Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[KiwiRob]

Ha ha that's all we need a tanker with the ability to patrol the Southern Ocean, to go with our MRV with patrol capability.

Do the navy ever embark a helicopter with the Endeavour, the ship does have a helideck and a hangar, I've never seen a photo of the her with a one nor does the Navy website list her as being helicopter capable.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

snippage

Why are so many attempting to turn EEZ patrol ships into small frigates? New Zealand cannot afford shore to sea missiles, yet her navy EEZ patrol ships have to have protection from terrorist's launched missiles in New Zealand waters? Can a 12.5-mm machine gun do the same job as a mini-Typhoon, shooting at small boats? If not, why bother to install them.

Because people have memories of history and german raiders and are aware of the possibility of something similar in the future, be it surface or subsurface. Also knowledge that NZ's economic interests, and therefore our way of life, standard of living and political independence are determined beyoned the South Pacific. When you have world wide interests, you must be able to operate world wide, so it would follow that for a small navy, what little it has, should be able to at least defend itself.

 

[Gibbo]

...Do the navy ever embark a helicopter with the Endeavour, the ship does have a helideck and a hangar, I've never seen a photo of the her with a one nor does the Navy website list her as being helicopter capable.

Quoting the latest Navy News - "...the flight deck, built to cope with the small Westland Wasp helo, is not structurally certified to land the current SH-2G Seasprites".

Obviously RNZN see little need to operate Helos from the Endeavour otherwise certification would have been pursued by now. I should imagine there would be little structural enhancement required. Personally, I think it can only offer additional flexibility & should have been pursued long ago, but c'est la vie!

Of note when HMS Nottingham ran aground on Lord Howe Island in 2002, the Nottingham's Lynx was returned to NZ on Endeavour. Later returned to UK via RAF C-17 flight out of Whenuapai.

 

[Gibbo]

Do you really believe that there are terrorists with shore to sea missiles in the South Pacific or Southeast Asia? Most of the nations cannot afford them, yet, by some miracle, terrorists are.... I do agree frigates should be armed, fishery protection vessels and anti-terrorism styled vessels have no fear in the EEZ of New Zealand or Australia. If the patrol ships are sent outside New Zealand and Australia's EEZ, they no longer classify as EEZ patrol ships. And as far as the Canterbury and Endeavour, both can safely operate throughout the Southeast Asia effectively outside the distance of short range shore to sea missiles. Any terrorist will be much more effective striking at undefended targets such as cruise ships. None of the Royal New Zealand ships are slow turning large Titantic cruise liners, they can turn to engage any of their guns.

Why are so many attempting to turn EEZ patrol ships into small frigates? New Zealand cannot afford shore to sea missiles, yet her navy EEZ patrol ships have to have protection from terrorist's launched missiles in New Zealand waters? Can a 12.5-mm machine gun do the same job as a mini-Typhoon, shooting at small boats? If not, why bother to install them.

We're not attempting to turn EEZ patrol ships into small frigates! Well at least I'm not! I thought I made myself clear - enhanced gunnery platforms (but still only relatively light calibre) for FIAC protection only.

I / we never mentioned missiles or protection from such! Nor did I suggest FIAC would be mini-missile boats. A couple of RHIBs with an RPG is in no way an over-the-top assessment of the possible threats in Sth Pacific, East Timor etc. It's important to look ahead and make-sure that these very low-level but still potentially lethal threat scenarios can be dealt with.

It would provide the RNZN with significantly more options in the event of small-scale security threats which I think we all agree would be of benefit to NZ & the region as a whole.

HMG are great weapons, but don't forget the mini-typhoon is EXACTLY the same weapon but simply in a mount with associated sensors that VASTLY improves the HMG's accuracy! So in effect I am advocating HMG's as you yourself suggest!

 

[Gibbo]

TOR for review of Canterbury

Here's link to MinDef website - terms of reference for review of Canterbury. It's pretty wide breif so should hopefully lead to sorting out the mess.

http://www.defence.govt.nz/reports-publications.html

 

[RubiconNZ]

Here's link to MinDef website - terms of reference for review of Canterbury. It's pretty wide brief so should hopefully lead to sorting out the mess.

http://www.defence.govt.nz/reports-publications.html

Cheers Gibbo,

Interesting the 3 points it won't cover, a little bit of CYA in that area IMO.

 

[Sea Toby]

O come on, those three items have nothing to do with the design flaw, the location of the alcoves and the RHIBs. Its not the government's fault. Its Merwede's fault. Tenix should have caught the error. Surely they should know better. Its their business.

Of course, the only remedy is a patch. Its the same with automobile recalls. Stupid things that pop up after design and construction, have to be fixed at a later date.

If Plan A doesn't work, its time to move on to Plan B.

 

[Rocco_NZ]

O come on, those three items have nothing to do with the design flaw, the location of the alcoves and the RHIBs. Its not the government's fault. Its Merwede's fault. Tenix should have caught the error. Surely they should know better. Its their business.

I would love to know what Schelde think of the review. Understand part of their original cause of action was that the Merwede design didn't comply with the sea-state criteria. I'm still at a loss as to how Schelde wasn't selected on the basis of being lowest risk.

 

[Sea Toby]

As I recall, Tenix offered cheaper ships overall, and more New Zealand construction with OPV modules and all of the IPVs. I believe the government was tempted by the New Zealand construction more than the lower price. A win-win for New Zealand.

In the ministry's eyes I suspect the reduction of size of the Enforcers was a greater risk than Merwede's ferry design. Four civilian ferries had been built within five years of similar size, with similar propulsion plants. All of the electronics and mechanical systems were proven off the shelf. A smaller Enforcer has not been built.

In hindsight, the RHIBs alcove was overlooked, it looked good on paper, but in the real world a major error. Frankly, if the RHIBs had been located by the superstructure on the main deck I don't even think there would be this review.

Unfortunately, I think the ferry was designed with more of a load aboard. She appears to be doing well when she is loaded with vehicles, not so well empty as a patrol ship. And I think this is the greatest worry. I am not even sure whether she was properly trimmed for the storm, it blew up suddenly.

We'll have to wait for the conclusion of the review to know for sure. Hopefully, her problems aren't swept under a rug.

And as far as a 25-mm gun mount, the USCG Reliance class of medium endurance cutters have had such for over 40 years. Not once in my service has anyone mentioned they should be upgraded.

 

[Rocco_NZ]

The light-load issues should have been higher in the risk matrix, especially considering the lessons-learned from the Charles Upham.

 

[RubiconNZ]

O come on, those three items have nothing to do with the design flaw, the location of the alcoves and the RHIBs. Its not the government's fault. Its Merwede's fault. Tenix should have caught the error. Surely they should know better. Its their business.

Of course, the only remedy is a patch. Its the same with automobile recalls. Stupid things that pop up after design and construction, have to be fixed at a later date.

If Plan A doesn't work, its time to move on to Plan B.

I am hoping it does get patched and it works out it certainly is a capability boost, I agree that Tenix should of caught.

however the fact that Canterbury is experiencing the same problems it experienced with the Charles Upham makes me wish there was some more intelligence in the MOD, surely the link must be made:
Upham unstable due to civilian designed cargo shift to high in the water due to lack of weight
Canterbury commercial ferry as Patrol Vessel and oops travels to high in the water due to wait for it lack of weight.

I believe the government was to stingy in its spending, Canterbury seems to be a great ship for transport, but really do you think it sounds like a wise decision using a Irish Sea ferry for Patrol?

Perhaps a option could be a 3rd OPV and remove Canterbury's patrol duties

 

[RubiconNZ]

And as far as a 25-mm gun mount, the USCG Reliance class of medium endurance cutters have had such for over 40 years. Not once in my service has anyone mentioned they should be upgraded.

Since the RNZN have a 3rd Phalanx I do not see why they did not make provision for it to be fitted, although I wonder if the design would allow it, any ideas where they could put it?

 

[Todjaeger]

And as far as a 25-mm gun mount, the USCG Reliance class of medium endurance cutters have had such for over 40 years. Not once in my service has anyone mentioned they should be upgraded.

Correct, but as mentioned, that was for a USCG medium endurance cutter. The Reliance-class cutter is roughly analogous to the forthcoming RNZN IPV (Lake-class?). As such, its role would be narrower than potential mission taskings that the much smaller RNZN might assign (or be forced to assign) to its OPVs or MRV.

The Famous-class medium endurance cutter I believe is the closest in overall performance to that of the Otago-class OPV in terms of displacement, seakeeping, ship handling, etc. In additional to carrying helicopters, it also mounts a 76mm/62 OTO Melara DP gun as well as 12.7mm HMG. And a USCG cutter would be able to draw upon additional USCG and USN resources if needed.

If the OPVs and MRV are kept strictly to EEZ patrolling, or transport of personnel in benign conditions then just a 25mm mounting would be sufficient. What I can see happening though, is a situation developing where either the NZDF does not have other, more appropriate assets available to deploy or already on-scene.

-Cheers

 

[Sea Toby]

If the New Zealand government does not have the discipline to use patrol ships as patrol ships, and unwisely use patrol ships as warships, frigates, then they deserve to have both of them sunk. You get what you pay for. Outside of an exercise in Australia or the South Pacific, these ships should be patrolling New Zealand's EEZ. I can see them helping other island nations doing search and rescue or humanitarian missions in a crunch. They will be out of their elements in any deployment to the Gulf, much less any conflict in SE Asia or the South Pacific.

The OPVs do not have a SAM system, nor do they have CIWS. They do not have torpedo decoys, or the proper ECCMs. Nor are they equipped for ASW. They do not even have a proper air cover, as the New Zealand government killed its air combat force. As a warship they would be sitting ducks, one might as well send a barge.

If they wanted frigates, they should have bought frigates. I too, can see such foreign entanglements the OPVs can get involved in, but it would be a huge mistake and un-discipline to use them as a substitute for frigates. Its like asking a soccer player to substitute for a rugby player. In those cases I would not blame the navy for failure, I would place the blame on the government. Is anyone waiting to eat PM crow?

How many times do I have to post this? Outside of an exercise and showing the flag around the South Pacific, they should be used as patrol ships patrolling New Zealand's EEZ. That is what they were bought to do. You wouldn't send a mine hunter out to do a frigate's job, you also shouldn't send out a patrol ship to do a frigate's job either.

 

[Lucasnz]

I too, can see such foreign entanglements the OPVs can get involved in, but it would be a huge mistake and un-discipline to use them as a substitute for frigates.

Outside of an exercise and showing the flag around the South Pacific, they should be used as patrol ships patrolling New Zealand's EEZ. That is what they were bought to do. You wouldn't send a mine hunter out to do a frigate's job, you also shouldn't send out a patrol ship to do a frigate's job either.

This is the whole problem. The Beehive (both National & Labour) fail to understand some of the basics of defence planning, let alone the management of the defence force. Conseqently NZ will use them in roles, they were not intended for, especially given that the Naval Combat force is 2 frigates short, something even treasury agrees with.

On the subject of Canterbury, the Merwede websites shows a new version of Canterbury with a longer flight deck. The RHIB location is the same, but the the extra length at the stern should help improve some of the problems Canterbury has....

http://www.merwede.com/cms1/index.php?id=216

The other new addition is a Joint Support Ship, which I found interesting given the comments on the NZ Hearld website...

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10506480

http://www.merwede.com/cms1/index.php?id=219&no_cache=1&tx_photogals_elementid=1118&tx_photogals_image=6

 

[Sea Toby]

Merwede posted the longer version for possible future orders. Other nations are looking for sea lift also, but wish to move a battalion group instead of a company group, thus the longer version of the Canterbury. The Swedes are looking for more of a joint task force ship, to move a battalion group, but also to act as a mother ship for her mine sweepers/hunters and smaller patrol craft.

The Australians are looking for a third sea lift logistics ship. There are other navies searching for sea lift too, with different needs and wants. Funds are tight all around the world, any multi-purpose ships that can do both tanking and sea lift may be marketable.

As noted, although not confirmed, even New Zealand is thinking in terms of a mixed used tanker and logistic ship to replace the Endeavour. While New Zealand may wish for a new tanker soon, a bit more sea lift wouldn't hurt. There are many designs out there because all of the shipyards wish to sell and build ships. Remember the Canterbury was ordered for 53.5 million Euros, about $100 million US$, and $186 million NZ$. The Endeavour ran close to $50 million NZ$ back during the late 1980s, therefore a multi-task tanker/sea lift would run more than the price of the Canterbury, but should still be under $250 million NZ$, or much less than 100 million Euros today.

As for the OPVs. I repeat it would be a large error to use these ships as frigates. They do not have any sonar, electronic counter countermeasures, surface to air missiles, surface to surface missiles, or even a proper three inch gunmount. They are totally unsuitable as a war ship. Just because they may look similar to a frigate to some does not mean they are. They were bought to be used as EEZ patrol ships. A $60 million patrol ship should not be considered a $400 million frigate, not by anyone or by any government.

 

[Gibbo]

Merwede posted the longer version for possible future orders. Other nations are looking for sea lift also, but wish to move a battalion group instead of a company group, thus the longer version of the Canterbury. The Swedes are looking for more of a joint task force ship, to move a battalion group, but also to act as a mother ship for her mine sweepers/hunters and smaller patrol craft.

The Australians are looking for a third sea lift logistics ship. There are other navies searching for sea lift too, with different needs and wants. Funds are tight all around the world, any multi-purpose ships that can do both tanking and sea lift may be marketable.

As noted, although not confirmed, even New Zealand is thinking in terms of a mixed used tanker and logistic ship to replace the Endeavour. While New Zealand may wish for a new tanker soon, a bit more sea lift wouldn't hurt. There are many designs out there because all of the shipyards wish to sell and build ships. Remember the Canterbury was ordered for 53.5 million Euros, about $100 million US$, and $186 million NZ$. The Endeavour ran close to $50 million NZ$ back during the late 1980s, therefore a multi-task tanker/sea lift would run more than the price of the Canterbury, but should still be under $250 million NZ$, or much less than 100 million Euros today.

As for the OPVs. I repeat it would be a large error to use these ships as frigates. They do not have any sonar, electronic counter countermeasures, surface to air missiles, surface to surface missiles, or even a proper three inch gunmount. They are totally unsuitable as a war ship. Just because they may look similar to a frigate to some does not mean they are. They were bought to be used as EEZ patrol ships. A $60 million patrol ship should not be considered a $400 million frigate, not by anyone or by any government.

Yes let's hope the Govt of the day see the benefit of a multi-task tanker/sea lift vessel.

With regard to the OPV's - totally agree that they should never be used as 'mini-frigates' as regardless of sensor & weapons fits, they are not built to military spec in terms of damage tolerance etc.

However, the Govt has clearly stated that they will have a 'secondary counter-terrorism' role. With this in mind do you consider them to have adequate sensor & weapons fit for this role? Obvioulsy the answer would be 'no' in areas of the Middle East, but what about areas of lower risk? Or should we only ever use Frigates in this role?

 

[Sea Toby]

I think the government was suggesting counter terrorism in New Zealand and in the South Pacific, not the Middle East. I believe the OPVs will be useful in operations in the Solomon Islands, Fiji, Tonga, etc., in the South Pacific, the OPVs have no business being engaged in the Middle East. They have the ability to carry SAS troops, or other special forces, throughout the South Pacific in the dead of night by either RHIBs or helicopter.

As I read the Maritime Review, New Zealand figures about 400 days a year for offshore patrol, over 150 days each for their OPVs, and about 100 days for the MRV. They are expected to do five 30 day patrols each. It would be difficult in my mind for the OPVs to do one 30 day patrol to the Middle East. Usually the Anzac frigates do Persian Gulf deployments with three months or more, not one.

In the past, Argentina sent one or two of their corvettes to the Persian Gulf during Desert Storm. The US Navy and coalition sent the corvettes to escort tankers, since they were constantly being nurse maided by them.

New Zealand will find the OPVs very useful for these EEZ patrols, and while doing so also accomplish showing the flag nearby. They will do exercises with the Australians and others too. But I would never expect them to leave the South Pacific, that is what the frigates are for.

 

[recce.k1]

That's a good assessment of OPV counter terrorism use and is pretty much how the Govt ministers portray their use. From what I've read in the past, the Navy on the other hand pretty much says the same thing but has added in another one-liner about being available for Defence purposes (sorry can't recall the actual phrase but someone else would have seen it in Navy Today once etc).

I've wondered whether for example they could be deployed to say, the Straight of Malacca and assist with anti-piracy, anti-smuggling or counter terrorism possibly under the guise of NZ's FPDA contribution. Wack on a couple of these mini-typhoons and a rear toplite (or even not at all) and I can't see why they wouldn't be ideal vessels, say operating out of Singapore for a few days or a week or two at a time.

However a quick check of the current RNZN website under the vessel names and their use is defined quite uncontroversial as thus:

OTAGO will be able to operate throughout New Zealand’s 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), the Southern Ocean and the South Pacific. She will carry out a range of roles including patrolling, surveillance, search and rescue, humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, support to peacekeeping operations and sea training for the Navy.

OTAGO will conduct maritime patrols in conjunction with the P-3 Orion maritime patrol aircraft in the New Zealand EEZ, Southern Ocean and South Pacific. The surveillance tasks are primarily non-military in support of civilian agencies and involve specialist staff from government agencies such as NZ Customs and Ministry of Fisheries.

From http://www.navy.mil.nz/visit-the-fleet/otago/default.htm

 

[Sea Toby]

One has to understand the legal implications too. Courts don't wait six months to prosecute illegal fishers and/or smugglers. Courts have their own timelines, which have nothing to do with naval timelines. If New Zealand is going to prosecute illegal fishing and smugglers seriously, naval timelines have to change significantly, at least for the fishery and customs agents. In other words, deployments have to be shorter.

I doubt any court will wait for the end of a Middle East deployment. A month more or less is the limit of any court. When faced with losing their ships, their cargoes, and/or a lengthly jail sentence, the illegal fishers and smugglers turn to the courts for justice. I can guarantee you that the time spent in court is longer than the time spent at sea for the agents.

Its bad enough in your own jurisdiction, its really a mess when you are discussing piracy in another jurisdiction. While they may be the largest crooks in history, they aren't guilty until they are found guilty in a court.