Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
I still have some unresolved thoughts about optimal NZ patrolling within/outside of NZ's EEZ and into the Pacific (and Pacific Island EEZ's), the counter terrorism and peace keeping roles etc (i.e. the lower threat level stuff, not a shooting war scenario, but possibly also I'm thinking about the first things that could happen should "things start to go bad" e.g. the laying of mines, e.g. from disguised foreign fishing trawlers not so much a hostile warship as intelligence would most likely know of their existance etc. A sub might be a different matter of course, but I'm aware that there are/were underwater acoustic listening devices....).
Firstly, to the unitiated such as myself, what do you mean by "modular" MCM (and environmental protection modules) and how would this compare with the current methods of MCM as practised on the IPC's?
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Exercise “Joint Kiwi” update
Aust and NZ naval exercise in Hawkes Bay
8:54AM Friday May 09, 2008
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=123&objectid=10509024
Soldiers in full kit will swarm ashore from the sea in Hawke's Bay next week in an international exercise to see how Australian and New Zealand navy ship crews work together.
Crew members from the navy's newest ship, the multi-role vessel, HMNZS Canterbury, would work with the Australian navy amphibious sealift ship, HMAS Manoora, for several days off Hawke's Bay.
Troops from the Queen Alexandra's Mounted Rifles would be off loaded onto the beach at Perfume Point using landing craft, said the Defence Force.
Canterbury has been involved in several exercises with the Australian navy recently.
In February it joined forces with the Australians in Exercise Sealion near Townsville and Great Barrier Reef. Last month it was part of a six-nations exercise in Noumea, Exercise Croix Du Sud 2008 which brought together military forces from France, Australia, New Zealand, Tonga, Vanuatu and Papua New Guinea.
Aust and NZ naval exercise in Hawkes Bay
8:54AM Friday May 09, 2008
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=123&objectid=10509024
Soldiers in full kit will swarm ashore from the sea in Hawke's Bay next week in an international exercise to see how Australian and New Zealand navy ship crews work together.
Crew members from the navy's newest ship, the multi-role vessel, HMNZS Canterbury, would work with the Australian navy amphibious sealift ship, HMAS Manoora, for several days off Hawke's Bay.
Troops from the Queen Alexandra's Mounted Rifles would be off loaded onto the beach at Perfume Point using landing craft, said the Defence Force.
Canterbury has been involved in several exercises with the Australian navy recently.
In February it joined forces with the Australians in Exercise Sealion near Townsville and Great Barrier Reef. Last month it was part of a six-nations exercise in Noumea, Exercise Croix Du Sud 2008 which brought together military forces from France, Australia, New Zealand, Tonga, Vanuatu and Papua New Guinea.
I think recce.k1 was referring to the LCS modular minehunting modules. Unfortunately, the OPVs don't have the same CICs, therefore, the system won't work with the OPVs. AGAIN, someone is attempting to get more out of an OPV than patrol. Get a clue, a NZ $90 million OPV ship will never be a NZ $500 million frigate, or a NZ $500 million littoral combat ship.
New Zealand bought pretty much the same OPV the Irish Naval Service has, although with a helicopter hangar capability which does at most five 30 day EEZ patrols each year. The Irish have in the past have used a Roisin class OPV to show the flag in Argentina in reponse to Argentina having sent a Meko corvette to Ireland. I also recall a Roisin OPV escorting a hired ro-ro cargo ship full of Irish army vehicles to Liberia for a UN peacekeeping mission alongside other allies and warships.
Don't expect more out of these OPVs than this. They are not warships, they are patrol ships.
Last edited:
Exactly. Patrols ships we certainly needed. We probably need another pair to go with them, but not for "combat" duties. You simply don't need a frgate to sail around the Solomons a few times a year. Or show the flag in the South Pacific.
See when I read MCM modules, I saw the sort of equipment Canada might use on its Kingston Class patrol vessels. At the end of the day, I always thought the idea of having container space on the back of the Otagos was so that modular equipment like Pollution control equipment etc could be bought if the NZ Govt saw fit and placed on the OPV's so that there was no need to buy more specialised vessels.
The OPV's have a spot on the quarter deck for a ISO 20 ft container and two special forces RHIBS. Any modular concept revolves around using this space. There would be a requirement to install plug in electrical sockets etc. By modular I mean equipment that can be loaded for mission specific tasks. For example the Coastal Tanker runs aground. The OPV pulls into a port, loads an environmental protection module: Dispersent, Deployable oil boom etc and sails. The concept is becoming popular overseas with the Dainsh SF300 and the USN (overpriced) LCS.
The IPC MCM capability consisted of towed array side scan sonar. The orginal equipment has been replaced by the Remus 100 http://www.hydroidinc.com/remus100.html.
A modular MCM capability would consist on a portable decompression chamber http://www.msi-dsl.com/diving.html for a diving team, Remus and MCM drones with side scan, similar to that used by the RAN.
I image there are other capabilities that could be included in a modular structure, but these are the two key ones, given that Manawanui and Kahu are due for replacement. I still think a 57mm would be helpful in the South Pacific, but that would be the limit of any upgrade. The concept is similar to what the RN is proposing for there C3
Last edited:
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Just so I am clear on your thinking, I assume you are thinking along the lines of a Frigate etc will have hull mounted sonars (and perhaps towed array sonars) to detect underwater objects, such as mines (or subs, especially if a tower array is deployed)? With the hull mounted sonar, the Frigate crew would be able to continuosly monitor for underwater objects? The NZ OPV on the other hand has no such capability, nor probably should one retrospectively fit such a system if it were not already designed "to be fitted for" such a system and with space reserved etc? Although if one could, the cost of fitting out the OPV would increase its price a lot more, thus (when other systems and weapons are taken into account) it's better to buy a properly outfitted Frigate rather than try and cram all this into an upgraded OPV?
This sure sounds do-able with the added bonus of mix and match to the needs of the mission etc. For peace-time purposes or possibly for low-threat UN/Coalition peace-keeping purposes this presumably could work out reasonably well (although I assume detection ranges are smaller than a Frigate with dedicated sensors)? I assume this is all well and good if the OPV is actively searching for mines etc, but I wonder what would happen in a wartime situation if the OPV is in transit, without hull mounted sonar and I'm assuming the MCM drones aren't always deployed especially in transit, and runs into a minefield? Or am I wrong, are there sensors operating 24/7 in this modular system to detect and avoid minefileds etc?
Another question, is modular ASW feasible for an OPV? Eg drop a sonar over the side (from this container) or have towed array? The OPV doesn't carry torps (wonder if space and weight was ever reserved?), perhaps the on-board Seasprite could engage assuming there's enough time to get it ready and into the air etc.
Sorry if these questions appear painful. What I'm thinking is in wartime or simply an escalation of tensions in this region, NZ will be under-prepared asset wise as it found in WW2 and had to embark on a re-arming programme. I simply wonder if some of these Patrol assets (OPV's and IPV's) could be pressed into a more aggressive or assertive defensive role? If so, a good cheap investment could be a few more OPV's, perhaps some in Reserve (but on Rotation), with an expanded Volunteer Naval Reserve force to work out on these ships on occassion? A couple more Frigates would be useful of course, but the point of this exercise is to put them to one side for this discussion.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
NZ Tenix Shipyard to close
It's such a shame we have such a small requirement for our own purpose built Naval craft, despite the Whangarei shipbuilding industry building nearly all of the RNZN's smaller vessels over the last 20-30 years. I suppose also with Tenix being bought out, the need to cut-costs means the shared Australia-NZ facilities aren't viable anymore. Jeez what's the bl**dy Minister for Regional/Economic Development doing about this and is this typical of the stop/start defence building project relationship the NZ Govt has with Australia
. Maybe the Govt needs to nationalise this like they just did with the Rail (and build the Navy more smaller vessels) . Maybe someone else will come along and buy the facilities anyway.
It's such a shame we have such a small requirement for our own purpose built Naval craft, despite the Whangarei shipbuilding industry building nearly all of the RNZN's smaller vessels over the last 20-30 years. I suppose also with Tenix being bought out, the need to cut-costs means the shared Australia-NZ facilities aren't viable anymore. Jeez what's the bl**dy Minister for Regional/Economic Development doing about this and is this typical of the stop/start defence building project relationship the NZ Govt has with Australia
. Maybe the Govt needs to nationalise this like they just did with the Rail (and build the Navy more smaller vessels) . Maybe someone else will come along and buy the facilities anyway.Unfortuantely, the New Zealand Navy isn't twice its size, to keep the shipyard workers busy. The same result has happened in Argentina too. Once its Meko corvettes were built, the workers were no longer needed and eventually laid off. Its important for New Zealand to keep the factory as is, unchanged, not allowing anyone else to make buses or tractors at this site. That is, unless the government is willing to spend on a new infrastructure again. It isn't easy maintaining a military industrial complex, as the Australians have discovered.
Twenty years from now, when replacement frigates and then later replacement patrol ships, both OPV and IPV, are being built, the government can use this asset again to build modules. The difficulty will be to hire a new group of workers, and then training them, most of the older trained workers will have moved on with their careers.
It reminds me of the old movie, Shipyard Sally. Gracie Fields was an excellent singer. I still enjoy her singing Land of Hope and Glory.
From You Tube: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4l-7-zxT528"]YouTube - Gracie Fields 'Shipyard Sally' Land Of Hope And Glory[/ame]
Twenty years from now, when replacement frigates and then later replacement patrol ships, both OPV and IPV, are being built, the government can use this asset again to build modules. The difficulty will be to hire a new group of workers, and then training them, most of the older trained workers will have moved on with their careers.
It reminds me of the old movie, Shipyard Sally. Gracie Fields was an excellent singer. I still enjoy her singing Land of Hope and Glory.
From You Tube: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4l-7-zxT528"]YouTube - Gracie Fields 'Shipyard Sally' Land Of Hope And Glory[/ame]
I hope you are joking.
When I looked around New Zealand, I do not see many sites any environmental groups would accept for a shipyard. If you have one zoned already, don't ever expect another. Maybe you think I am wrong?
Isn't it better for the New Zealand economy to build modules for new ships in New Zealand? Or build small ships in New Zealand? Frankly, I am amazed the environmentalists didn't attempt to stop this site.
The NIMBY's refused a national stadium on the Auckland waterfront, a stadium the nation's government would have bought. Notice, the difficulties of enlarging Eden Park.
Isn't it better for the New Zealand economy to build modules for new ships in New Zealand? Or build small ships in New Zealand? Frankly, I am amazed the environmentalists didn't attempt to stop this site.
The NIMBY's refused a national stadium on the Auckland waterfront, a stadium the nation's government would have bought. Notice, the difficulties of enlarging Eden Park.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Well I realise one just can't keep a shipyard open if there are no boats to build and nothing for the workers to do. Presumably the facilities will remain for anyone else to lease or purchase, so perhaps it's not actually a death knell for the facility, only Tenix. As the media article states the project is winding down thus the workers will be down the road.
I suppose I'm miffed because this now guarantees no more IPV's under this Govt. The Maritime Forces Review states "The requirement is for about 950 sea days annually performing inshore patrol tasks" which equates to 237 days per each of the 4 new IPV's. This seems to be a lot or unrealistic especially when training and maintenance need to be taken into account. The review at that stage mainly talked about upgrading the 5 current IPC's until funding could be found to purchase the IPV's so the Navy has done well but I can't help feeling the optimal IPV numbers should have been 5 (to replace the 5 Moa class IPC's including Kahu) or 7 - one each for the 7 major ports (Pg 13 of the Review) assuming a continuation of the previous VR arrangement at the 4 major city ports + 3 more for new establishments (or a mixture of retaining the 4 VR establishments and creating a seperate IPV force at Devonport etc).
My mention of the Ministry of Economic or Regional Development could have been an initiative to retain some skills and Defence receive some funding to build some ocean going tugs for joint Navy/Civilian/Agency use, perhaps to replace the current Diving Tender, the Kahu training vessel or to engage more with Australian defence projects (granted this couldn't still guarantee long term viability of Whangarei's boat building industry, but at least keep some workers and skillsets around to allow chasing of other tenders). Alas our media reporters should be putting these questions to the Defence Minister or Opposition Defence Spokesperson, if only they could recall the linkages with Whangarei and Govt Defence Reviews etc.
I suppose I'm miffed because this now guarantees no more IPV's under this Govt. The Maritime Forces Review states "The requirement is for about 950 sea days annually performing inshore patrol tasks" which equates to 237 days per each of the 4 new IPV's. This seems to be a lot or unrealistic especially when training and maintenance need to be taken into account. The review at that stage mainly talked about upgrading the 5 current IPC's until funding could be found to purchase the IPV's so the Navy has done well but I can't help feeling the optimal IPV numbers should have been 5 (to replace the 5 Moa class IPC's including Kahu) or 7 - one each for the 7 major ports (Pg 13 of the Review) assuming a continuation of the previous VR arrangement at the 4 major city ports + 3 more for new establishments (or a mixture of retaining the 4 VR establishments and creating a seperate IPV force at Devonport etc).
My mention of the Ministry of Economic or Regional Development could have been an initiative to retain some skills and Defence receive some funding to build some ocean going tugs for joint Navy/Civilian/Agency use, perhaps to replace the current Diving Tender, the Kahu training vessel or to engage more with Australian defence projects (granted this couldn't still guarantee long term viability of Whangarei's boat building industry, but at least keep some workers and skillsets around to allow chasing of other tenders). Alas our media reporters should be putting these questions to the Defence Minister or Opposition Defence Spokesperson, if only they could recall the linkages with Whangarei and Govt Defence Reviews etc.
I believe the government wishes to use 6 crews operating 4 boats, at 150 days a year per crew, that equals the 900 inshore patrol days. These boats are going to be worn out sooner doing this multi-crewing. More than likely the boats will be replaced in twenty instead of thirty years. But at their price, around NZ$ 20 million or so, they are very affordable, so there is no sense of not wearing them out.
If the site is kept as is, possibly another Australian shipyard will buy it when its time to rebuild ships and/or boats for New Zealand again. Otherwise the Kiwis will have to pay for all of its infrastructure again. ADI sold to Thales, and Tenix to BAE. I do not see how New Zealand can do any better than the Aussies. I don't like ghost towns either.
In America, one of the largest fishing boat companies is Tracker. They build some really nice bass boats. You would think their plant would be near an urban industrial area somewhere, but their site is off an interstate highway on the outskirts and bypass of Lebanon, Missouri, in the Ozarks. You might check my information on Google Earth.
If the site is kept as is, possibly another Australian shipyard will buy it when its time to rebuild ships and/or boats for New Zealand again. Otherwise the Kiwis will have to pay for all of its infrastructure again. ADI sold to Thales, and Tenix to BAE. I do not see how New Zealand can do any better than the Aussies. I don't like ghost towns either.
In America, one of the largest fishing boat companies is Tracker. They build some really nice bass boats. You would think their plant would be near an urban industrial area somewhere, but their site is off an interstate highway on the outskirts and bypass of Lebanon, Missouri, in the Ozarks. You might check my information on Google Earth.
Last edited:
New 'Teeth for Sea Sprites"
From the NZ Herald:
Some times it not the big things ... as they say, the devil is in the detail
From the NZ Herald:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10509830
Some times it not the big things ... as they say, the devil is in the detail
CIWS upgrade underway!?!
Wondered why Te Kaha has been without her Phalanx for bestpart of the year...looks like the upgrade is underway with a unit in USA.
http://www.defence.govt.nz/acquisitions-tenders/current-acquisition-projects.html
Wondered why Te Kaha has been without her Phalanx for bestpart of the year...looks like the upgrade is underway with a unit in USA.
http://www.defence.govt.nz/acquisitions-tenders/current-acquisition-projects.html
OPV's & MRV were supposed to get an 'obstacle avoidance sonar' according to old press releases & Aker yards design (latter for OPV). Whether they ever got this & whether it has utility in a MCM role I do not know...
I am not even sure whether the New Zealand Anzac frigates ever received their mine avoidance sonar, much less any of the Project Protector fleet. Read
Wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANZAC_class_frigate
Wiki don't mention mine avoidance sonar for Ptoject Protector either.
Wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_New_Zealand_Navy_Future_Plans
The only information I have found is that the RNZN has three Remus 100 MCM AUV systems. Read link: http://mae.pennnet.com/articles/article_display.cfm?article_id=293821
I assume they are cross deckable.
Wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANZAC_class_frigate
Wiki don't mention mine avoidance sonar for Ptoject Protector either.
Wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_New_Zealand_Navy_Future_Plans
The only information I have found is that the RNZN has three Remus 100 MCM AUV systems. Read link: http://mae.pennnet.com/articles/article_display.cfm?article_id=293821
I assume they are cross deckable.
Last edited:
In the Defending New Zealand, it was stated that the Navy didn't get everything they want'ed on the ANZAC's. So a lack of mine avoidance sonar wouldn't surprise me. Its only now been fitted to the Australian ANZAC's (Thales Petrel). I've searched the net to find out the type of obstacle avoidance sonar fitted to the Canterbury and OPV's as the navy website here http://www.navy.mil.nz/visit-the-fleet/cant/recent/mrv-launch.htm
suggests it's fitted.
There is suppose to be a degree of compatibility with the ANZAC's but how far that extends to the electronics I have no idea. The Remus systems are used for MCM / Survey work, so I would expect to see them on Resolution, Mananwauni and Kahu.