Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
Nighthawknz
New Member
I would personally like to see the reservists have there own vessels whether the same as the the new IPC's or not but definately aimed for use of MCM... I also believe we should be patrolling our ECZ more than we do. We also have one of the largest S&R zones on the planet as well, so having 8 IPC's (4 regulars and the 4 reserves) and even a 3rd or 4th OPV as well as the MRV would help cover it.
One problem I see comes down to manpower... we don't have it at present, have all these new toys and no one to man them... I do hope that uncle helens gooberment is working on that as well (for all the armed forces not just Navy)
I was on the last fishiery patrol that HMNZS Pukaki (the old Lake class IPCs) did. We were only 3/4 crewed which made it hard for the whole crew in general as we were worked very hard, and long hours... (Played even harder ashore but thats another story) The patrol was 3 months and did a figure 8 round NZ and at the time we were the only vessal doing an ECZ patrol... the other 3 IPCs had already been decommisioned.
On one patrol we arrested 2 twianesse trawlers, and boarded (I dunno but the boss said it was a lot for a standard patrol) We also went into the sounds of Fiordland a caught a couple of crayfish poachers.
Just showing... that yes watching you and know you are there can make a difference... and actually boarding more vessels in our zones...
BTW the new IPCs have a sleek but kewl look, I only hope the perform well
peace
stryker NZ
New Member
1st hand opinion on the new Canty. I was talking to some crew members who have just come back from sea trials around New Zealand and when i asked what the ship was like all they could do was laugh at me and say that they were just thank full that their not part of the crew taking her down to the antarctic to test her ice strengthening.
apparantly the ship isnt exactly as stable or well put together as we have been lead to believe go figure
apparantly the ship isnt exactly as stable or well put together as we have been lead to believe go figure
The new Canterbury does not have fin stabilizers, using a Rolls tank anti-rolling systems instead. All of the new cruise ships have fin stabilizers, as they don't trust the tank anti-rolling systems. Not many cruise lines have had any success with them as much as with the fin stabilizers.
So Labour refused to fully spend on the Chuck Up, then went ahead and may have bought one brand new. At least the ship is fully fitted for the army and for the helicopters, and can do disembarking operations at a beach or at a dock.
While fin stabilizers won't work under 6 knots, at least they work above that speed. Whether the ship can still be installed with fin stabilizers, I do not know. But I do not have high hopes she will ever be useful as a patrol ship in the Southern Ocean or the Ross Sea.
So Labour refused to fully spend on the Chuck Up, then went ahead and may have bought one brand new. At least the ship is fully fitted for the army and for the helicopters, and can do disembarking operations at a beach or at a dock.
While fin stabilizers won't work under 6 knots, at least they work above that speed. Whether the ship can still be installed with fin stabilizers, I do not know. But I do not have high hopes she will ever be useful as a patrol ship in the Southern Ocean or the Ross Sea.
Last edited:
Canterbury is a modified version of a North Sea ferry. These ships are designed to operate with a full load of vehicles and passengers in order to acheive optimal stability. Given the comments on stability it seems to me that the most sensible solution would be to dump the Canterbury's patrol function and use her only as a Sea Lift / Tactical transport vessel. The result would be that every time Canterbury sails for more than 24 hours from Auckland she would have carry a expanded light infantry company (which would have to based in Auckland) and associated helicopter's.
hvidtfeldt
New Member
Sad to hear that the Canterbury program has run into these sorts of problems.
I guess the Kiwi's should consider buying/building 1 or 2 of these:
Link
http : //forsvaret.dk/NR/rdonlyres/D43A3649-12FB-4094-967A-C92C1074A2CD/0/ESSN_SHOL_2048.jpg
They have proved to be very seaworthy
That link didn't work for me, but are you linking the Danish Absalon class? Like New Zealand, Ireland placed a price tag on the ship of $100 million U.S. Unfortunately, the Danish ship is at least three times more expensive than the Canterbury. Its not even in the same price range. If anything, its in the same price range of an Anzac class frigate.
Now a Dutch 8,000 ton Enforcer has a similar price to the Canterbury. I believe its the ship ADI offered.
The question remains is one ship enough for New Zealand, the Danish Absalon, or where the IPVs and OPV necessary too?
Now a Dutch 8,000 ton Enforcer has a similar price to the Canterbury. I believe its the ship ADI offered.
The question remains is one ship enough for New Zealand, the Danish Absalon, or where the IPVs and OPV necessary too?
wouldn't a cheap ansew be to fit it with concreat baleast to reduse the rolling as its not going to travelling with a full load all the time like a north sea ferry
I can't see the navy wanting to go down that route again, the same fix was applied to the Upham with limited success.
hvidtfeldt
New Member
Sorry for the misleading link, I am not yetallowd to post a complete hyperlink here (I have to post more posts).
Try to copy+paste this text string into your web-browser:
forsvaret.dk/NR/rdonlyres/D43A3649-12FB-4094-967A-C92C1074A2CD/0/ESSN_SHOL_2048.jpg
It show Esbern Snare from the Absalon class in heavy weather.
What I meant in my posting is, that if New Zealand want a cheap yet capable patrolship, they need to spend what it costs, now that the Canterbury seems to be unable to fulfill the task.
It seems goverments all over the world are going for the absolute cheapest solution, which can be expensive in the log run.
The danish goverment has done the same error as the Absalons are not without their faults.
Well I hope the best for the New Zealand navy
HMNZS CANTERBURY loss of the port RHIB
http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/public-docs/cty-coi.pdf
Looks like there are a number of issues manifesting now Canterbury is in uservice.See page 4/16 paragraph20 Canterbury encountered wave heights of 6m which was almost twice the height of the alcoves housing the RHIB housings ,exceeded the top of the housing by a metre during the voyage crossing the Bay of Plenty.Page 7/16 makes reference para 39 that the risk of water increase into the alcoves was well known.However its the old story until it happens in practise minds become more focused.
The ship is required to patrol in sea conditions up to the top of sea state 7 and survive in sea state 9 .But given it rolled to 28 degress to port (para2) when it lost the RHIB it may not be able to meet these requirements currently.
The area identified in the report as the area of greatest risk was propeller emergence para51 see also 62 as it places a significant load increase on the engine.Page 13 para70 comments that all but one of the issues of propeller emergence have been resolved.
We will have to wait and see what happens next.
The report into the loss of the Port RHIB is in the public demain
http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/public-docs/cty-coi.pdf
Looks like there are a number of issues manifesting now Canterbury is in uservice.See page 4/16 paragraph20 Canterbury encountered wave heights of 6m which was almost twice the height of the alcoves housing the RHIB housings ,exceeded the top of the housing by a metre during the voyage crossing the Bay of Plenty.Page 7/16 makes reference para 39 that the risk of water increase into the alcoves was well known.However its the old story until it happens in practise minds become more focused.
The ship is required to patrol in sea conditions up to the top of sea state 7 and survive in sea state 9 .But given it rolled to 28 degress to port (para2) when it lost the RHIB it may not be able to meet these requirements currently.
The area identified in the report as the area of greatest risk was propeller emergence para51 see also 62 as it places a significant load increase on the engine.Page 13 para70 comments that all but one of the issues of propeller emergence have been resolved.
We will have to wait and see what happens next.
Jezza
Member
personally 2 absalons class instead of canterbury would of been great.
but politics and money play a huge part in decisions
but the absalons would of been better armed than the anzacs
Yes, they would be as armed as an Anzac class frigate, but they would have had a similar price. Unfortunately, Labour placed a NZ $500 million budget cap on the project, and a US $100 million budget cap for the MRV, not NZ $500 million for one Absalon. If we are going to throw money away, why not spend NZ $1.5 billion on a Canberra LHD? And buy F-35B fighters too. Keep in mind when New Zealand placed the order, the NZ dollar was worth about half of the American dollar, which at that time was close to be equal with the Euro in value.
In hindsight, one may make the argument that the 8,000 ton Enforcer, which lost the bidding war, would have been a better ship, but to consider a ship would have been better that isn't even in the same price range should not be in question. Similar in price, yes, but five times as much, no.
Denmark and New Zealand have many differences, they are not the same country. What may be good for Denmark isn't necessarily good for New Zealand.
Last edited:
The armament & sensor fit is to customer requirement. I don't know what it would cost to buy a pair of Absalons modified to do the job of Canterbury plus a couple of OPVs, e.g. fitted to carry the same landing craft as Canterbury & a reduced sensor & weapons fit, but it would be a lot less than a pair of Absalons armed to ANZAC standard. Agree it would be more than the budget, though.
Canterbury bothers me. No navy should have one ship to perform an important role. What does the RNZN do if she's under repair?
What's the expected life of the ANZACs? And what's current thinking on replacement?
New Zealand intends to sail the Anzacs some 30 years. They steamed the old Canterbury 34 years. Their Anzacs are approaching their mid-life refits in a few years. I expect them to receive their evolved sea sparrow missiles at that time. I do not expect any harpoons to be installed, which Australia added to theirs.
However, I believe this year Te Kaha and Te Mana are going to receive their 25-mm Typhoons, installed both starboard and port by the bridge superstructure. Its a similar gun compared to the guns installed in Project Protector's MRV and OPVs. The Australians have found weight difficulties adding a Phalanx CIWS gun to their Anzacs, I believe the quad packing of the ESSMs and the weight of the extra missiles and harpoons have denied them adding a proper CIWS gun aboard. New Zealand's Anzacs already have the Phalanx CIWS gun installed atop the helicopter hangar.
In hindsight I believe the Australians wished the Mk 41 VLS was located on the main deck instead atop the superstructure by the stack. A mistake they aren't following with their new destroyers.
However, I believe this year Te Kaha and Te Mana are going to receive their 25-mm Typhoons, installed both starboard and port by the bridge superstructure. Its a similar gun compared to the guns installed in Project Protector's MRV and OPVs. The Australians have found weight difficulties adding a Phalanx CIWS gun to their Anzacs, I believe the quad packing of the ESSMs and the weight of the extra missiles and harpoons have denied them adding a proper CIWS gun aboard. New Zealand's Anzacs already have the Phalanx CIWS gun installed atop the helicopter hangar.
In hindsight I believe the Australians wished the Mk 41 VLS was located on the main deck instead atop the superstructure by the stack. A mistake they aren't following with their new destroyers.
Last edited:
Well, the Canterbury had a few roles to fill. One was to move an army company group and their equipment, plus a month of supplies. The second was to help fill the patrol days of the OPVs, especially in the Southern Ocean and Ross Sea during their summer months. Third was to resupply a few islands conservation groups which are now done by a frigate. And the fourth was to provide a training role alongside the pier and at sea.
Unfortunately, her stability problems are affecting her ability to do all of these missions. I wonder about her ability to patrol the Southern Ocean EEZ. She rolled too quickly for her anti-rolling system. I am not sure whether adding some ballast would help the situation any. We'll have to wait for more tank studies. She fulfilled her role handily when loaded for the army exercise.
I'm sure either a door over the alcove or relocating the RHIBs higher will solve that design flaw. Its the excessive rolling and propeller emergence that bothers me.
Even if she were patrolling the Southern Ocean, in a few days she could return to fulfill her role transporting an army company or bringing supplies after a natural disaster. Hiring a merchant vessel is the other option, the same as it was before her commissioning.
Unfortunately, her stability problems are affecting her ability to do all of these missions. I wonder about her ability to patrol the Southern Ocean EEZ. She rolled too quickly for her anti-rolling system. I am not sure whether adding some ballast would help the situation any. We'll have to wait for more tank studies. She fulfilled her role handily when loaded for the army exercise.
I'm sure either a door over the alcove or relocating the RHIBs higher will solve that design flaw. Its the excessive rolling and propeller emergence that bothers me.
Even if she were patrolling the Southern Ocean, in a few days she could return to fulfill her role transporting an army company or bringing supplies after a natural disaster. Hiring a merchant vessel is the other option, the same as it was before her commissioning.
Last edited:
According to a friend of mine who was recently XO on Te Kaha the navy do not believe the ANZAC's will last 30 years, our ones have already had quite a bit more use than expected and are already pretty well flogged. I guess if we had bought 3 or 4 as originally intended the prfoblem wouldn't exist.
When the ANZAC's come up for replacement do you think we will tag onto whatever the Aussies do or will we buy something else. whtever we do I hope we get at least 3.
Given that the National Party policy seems to have improved lift as one of its aims and the navy's need for an addtional surface combatant I would have thought the Absalon would be a viable option. Such a vessel could supplement the Canterbury's heavy lift capability with light infantry (Given the lack of medium LC). The only disadvantage is the Absalon reduced speed, but its only just below with the ANZAC project specifications