Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[Sea Toby]

Project Protector appears to be running on budget, desire to spend $500 million and the expected spending is $500 million. With the considerable national budget surpluses, a few million overspend would not necessarily be out of line. If anything New Zealand didn't spend enough. I would have preferred fin stabilizers on the MRV, and better, larger guns on the OPVs and IPVs. Without a doubt, NZ is getting a good value for the money spent.

I'm sure the Canterbury will sail through the exercises with the Aussies in flying colors. Of course, I have confidence that either a door to the RHIBs alcoves or relocation of the RHIBS will still be in order, along with correcting the propeller emergence and submergence problems with the Canterbury.

 

[Gibbo]

Project Protector appears to be running on budget, desire to spend $500 million and the expected spending is $500 million. With the considerable national budget surpluses, a few million overspend would not necessarily be out of line. If anything New Zealand didn't spend enough. I would have preferred fin stabilizers on the MRV, and better, larger guns on the OPVs and IPVs. Without a doubt, NZ is getting a good value for the money spent.

I'm sure the Canterbury will sail through the exercises with the Aussies in flying colors. Of course, I have confidence that either a door to the RHIBs alcoves or relocation of the RHIBS will still be in order, along with correcting the propeller emergence and submergence problems with the Canterbury.

Yeah - Govt focused once again on keeping the cost down rather than focusing on capability - nothing new for NZ Govts there I'm afraid. I know one of the crew from Canterbury & he said to me not long after they lost that RHIB on delivery that they 'need to sort out that roll' - although I think he was fairly pleased with the vessel in most other respects. He agreed that the Govt had once again 'done it on the cheap' - but it seems the guys just shrug their shoulders & get on with it!

Anyway - time for some good news... the IPV's flew through their sea-trials - looks like they may just be a damned fine investment! Okay even if you read between the 'spin' it's good to see the designate crew are obviously pretty proud of their new charge. Can't explain the late-ish delivery but just maybe they'll be worth the wait! Check out the link...

http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/news/media-releases/20080221-uor.htm

 

[Gibbo]

...I'm sure the Canterbury will sail through the exercises with the Aussies in flying colors. Of course, I have confidence that either a door to the RHIBs alcoves or relocation of the RHIBS will still be in order, along with correcting the propeller emergence and submergence problems with the Canterbury.

p.s. I agree - I think Canterbury will 'do okay' in next weeks exercise in Aus. I think we'll see alcove doors / covers installed - but how on earth would you fix the prop emergence / submergence in a vessel of this size? Is it possible to retrofit active fins?

 

[Sea Toby]

As I understand this situation, naval personnel are not used to changing weight and loads as well as merchant marine personnel. The navy tends to operate their ships with a similar load, merchant marine personnel are used to operating their ships with different weights and loads. The Canterbury is a merchant vessel reconfigured to be a military vessel. None of the Canterbury's merchant sisters are having this problem, I think because they have their vessels properly ballasted with sea water. Of course, none of the merchantmen are operating their ferries without much of a load either. I think it will take time for the NZ navy to learn how to properly operate the ship and learn these skills, as there is really nothing wrong with the vessel. That is, outside the very poor location for the alcoves in a storm, which I consider a design flaw. A water tight door should help considerably with the alcoves, keeping the sea from the RHIBs.

You would think other navies would have similar problems with the landing ships, as there are significant weight and load changes sailing empty or loaded. Unfortunately, most navies don't sail their landing ships unless they are fully loaded. None expect to use them as a multi-purpose ship, that is as a patrol ship.

As I said before, I wonder whether we are asking too much of the navy and/or ship. Frankly, in hindsight New Zealand should have bought a landing ship, and another OPV to fill the required days of the maritime review. But I can see why New Zealand wanted a ship to do both sea lift and patrol. And there was the overall budget to keep in mind.

As I recall, ADI proposed another design, a 8,000 ton Enforcer design of Damen Schelde, whose RHIBs were located on the main deck besides the superstructure. Unforrtunately, the Canterbury's superstructure will not allow this configuration. The only location available would be to consume helicopter flight deck space on the Canterbury, thus a water tight door is needed to correct the design flaw.

 

[Gibbo]

As I understand this situation, naval personnel are not used to changing weight and loads as well as merchant marine personnel. The navy tends to operate their ships with a similar load, merchant marine personnel are used to operating their ships with different weights and loads. The Canterbury is a merchant vessel reconfigured to be a military vessel. None of the Canterbury's merchant sisters are having this problem, I think because they have their vessels properly ballasted with sea water. Of course, none of the merchantmen are operating their ferries without much of a load either. I think it will take time for the NZ navy to learn how to properly operate the ship and learn these skills, as there is really nothing wrong with the vessel. That is, outside the very poor location for the alcoves in a storm, which I consider a design flaw. A water tight door should help considerably with the alcoves, keeping the sea from the RHIBs.

You would think other navies would have similar problems with the landing ships, as there are significant weight and load changes sailing empty or loaded. Unfortunately, most navies don't sail their landing ships unless they are fully loaded. None expect to use them as a multi-purpose ship, that is as a patrol ship.

As I said before, I wonder whether we are asking too much of the navy and/or ship. Frankly, in hindsight New Zealand should have bought a landing ship, and another OPV to fill the required days of the maritime review. But I can see why New Zealand wanted a ship to do both sea lift and patrol. And there was the overall budget to keep in mind.

As I recall, ADI proposed another design, a 8,000 ton Enforcer design of Damen Schelde, whose RHIBs were located on the main deck besides the superstructure. Unforrtunately, the Canterbury's superstructure will not allow this configuration. The only location available would be to consume helicopter flight deck space on the Canterbury, thus a water tight door is needed to correct the design flaw.

Yeah actually good point(s) ... we need to remember the crew probably still have quite a way to go in really getting to know their ship. I guess we need to remember also that most (if not all) of the damage & problems encountered were on the delivery voyage - and it was a real nasty storm to boot - remember it clearly!!!

I remember reading about the delivery from Merwede's out to Tenix and it hit sea-state 8 in the Aussie bight - the crew remarked on how well it handled! Mind you it was carrying a few 100 tonnes of OPV modules to add weight, but the then again it was minus a ceratin amount of final 'fit-out' gear.

Mind you, I seem to vaguely remember similar talk of vibration due to prop emergence etc with the Ben-My-Chree, but now can't recall the source! At the end of the day it's based on a civvy design that would not normally run empty!

I guess the next step is see what the 'review' comes up with...

 

[Gibbo]

Groan...

Okay - so it looks like we really do have issues with Canterbury... gool old NZ politicians, making massive budget surpluses & pinch the pennies when it comes to making a 30+ year investment. Yep to save a few dollars looks like they settled on a dog! Will NZ pollies ever grow-up & realise Defence is about having the right kit!?! :unknown

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4419701a11.html

Full article here just in case...

Navy wages fight to pin blame for ship's flaws
By HANK SCHOUTEN - The Dominion Post | Friday, 29 February 2008

A battle is looming over who is responsible for serious design problems with the navy's new ship Canterbury - the shipbuilder or the Defence Ministry.

Problems with the ship were identified by a court of inquiry into the loss of one of the ship's rigid hulled inflatable boats in a storm in the Bay of Plenty last July.

The inquiry prompted Defence Minister Phil Goff to order an independent review into the Canterbury's acquisition and introduction into service.

Crown Law was also asked to see who was liable.

But at the time Mr Goff did not mention other matters uncovered by the court of inquiry including:

The ship's second RHIB was damaged and almost lost in the same storm.

The alcoves where the RHIBs are stowed often get swamped, even in moderate seas.

Water crashing into those alcoves can get into the ship through doors that need to be specially lashed to stop it happening.

The ship's engines lost half their power in the middle of the storm.

The ship's anti-roll system would not function because the ship was rolling too much.

The ship's propellers come out of the water in big seas and spin too fast, causing engine damage.

Waves crashing over the front of the ship are liable to wreck the ship's gun.

The Canterbury was travelling to Auckland as part of its maiden voyage around New Zealand when it was caught in the July 10 storm.

Winds of 110kmh and six-metre waves pounded the ship - conditions assessed as being at the top end of sea state six.

The Canterbury is supposed to be able to patrol in sea state seven.

Storm damage repairs were estimated to cost $305,000, including $275,000 for a replacement RHIB. A warranty claim is being made against Australian shipbuilding company Tenix.

A company spokesman said it was working with the ministry and "if Tenix is found to be liable, then we will certainly pay for any loss or damage".

However, the company insisted the ship met all the requirements as specified when the contract was awarded.

A former navy chief, retired Rear Admiral Jack Welch, said the navy had been lumbered with "another dog - a very expensive Charles Upham", a reference to the ill-fated second-hand fruit ferry bought in 1994 as New Zealand's first military transport ship.

It rolled so badly it was dubbed the Chuck Upham.

National Party defence spokesman Wayne Mapp said buying a one-off design was a big risk and the Government, rather than the Defence Ministry or navy, was responsible.

"They assessed the design offered and kept the money so tight they gave no flexibility to buy a more proven model," Mr Mapp said.

The Defence Ministry is still working on the terms of reference for the review ordered by Mr Goff.

A spokesman for the minister said "a lot of legal stuff" still needed to be sorted.

This included getting cooperation from Tenix, the prime contractor, which potentially faces warranty claims.

 

[KiwiRob]

So how much are people willing to put on the table that the Canterbury will go the same was as the Charles Upham? It really does look like we bought another lemon.

 

[Sea Toby]

Yet, again the Canterbury is showing her worth as a sea lift ship in exercises off the Australian coast as we speak. The system designed for the Canterbury is used mostly for civilian ships that do dredging work, the hallmark of Merwede.

Of course, the alcoves will have to have water tight doors installed to save the RHIBs. The other alternative to move the RHIBs to the flight deck is too ugly to think about. Anyone with any naval service should have seen the problems with the alcoves being too close to the sea.

We are still wondering whether the Canterbury will ever be useful in the role as a Ross Sea patrol ship. I don't know whether adding some ballast will stabilized her rolling. As long as she rolls too much and too quickly, she will have propeller submergence and emergence problems. And at this time, while she has done well in her sea lift role, we don't know for sure whether she is having the same problems when she is fully loaded.

Surely, sea keeping tests should have discovered this flaw, along with the design flaw of the alcoves. Cruise ships are designed and built with fin stabilizers, the Canterbury should have been too. Off hand, I do not know how much they cost, but a few million would not have delayed or killed this project.

The ministry seems to aware of costs. Yes, it does appear the government chose the wrong ship. And we were warned by the other shipyard. I do recall the lawsuit, that the government chose the wrong ship. But that is spilled milk now.

If she can't do proper Ross Sea patrols, the government needs to swallow its pride and buy another OPV.

 

[regstrup]

If she can't do proper Ross Sea patrols, the government needs to swallow its pride and buy another OPV.....

..........which the NZ Navy dosen't have the personel to man

 

[Sea Toby]

The Kiwis have not yet attempted to do a off year yet as the Australians. The concept is not to renew the draft, but allow young people to take a year off and volunteer for military service. Of course, during the year they are able to save and earn funds for college, which is by the way not getting cheaper. This appears to be a good idea in a attempt to solve at least some of the personnel retention problems. Of course, I would agree, paying some sort of re-enlistment bonus would help keep older personnel in the services, along with a significant pay raise.

One thing is for certain, New Zealand can afford more personnel in its armed forces. A decade of huge budget surpluses reveal this. Many small and large nations still have a draft, and have huge payroll expenses to afford with their military budgets. New Zealand's military budget is very small, and a volunteer program with college funds may be the best route.

 

[stryker NZ]

The Kiwis have not yet attempted to do a off year yet as the Australians. The concept is not to renew the draft, but allow young people to take a year off and volunteer for military service. Of course, during the year they are able to save and earn funds for college, which is by the way not getting cheaper. This appears to be a good idea in a attempt to solve at least some of the personnel retention problems. Of course, I would agree, paying some sort of re-enlistment bonus would help keep older personnel in the services, along with a significant pay raise.

One thing is for certain, New Zealand can afford more personnel in its armed forces. A decade of huge budget surpluses reveal this. Many small and large nations still have a draft, and have huge payroll expenses to afford with their military budgets. New Zealand's military budget is very small, and a volunteer program with college funds may be the best route.

i would have jumped at that oportunity and i know quite a few other uni students would have done the same. Any amount of money that could be saved during the off year would be a welcome sight. (already in 12k worth of debt after just 1 year and im one of the lucky ones)

 

[Gibbo]

Yet, again the Canterbury is showing her worth as a sea lift ship in exercises off the Australian coast as we speak. The system designed for the Canterbury is used mostly for civilian ships that do dredging work, the hallmark of Merwede.

Of course, the alcoves will have to have water tight doors installed to save the RHIBs. The other alternative to move the RHIBs to the flight deck is too ugly to think about. Anyone with any naval service should have seen the problems with the alcoves being too close to the sea.

We are still wondering whether the Canterbury will ever be useful in the role as a Ross Sea patrol ship. I don't know whether adding some ballast will stabilized her rolling. As long as she rolls too much and too quickly, she will have propeller submergence and emergence problems. And at this time, while she has done well in her sea lift role, we don't know for sure whether she is having the same problems when she is fully loaded.

Surely, sea keeping tests should have discovered this flaw, along with the design flaw of the alcoves. Cruise ships are designed and built with fin stabilizers, the Canterbury should have been too. Off hand, I do not know how much they cost, but a few million would not have delayed or killed this project.

The ministry seems to aware of costs. Yes, it does appear the government chose the wrong ship. And we were warned by the other shipyard. I do recall the lawsuit, that the government chose the wrong ship. But that is spilled milk now.

If she can't do proper Ross Sea patrols, the government needs to swallow its pride and buy another OPV.

Yes looking back we should have foreseen this...

http://www.nzmaritimeindex.org.nz/i...typ=&tid=0&tix=0&pix=0&SourceID=&refid=&hit=1

At least these problems are being openly talked about and the inquiry is going to look at all these issues so I'm fairly confident that there will be a serious attempt to resolve them. Mind you, I can see there being a year or more of legal arguments between Govt, MinDef; Tenix & Merwede.

Then of courde we'll have to also put up with whingeing politicans - on one hand Labour ducking for cover & blaming everyone else, and on the other National reminding everyone that it's Labour's mess whilst actually doing precious little to fix the vessel.

To be honest after the public humiliation over the 'Chuck Upham' episode I think whichever party is in Govt this time next year will feel obliged to resolve the vessels problems. Quiet optimism... :unknown

 

[KiwiRob]

In my way of thinking the only real resolution is to sell the ship and buy what should have been bought in the first place, or keep her in the sealift role only and buy 1 more OPV.

 

[recce.k1]

Groan...

Okay - so it looks like we really do have issues with Canterbury... gool old NZ politicians, making massive budget surpluses & pinch the pennies when it comes to making a 30+ year investment. Yep to save a few dollars looks like they settled on a dog! Will NZ pollies ever grow-up & realise Defence is about having the right kit!?! :unknown

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4419701a11.html

This link, http://www.stuff.co.nz/4419572a6000.html, goes to the same article as above but includes a picture of the Canterbury (for those wanting to know where the problem locations are etc).


The DomPost followed up on the article the next day (the CDF also wrote a letter to the editor, nothing much that we haven't heard before but I'll scan it in sometime).

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4421111a6479.html

Supplier believes in troubled navy ship
HANK SCHOUTEN - The Dominion Post | Saturday, 01 March 2008

The navy's new $177 million ship Canterbury meets all the specifications required of it, says Australian shipbuilding company Tenix.

It "absolutely" met all the multi-role ship requirements specified when the contract was awarded by the Defence Ministry, Tenix spokesman Matthew Abbott said.

His comment precedes a review of its acquisition and commissioning ordered last year by Defence Minister Phil Goff.

The ship had a troubled first few months in service, including an accident in which a sailor drowned.

That accident is still the subject of a court of inquiry. Another inquiry into the loss of one of its $275,0000 rigid-hulled inflatable boats (RHIBs) in a July storm revealed several potentially serious problems.

It raised questions as to whether the ship can patrol in rough conditions as required. Canterbury is supposed to be able to remain on patrol in worse seas than the storm encountered off Auckland in July, when the captain feared that if he turned the ship directly into the waves it could sustain other damage.

As it was, one RHIB was torn from its alcove and the second RHIB was damaged.

The cost of replacing the RHIB and associated repairs totalled $305,000.

Other work needs to be done to make them less vulnerable to wave damage.

It is not clear whether Tenix will meet the costs under a warranty claim.

Mr Abbott said Tenix was working with the ministry to ascertain the circumstances and requirements concerning the RHIB.

If Tenix was found to be liable, "then we will certainly pay for any loss or damage".

Tenix was cooperating fully with the review. It always aimed to meet customers' standards and "if, in the unlikely event our products ever fall short of this standard for whatever reason, then Tenix does its utmost to remedy the situation".

Canterbury, a modified ferry design built in the Netherlands under subcontract to Tenix, was selected ahead of more expensive purpose-built military sealift ships offered by other shipbuilders.

Despite criticisms from one rival bidder, then-defence minister Mark Burton said the Tenix contract was signed on the basis of thorough technical and legal advice.

 

[recce.k1]

Yes looking back we should have foreseen this...

http://www.nzmaritimeindex.org.nz/i...typ=&tid=0&tix=0&pix=0&SourceID=&refid=&hit=1

Great link there Gibbo! Interesting to compare with Tenix's "side of the story" (previous posting). To me, the NZMI article (some of which has been reported previously) has some scary stuff in there eg the stability and unloading at sea issue, despite Tenix ducking for cover in public now, surely has not been, and cannot be, resolved due to the design of the ship etc.

Like some others have mentioned, at the time I would have liked to have seen the MRV contract awarded to the competing designers. (That Enforcer 8000 LPD design with sea-well etc, also solves the RHIB location issue by putting them with the LCM's etc). http://www.scheldeshipbuilding.com/enforcer/Folder_enforcer_large.pdf

Hopefully the Govt review will aid getting (most of) the flaws fixed but (as the Govt wouldn't be in a hurry to replace the Canterbury to avoid being tarnished with a lemon brush), perhaps the Opposition should say whether they would committ to replacing the Canterbury with a proven sea lift vessel should safety and stability etc still be an issue post review fixups.

Agree with some that previous DefMin Burton should take the wrap for his uneducated defence thinking if the review finds a lot wanting (and blame could be apportioned to those previous civvie types and pollies driving that "must buy commercial rather than milspec" type vessels and equipment that was prevalent in Govt circles a few years ago now).

Looks as though former Navy chief Jack Welch has been proven right with his criticism of the MRV choice over the last few years?

 

[exported_kiwi]

As a Kiwi, I'd love to see our government spend a helluva lot more of those surplus dollars on more and better equipment for our military services. We can afford more and better and if we give the right pay/incentives, we can have full manning for what we really need, 4 ANZACs, all the OPVs, reconstitute an air combat wing based on maybe F16/52 and upgrade our artillery and air defences. The question is, why the hell aren't we doing this? It's defence suicide in this day and age and we can no longer "sponge" off our Aussie brothers!

 

[alexsa]

Without getting into the discussion on the location of the RHIB stowage, which appears to be a problem, it still sound like the vessel was too lightly laoded and was rolling rapidly because of it. The base design for the MRV operates in European waters renowed for their steep short swells which will make a vessel very active but do not seem to have suffered such a serious mishap. In winter in these waters sea state 6 is very common.

The roll dmaping systme willnot work if the vessel is rolling rapidly as it deos not have time to react. If the vessel is very stiff the roll period will be very fast again pointing to operator problems.

The fact the main engines shut down due to rolling is a real concern as this generally is due to a prolonged inclination cause a fail safe shut down by jacket colling water or lubrication. The same can also occur during rapid roll in some cases as far as I am aware but it is more likely to have ben due to overspeed due to propeller emergence.

The fact that the propellers were 'constantly' out fo the water casuign engine damage again points to the vesel being too lighlty loaded.

In respect to taking it green over the superstructure it is possible this happend when the vesel was hove to with other issues but if it was done underway otherwise ship handling may have been suspect as driving directly into such seas is not recommended on most vessels, particuarly where we are talking about sea state 6.

I suspect that the vesel will have gone out in ballast condition at close to her minimum operating draft with very high transverse stability. When a ship is in such a condition avoiding bad weather is pretty important

 

[Gibbo]

On the subject of the OPV's, finally I've found a couple of shots of a completed Otago P148 on sea trials....hmmm, pretty nice looking vessel.


Pop the link then search for 'otago'

http://www.seapixonline.com/nsthumbs.php

 

[KH-12]

Great pics thanx for the link, you are right it is not a bad looking vessel, the large (relatively) helideck does make it look slightly front heavy, and the gun looks out of scale , hopefully the OPV's will have less problems than the MRV, any update on delivery date I thought it was due for commisioning in January ?

 

[Gibbo]

Great pics thanx for the link, you are right it is not a bad looking vessel, the large (relatively) helideck does make it look slightly front heavy, and the gun looks out of scale , hopefully the OPV's will have less problems than the MRV, any update on delivery date I thought it was due for commisioning in January ?

Latest Navy News suggests sea trials Feb (which ties in with dates on those photos) and 'delivery' March (likely to mean delivery to MinDef which happens before Navy get their hands on it to commission). I guess with Canterbury's issues they'll take a little longer with the OPV & IPV to do thorough checks before acceptance.

Also no word on IPV Rotoiti acceptance - it's apparently flown thru it's trials!