings Over NZ about Seasprites and corrosion).
An in line with the funnel, one row of houses down from the treeline on the other side of the Derwent is Tasman's house!
The Leanders were excellent ships, IMO.
It wasn't that long ago when the RNZN had four operational frigates and the first Kiwi ship I went aboard in the late 1950's was one of six Lock class frigates. In service at that time were two Modified Dido class cruisers as well as the the six frigates! Sadly today's navy seems like a shadow of its former self. Of course it is not the only navy that has shrunk in size during recent times.
Tas
I did some time on Waikato's flight deck wearing a bell suit for crash rescue. Regretfully there was no wash down system on the flight deck, except for the NBCD prewet.
Everything else was by hand:shudder
Nighthawknz
New Member
Since the old Leanders were built around the cold war era they did have a system that washed the whole ship of nuclear particals NBCD washdown etc... but it used salt water and I am unsure if you could pump fresh water through it... as for washing the helo this was done mannually as was a complete ship wash down every time we berthed, was usually the first job to be done. :shudder
RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
Excercise Joint Wolf
Great article in the Army News involving the HMNZS Canterbury and Whiskey Company and Support.
Exercise Wolf Jointness at its Best
Awesome to see they are using how they should be, at the end the mentioned a article in the forthcoming Army news that an article on the use of P-3K as land support was to be included, very interested to see that.
Also the last attachment in the article is a dead link, does any one have a Copy of that cross section.
Cheers
Rob
Great article in the Army News involving the HMNZS Canterbury and Whiskey Company and Support.
Exercise Wolf Jointness at its Best
Awesome to see they are using how they should be, at the end the mentioned a article in the forthcoming Army news that an article on the use of P-3K as land support was to be included, very interested to see that.
Also the last attachment in the article is a dead link, does any one have a Copy of that cross section.
Cheers
Rob
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Quite a well written article indeed, good to see it available for the public to read on the NZDF website there.
Regarding the Canterbury cross section, it can also be found here on the last page of this issue of Air Force News 83 - July 07 (pg 21) http://www.airforce.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/airforce-news/afn83web.pdf
However it would be better if they got that PDF attachment link working on the Army News article http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/news/publications/army-news/381/ew.htm, as the file is larger and you can see more detail etc. I'll write to them to point out the problem.