Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
This is an interesting concept - replenishment & strategic sealift - a sort of cross between the Endeavour and Charles Upham perhaps but with added capability such as hospital and shore logistic support etc.

Added bonuses, commonality with Canterbury in terms of systems, machinery, training etc. Good move.

However (and no doubt the experts at the MOD and NZDF have assessed this) but anyone concerned about another unproven concept design? At least it seems the lesson of buying cheap has been learnt, Wings over NZ forum suggest a NZ$350M pricetag (nearly double that of the Canterbury).
 

Sea Toby

New Member
I would think this ship would complement the Canterbury as a replenishment oiler and with sea lift. As noted this JSS ship can be built to different sizes, but would probably be about twice as large as the Canterbury. Thus you would think a JSS would cost twice as much. Of course, the cheapest alternative would be to buy another South Korean replenishment oiler.

Sweden is thinking in the same terms. I believe Germany is too, or at least HDW is offering something similar to Portugal. Canada is thinking in much bigger terms. Notice that the RHIBs are located on the main deck by the superstructure.
 
Last edited:

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
Notice that the RHIBs are located on the main deck by the superstructure.
And a nice flat area behind the funnels for a rear mounted CIWS or similar!

Sorry, I meant earlier that this is an interesting concept for the RNZN. I know other larger Navies have similar mixed capabilities eg RFA Fort Class albiet minus a vehicle deck etc.
 

Rocco_NZ

New Member
At least it seems the lesson of buying cheap has been learnt, Wings over NZ forum suggest a NZ$350M pricetag (nearly double that of the Canterbury).
The forum didn't, I did. The 350M came from the Defence Capital Assset Management Practice Review (Sept 2007, joint Defence/Treasury publication). I lodged an OIA on how the figure was reached, and the answer I received basically said it was a best-guess based on current planning. I wouldn't read too much into the figure though - it's a total project cost. It may include, for example, some light utility helicopters for the naval support force.
 

tatra

New Member
Verified Defense Pro
This is an interesting concept - replenishment & strategic sealift - a sort of cross between the Endeavour and Charles Upham perhaps but with added capability such as hospital and shore logistic support etc.

Added bonuses, commonality with Canterbury in terms of systems, machinery, training etc. Good move.

However (and no doubt the experts at the MOD and NZDF have assessed this) but anyone concerned about another unproven concept design? At least it seems the lesson of buying cheap has been learnt, Wings over NZ forum suggest a NZ$350M pricetag (nearly double that of the Canterbury).
What do you mean unproven concept design? You are aware e.g. the Spanish V/STOL carrier Principe the Asturia doubles as a refuelling ship? Check out the gear on the starboard side!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Spanish_aircraft_carrier_Principe_de_Asturias.jpg
 

Rocco_NZ

New Member
I think we need to put the tanker-component of this theoretical joint support ship in context. Since 2001, Endeavour has offloaded a little over 1,000 tonnes of fuel to the RAN. She carries 7,500 of cargo fuel. I don't think that the proposed joint support ship is going to have much in the way of fuel cargo capacity. With the Anzac frigates having a bunker capacity of 500 tonnes, I can't see a joint support ship having a capacity of more than about 2,500 tonnes of cargo fuel. Functionally, a RAS rig will just make offloading faster, it's not necessarily required to support the quantity of fuel being delivered.

Interesting to note that late last year Canterbury conducted some training evolutions based on offloading cargo using her cranes to unload directly onto Endeavour. Both ships were stationary at the time.
 

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
What do you mean unproven concept design? You are aware e.g. the Spanish V/STOL carrier Principe the Asturia doubles as a refuelling ship? Check out the gear on the starboard side!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Spanish_aircraft_carrier_Principe_de_Asturias.jpg
I meant unproven concept design as in that particular type/class of ship has not actually been built yet. However I don't see this as a major problem, Merwede are experienced ship builders and after-all all new ship designs start off as concepts etc. :D

In regards to the Principe the Asturia, apart from being an impressive asset, this makes good sense as in the carrier is like some sort type of mother ship supporting her fleet and escorts on deployment etc. :)

I think we need to put the tanker-component of this theoretical joint support ship in context. Since 2001, Endeavour has offloaded a little over 1,000 tonnes of fuel to the RAN. She carries 7,500 of cargo fuel. I don't think that the proposed joint support ship is going to have much in the way of fuel cargo capacity. With the Anzac frigates having a bunker capacity of 500 tonnes, I can't see a joint support ship having a capacity of more than about 2,500 tonnes of cargo fuel. Functionally, a RAS rig will just make offloading faster, it's not necessarily required to support the quantity of fuel being delivered.

Interesting to note that late last year Canterbury conducted some training evolutions based on offloading cargo using her cranes to unload directly onto Endeavour. Both ships were stationary at the time.
I like your insights! I was wondering too that the ANZAC's are better than the old Leanders to operate further or on their own etc (less likely need to rely on the Endeavour). But I can see that in recent history ships like the Endeavour are also vital for carrying fuel, avgas, stores for the army etc. So if bunker capacity doesn't need to be as large nowadays, how likely then would it be that such a JSS is a viable goer with the Canterbury coming into service (when a smaller Endeavour replacement could be purchased cheaply)? I think the Navy are onto a good idea, it will really improve NZ's ability to provide logistical support for NZ and allied joint-operations, and give the Govt more options (certainly be useful if Canty is in dry-dock etc), but how likely is the Govt going to support this? Has there been a "case" for such a vessel, if so, what's brought this about?
 

Rocco_NZ

New Member
I like your insights! I was wondering too that the ANZAC's are better than the old Leanders to operate further or on their own etc (less likely need to rely on the Endeavour). But I can see that in recent history ships like the Endeavour are also vital for carrying fuel, avgas, stores for the army etc. So if bunker capacity doesn't need to be as large nowadays, how likely then would it be that such a JSS is a viable goer with the Canterbury coming into service (when a smaller Endeavour replacement could be purchased cheaply)? I think the Navy are onto a good idea, it will really improve NZ's ability to provide logistical support for NZ and allied joint-operations, and give the Govt more options (certainly be useful if Canty is in dry-dock etc), but how likely is the Govt going to support this? Has there been a "case" for such a vessel, if so, what's brought this about?
The short answer is very viable. Navy Today ran an article to mark Endeavour's 20 years of service. The admiral in charge of fleet devleopment indicated a some sort of joint support ship would be the likely replacement.

Without getting into too much detail, Endeavour hasn't ever really supported deployed troops directly. In Timor she resupplied Tobruk frequently, but for Bouganiville, trailers of supplies had to be lashed to her upper deck and petrol was carried in drums because the fuel system wasn't designed for it. Now since then Army has replaced it's landrovers with diesel vehicles, so petrol capacity isn't an issue anymore (apart from very small quantities for things like chainsaws and certain types of small generator).

Your comments about avags were interesting too. Endeavour can only carry 150 tonnes of aviation fuel - about 75 loads for an NH90. That might seem like a lot, but it's only 18 or 19 full loads if 4 choppers are being carried. For a month-long deployment that isn't a lot. Certainly for Bouganville Endeavour couldn't carry enough fuel to support the limited (3-4ish) number of Iroquois deployed.

From my casual observations it looks like Navy is trying to get into sea-based logistics in a big way. A 'floating base' support ship would support that concept.

I don't think the political dimension is significang. Cabinet papers are probably at least a year away, and even if they were ready now I suspect Navy would wait until after the election, regardless of the winner. Most politicians would be comfortable with $300m or so to add another "multi-role" ship to the navy. An incoming National goverment would be especially keen to make their first few major defence projects things that aren't going to be controversial.
 

Lucasnz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I think we need to put the tanker-component of this theoretical joint support ship in context. Since 2001, Endeavour has offloaded a little over 1,000 tonnes of fuel to the RAN. She carries 7,500 of cargo fuel. I don't think that the proposed joint support ship is going to have much in the way of fuel cargo capacity. With the Anzac frigates having a bunker capacity of 500 tonnes, I can't see a joint support ship having a capacity of more than about 2,500 tonnes of cargo fuel. Functionally, a RAS rig will just make offloading faster, it's not necessarily required to support the quantity of fuel being delivered.
I'd be inclined to disagree with you on fuel capacity. During East Timor Endeavour was running back and forth refuelling Success, who remained on station. I think fuel capability will remain at least the same, especially with the OPV's having a RAS(L) capability, and as you point out the Avcat, given the NH90 will not go far, capability will have to increase to support the increase in maritime aviation.


From my casual observations it looks like Navy is trying to get into sea-based logistics in a big way. A 'floating base' support ship would support that concept.
I think the navy sees this vessel as an opportunity to build upon the experiences in East Timor and in supporting the frigates way from New Zealand. My personal view is that there maybe a realisation that Canterbury by herself is insufficent to respond to a Pacific Island crisis, givent he limited troop capability.

Regardless of the fuel capability, the idea is a pretty good one, all we need now is a couple of more frigates / corvettes / LCS and we'll be almost right.
 

Rocco_NZ

New Member
I'd be inclined to disagree with you on fuel capacity. During East Timor Endeavour was running back and forth refuelling Success, who remained on station. I think fuel capability will remain at least the same, especially with the OPV's having a RAS(L) capability, and as you point out the Avcat, given the NH90 will not go far, capability will have to increase to support the increase in maritime aviation.
Westralia was out of action during Timor. I've heard talk of Endeavour shuttling backwards and forwards from Singapore to collect fuel, but nothing on actual quantities of fuel required. From memory, Westralia has over 4x the fuel capacity of Endeavour, so perhaps the fuel demand wasn't as instatiable as some would have us believe. P

I'm still of the view that fresh food and spare parts are more of a limiting factor than fuel at present.
 

Lucasnz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Westralia was out of action during Timor. I've heard talk of Endeavour shuttling backwards and forwards from Singapore to collect fuel, but nothing on actual quantities of fuel required. From memory, Westralia has over 4x the fuel capacity of Endeavour, so perhaps the fuel demand wasn't as instatiable as some would have us believe. P

I'm still of the view that fresh food and spare parts are more of a limiting factor than fuel at present.
In Operation East Timor @ p74 daily East Timor fuel consumption was 30,000 ltrs per day.

Yes Fresh food and spares are an issue, especially when the NZDF is running a modified JIT inventory system. Having a floating warehouse, would provide a significant operational advantage.

Do you feel that with the increased lift capability, allowing the deployment of a significant proportion of the NZDF operational assets that NZ would have sufficent escort numbers. I thinking of the ET situation, where Endeavour was left to steam by herself from Singapore to Drawin. My personal feeling is that we should look at buying a couple of corvettes to carry out that role - the MEKO CSL is a start, but lacks the range (not that it matters when the tankers next door).
 

Sea Toby

New Member
If you are going to war, can New Zealand properly escort every tanker and cargo ship headed for New Zealand, much less an island where a battle is taking place? I don't think so with only two frigates in New Zealand's navy's inventory. Even if New Zealand had four frigates the job couldn't be done.

So if New Zealand did have an escort for the tanker at the battle front, other ships would be as vulnerable at home. As noted in an Australian thread, neither Australia or New Zealand would start a war without the support of the UN, to the point of waiting a month or two before intervening. The last thing any of your neighboring countries would wish for is being targeted by the UN for a blockade. Their international trade would pretty much dry up.

The only nation that have thumbed the UN lately has been Iraq, see what happened to them. During these days of coalitions, being cast as an outcast is not welcomed by any nation. Even North Korea's friends are riddled with UN pressures......

I know you want to arm every vessel as a frigate, or better..... unfortunately no one, not even the USA can do so. The tanker will have to defend itself, or be escorted by New Zealand's one deployed frigate. I doubt whether anyone else has the luxury of escorts to escort it. So will your enemy fight a UN intervention? That is if the UN security council would agree to an intervention. And if not, would Australia and New Zealand go ahead anyway?

And lets discuss the price for corvettes. Yes, they do cost less than a frigate, but not by much. New Zealand paid 53 million Euros for its OPVs, but they have very little warfighting capability. The F2000 small frigates Brunei bought, about as little as a frigate should be, ran around 200 million pounds each, or just a few million dollars less than an Anzac class frigate. New Zealand's OPVs have more range than most corvettes, using weight from weapons systems for fuel tankage. You will notice that most navies that have corvettes are either in the Persian Gulf, Baltic Sea, or Mediterranean Sea. Corvettes for a Pacific nation of New Zealand will never be proper.

But I do agree a JSS is correct for the future to replace their AOR. Times have changed, New Zealand's navy is no longer a frigate navy, they have grown up and now have a balanced refocused navy.
 
Last edited:

battlensign

New Member
SToby, I don't Agree.....

But I do agree a JSS is correct for the future to replace their AOR. Times have changed, New Zealand's navy is no longer a frigate navy, they have grown up and now have a balanced refocused navy.
I do not agree that RNZN cannot be a frigate navy anymore.......with such pathetically low spending on defence there is definately a potential to do a lot more.

Brett.
 

Sea Toby

New Member
When New Zealand catches their first illegal fishing ship raping their fisheries in their EEZ with their new OPVs, and seize several tons of illegal drugs with their IPVs that would be sold to your children, and use their MRV for disaster relief humanitarian operations anywhere in the South Pacific, you might think differently.

But I will agree a third frigate would lessen the load on their two frigates. Although at their current defence expenditures per GNP they cannot afford a third frigate without more cuts in their air force or army capabilities. Their air force has suffered more than enough, and I can't imagine a smaller army. Of course that is a political decision, spending more. Its also a political decision to have a more balanced navy capable of policing their EEZs and providing a vessel for sea lift.

I hope neither country has to do what Canada had to do, and that is to use their special forces to commandeer a cargo ship carrying billions of their defence equipment. Australia is so concerned about their sea lift problems during East Timor, they are spending $6 billion. I would think they are more concerned about sea lift than another half billion frigate.

New Zealand discovered during the French nuclear tests their frigates were useless without a refueling ship. Armies worry about supply. Navies worry about replenishment. Defence forces worry about sea lift. Having a tank regiment in New Zealand is secondary to supply..... Amateurs think armor and guns, pros think of supply.
 
Last edited:

battlensign

New Member
Fully agree on that point...

Sea Toby, I probably should clarify my statements a little there to ensure no scope for misunderstandings. I think project protector is and will be great for the RNZN and am very happy with the sealift being procured. My point was simply that with defence spending at something like NZ$1.7 billion and accounting for something like 1percent of GDP there is significant potential for increases to defence capability (albeit without knowing the manpower situation which could hamper this). I do not advocate the robbing of one service to prop-up another.......the money should and could be there for both!

This "benign environment" crap is used as a justification for emasculating the NZDFs. Reliance on Australian assistance is fine to a certain extent but is anyone seriously likely to doubt the utility in defence planning of an extra squadron of F-16s that NZ might have had (if the plan for 28 had gone ahead)? And while I'm on the subject, the uniquely NZ 'Capital Charge' seems really stupid....allocating money to be immediately returned but not appearing to cover any actual expenses- which will still need to be covered by other additional monies-(Capital Charge 2007 = 19 percent of the defence money!)?

Brett

P.S Very happy about the OPVs and Canterbury though!
 

Sea Toby

New Member
Yes, I agree the F-16s was a wonderful whale of a deal New Zealand passed on. And with the long string of government surpluses, a deal New Zealand could have easily afforded. Unfortunately, the citizens voted in a Labour government which have tight rope strings strangling defence budgets. This is in the end a political policy. All defence procurement budgets are political. The entire air combat force could have been funded with just one year's surplus for ten years or more.

I would prefer an opposition party to proclaim spending 3 percent more each year until a decided increased number percentage of GDP is achieved. Unfortunately, no party has decided to do so, leaving their options open until another white paper is published. The current government did not even bother to write a white paper, using reviews instead.

Something all governments are facing in the near future is the expense or tax breaks to develop new fuel sources via agriculture and other means. In my mind every cent of every surplus should be spent doing this than reducing any debt, considering that crude oil prices have quadrupled in the last five years with no end in sight in the future. The only nation doing so in the recent past has been Brazil.
 
Last edited:

Lucasnz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
If you are going to war, can New Zealand properly escort every tanker and cargo ship headed for New Zealand, much less an island where a battle is taking place? I don't think so with only two frigates in New Zealand's navy's inventory. Even if New Zealand had four frigates the job couldn't be done.



And lets discuss the price for corvettes. Yes, they do cost less than a frigate, but not by much. New Zealand paid 53 million Euros for its OPVs, but they have very little warfighting capability. The F2000 small frigates Brunei bought, about as little as a frigate should be, ran around 200 million pounds each, or just a few million dollars less than an Anzac class frigate. New Zealand's OPVs have more range than most corvettes, using weight from weapons systems for fuel tankage. You will notice that most navies that have corvettes are either in the Persian Gulf, Baltic Sea, or Mediterranean Sea. Corvettes for a Pacific nation of New Zealand will never be proper.

But I do agree a JSS is correct for the future to replace their AOR. Times have changed, New Zealand's navy is no longer a frigate navy, they have grown up and now have a balanced refocused navy.
I wasn't thinking in terms of having to protect every ship in an around NZ. I'm more concerned with ensuring key NZDF assets in an operational area aren't left exposed, like Endeavour was in East Timor. Two frigates are insufficent, but in recent years other options like corvettes (given most operations are in the littoral's) need to be considered.

Actually the ANZAC's cost around $500 million each when you factor in training, logistics etc. While NZ isn't focused on a frigate navy for politicial reasons, it should be. IMHO I would suggest that the world's navies are slowly more back to the pre-WWII definition of ships, with Corvettes carrying out the roles traditionally done by frigates. If you look at many of the coverttes on offer or in service today, the only difference is the sensor range and crew size. If terms of fire power many exceed the ANZAC's.
 

Sea Toby

New Member
Back during WWII, much of the sea traffic was from the Americas to Europe, hardly any trading whatsoever in the Pacific, and more of it going to Japan than anywhere else. Today with China and India consuming more oil, sea lanes throughout the world are as busy as WWII's Atlantic. When you shop at your nearest Walmart, for example, almost all of the merchandise inside is made in China. Trade sea lanes are no longer the same.

Therefore, while the US Navy intends to escort its carrier battle groups, its Marine Expeditionary Forces, and its Urgent Replenishment Ships, it has given up the ghost to convoy merchant vessels. The last of the OHPerrys are not being replaced by frigates, but with littoral combat ships. These ships can provide some ocean escorting, but there are not nearly enough to do the job of NATO ocean escorting. Why bother when Europe's oil supply is being brought from another direction?

Thus, in the future replenishment ships and supply vessels will have to either defend themselves or be risked without naval escorting. Most navies and merchantmen intend to use multitude sea lanes to confound their enemies.

Back during WWII Canada and Britian built hundreds of corvettes, and the US built hundreds of destroyer escorts, frigates, to cross the North Atlantic. None of these had the range to cross the Pacific without a fuel stop. Any ship less than 2,000 tons displacement, a corvette today doesn't have the range to cross the Pacific heavily armed as a frigate.

Some mileage figures:
Range of a few frigates

Anzac class 6,000 nm @ 18 knots
Duke class 7,800 nm @ 15 knots
La Fayettes 9,000 nm @ 12 knots
Formidables4,000 nm @ 18 knots
Floreals 10,000 nm @ 10 knots


Range of a few corvettes
*note I found a few with over 4,000 nm but no clue at what speed, I assume around 10-12 knots
Baynunah class 2,400 nm @ 15 knots
Laksamana class 2,300 nm @ 18 knots
Qahir class 2,000 nm @ 20 knots

Range of a few ocean patrol vessels
River class 7,800 nm @ 12 knots
Otago class 6,000 nm @ 12 knots
 
Last edited:

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
I wasn't thinking in terms of having to protect every ship in an around NZ. I'm more concerned with ensuring key NZDF assets in an operational area aren't left exposed, like Endeavour was in East Timor. Two frigates are insufficent, but in recent years other options like corvettes (given most operations are in the littoral's) need to be considered.

Actually the ANZAC's cost around $500 million each when you factor in training, logistics etc. While NZ isn't focused on a frigate navy for politicial reasons, it should be. IMHO I would suggest that the world's navies are slowly more back to the pre-WWII definition of ships, with Corvettes carrying out the roles traditionally done by frigates. If you look at many of the coverttes on offer or in service today, the only difference is the sensor range and crew size. If terms of fire power many exceed the ANZAC's.
I have to agree with Sea Toby that corvettes are unsuitable for a country like New Zealand. Yes, they are being built with firepower equivalent to many frigates, but they generally lack the right combination of range, seakeeping and crew comfort needed for lengthy deployments. IMO, Project Protector has delivered value for money and is meeting an important need for NZ. If more money becomes available for the RNZN, I still think that a third frigate is the way to go.

Tas
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Well, another option would be "surveillance frigates" on a similar tune to the French Floreal. France also uses them in the South Pacific after all.

More range than you'll ever need.
 
Top