Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[Lucasnz]

The birds are right and the grapes are nice and ripe. I have good sources on this.

I was talking to someone recently in the NZDF about the OPV's. One other problem they have is that the ice strengthing has resulted in them sitting to low in the water and reduced the weight growth margin.

I thought the shaft vibration was limited to just one of the engines on Otago.

 

[Lucasnz]

Report into HMNZS Canterbury Released

Suff is reporting that the purchase of HMNZS Canterbury was "wishful thinking" see stuff here

Facts on Canterbury's service to date here

Report Documents here

Key comments from the report are as follows...
p.2 - HMNZS CANTERBURY is intrinsically safe but remedial work will be required
to enable her to perform military functions; some operating limitations will also
have to be accepted. Sea keeping performance is likely to be poor in higher
sea states.
-From the outset of the project, there was insufficient appreciation of the
constraints to the ship’s operations imposed by the selection of a commercial
Roll-on, Roll-off (Ro-Ro) design. This has been at the root of differences of
opinion between Tenix, the MoD and NZDF and the shortfalls in performance
being faced today.

P5-The Ben my Chree is a ‘short/fat’ ship that operates across the Irish Sea whereconditions are akin to coastal waters, where the seas are generally shortcrested as compared with deep oceans. Even a cursory examination of herdesign and operating profile should have raised questions over her suitability,once modified, for long operational patrols in the Southern Oceans. It isaxiomatic that the hull form of a ship designed for short sea crossings may notbe ideally suited as a solution to fulfil the full Functional Performance
Specification1 for the MRV.

P25-Aviation. The operation of helicopters has already been partially demonstrated but, the assessment of the operation of two helicopters simultaneously must await the planned First of Class Flying Trials. We note that the inability to track helicopters on radar at the required range and height is a warranty claim item.

P.27-This report identified about 600 clauses containing a capability requirement for the MRV expressed as mandatory (shall) non-binding (should) or permissive (desirable). Of these about 71% of the functionality has been achieved, 9% partially achieved, about 10% not achieved, and 9% not yet demonstrated; the remainder do not have an identifiable deliverable.

Having read the report one can only describe the project as a huge screw up.

 

[t68]

Suff is reporting that the purchase of HMNZS Canterbury was "wishful thinking" see stuff here

Facts on Canterbury's service to date here

Report Documents here

Key comments from the report are as follows...
p.2 - HMNZS CANTERBURY is intrinsically safe but remedial work will be required
to enable her to perform military functions; some operating limitations will also
have to be accepted. Sea keeping performance is likely to be poor in higher
sea states.
-From the outset of the project, there was insufficient appreciation of the
constraints to the ship’s operations imposed by the selection of a commercial
Roll-on, Roll-off (Ro-Ro) design. This has been at the root of differences of
opinion between Tenix, the MoD and NZDF and the shortfalls in performance
being faced today.

P5-The Ben my Chree is a ‘short/fat’ ship that operates across the Irish Sea whereconditions are akin to coastal waters, where the seas are generally shortcrested as compared with deep oceans. Even a cursory examination of herdesign and operating profile should have raised questions over her suitability,once modified, for long operational patrols in the Southern Oceans. It isaxiomatic that the hull form of a ship designed for short sea crossings may notbe ideally suited as a solution to fulfil the full Functional Performance
Specification1 for the MRV.

P25-Aviation. The operation of helicopters has already been partially demonstrated but, the assessment of the operation of two helicopters simultaneously must await the planned First of Class Flying Trials. We note that the inability to track helicopters on radar at the required range and height is a warranty claim item.

P.27-This report identified about 600 clauses containing a capability requirement for the MRV expressed as mandatory (shall) non-binding (should) or permissive (desirable). Of these about 71% of the functionality has been achieved, 9% partially achieved, about 10% not achieved, and 9% not yet demonstrated; the remainder do not have an identifiable deliverable.

Having read the report one can only describe the project as a huge screw up.

I think that is what happens when the pollies build to a price and not a standard.
I think the general idea was a good in theory,but i also think tenix should have pick up the deficiency in the design, for what the RNZN expected the ship to work in.

 

[ThePuss]

I have two Kiwi Weapon Techs on my MK 45 gun course at the moment. One spent months in melbourne getting ready to crew one of the OPV's, however due to a lack of MT's and and cooks he is now on my Course because his OPV can't be manned and it is going to be tied up (I don't now if it will be commission or uncommissioned).

On the up said he reckons thay are really good ships. nfloorl: (well at least they look the part)

 

[Stuart Mackey]

I think that is what happens when the pollies build to a price and not a standard.
I think the general idea was a good in theory,but i also think tenix should have pick up the deficiency in the design, for what the RNZN expected the ship to work in.

From what I have seen and heard this is also an issue of politicians building to ideology and to score political points against the political opposition. Of course, one would have to wonder about the advice tendered to the government by the armed forces, and how they could allow such a situation to occur in the first place without at least one resignation.

 

[KH-12]

It's OK the $100m dollars from the sale of the mothballed ACF will be more than enough to pay for the remedial work required on the protector vessels nfloorl:

The issue re: the ice strengthening sounds like a pure design flaw

 

[Norm]

In the document bundle about Canterbury is a press release from Phil Goff Minister of Defence.
http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/media-centre/media-kit/canterbury-review/default.htm

In it he gives an update on the wider Protector Fleet Issues

" The Inshore Patrol Vessels and the Offshore patrol vessels have undertaken sea trials and performed extremely well.The delay in delivery of these ships has primarily been due to a question of the ship's seaboats and Lloyds Certification.This issue is under negotiation with BAE.Once the issue is resolved,those ships ,which have completed their sea trials,can be accepted."

TAB should take bets on when!!!

 

[Sea Toby]

Of course tracking aircraft isn't important for the Canterbury, as there is no weapon systems to shoot any down. The idea situation is for the Canterbury to be escorted by an Anzac class frigate. The ship is supplied with commercial sensors, not military sensors. How do you think they could build a ship with twice the displacement for a quarter of the costs? Why would anyone expect long range air search without a long range air search radar? By the way such radars cost more than any of the Project Protector ships.

It does appear the Canterbury will not be useful as a Southern Ocean patrol ship, that is why the OPVs were ice strengthened. I am sure the ship is quite capable of military sea lift, which is what she was bought for mainly. And at her length, no one expected she would ride as well as a cruise ship either. Never-the-less she has the range of a suitable sea lift ship.

Attempting to call her a MRV was a mistake from the beginning. She is a ferry designed to move vehicles and passengers which was updated to move military vehicles and soldiers.

The Irish have always felt adding a hangar would be a mistake for the OPVs. They never thought the ship, a modified Roisin class, was large enough to handle helicopters properly. There is a reason why navies worldwide build larger ships, frigate sized vessels are considered by many to be the absolute minimum size for proper helicopter operations.

And the RNZN did tell the government this. Unfortunately, the government had other ideas and accepted the word of non military pacifists. They are more interested in cutting the costs of the military, and one way is to reduce the sizes of ships. While the pacifists were able to reduce a frigate from the fleet, they were unable to eliminate the need for patrol ships of the EEZ. Neither have the pacifists of Ireland.

Of course, in the big scheme of events, Labour never did a defence white paper, instead they did a pacifists civilian based maritime review. No wonder why none of the Project Protector fleet fully meets military standards. Labour should take the blame for their military stupidity.

On the other hand, I have heard the navy likes and looks forward to the new ships to do patrol missions, a mission they were quite unable to do before. But as noted, the Project Protector fleet of ships were never considered warships by the government or by the navy. The citizens of New Zealand should never consider them warships either.

 

[MrConservative]

"On the other hand, I have heard the navy likes and looks forward to the new ships to do patrol missions, a mission they were quite unable to do before."

That is news to a lot of us down here. The RNZN was well capable of of doing a top job in EEZ patrols right up until the end of the 1990’s. The RNZN was well capable of doing excellent EEZ patrol right up until the end of the 1990’s. It had 7 Moa Class IPC’s until 2000. The Moa, Kiwi, Hinau and Wakakura were dedicated to patrol. The Kahu was for navigation training and though the Tarapunga and Takapu were for inshore survey, these three vessels did do MAOT and EZZ backup. The Frigate Wellington until 2000 was the designated EZZ and Training Ship. The Tui until 1997 and the Monowai until 1998 were also defacto / back-up EZZ patrol ships until they were replaced.

 

[Norm]

Here is another take on Canterbury from the Dominion:
"The navy needs to take responsibility for lacking the experience and training to sail its new multi-role ship HMNZS Canterbury in rough weather, says former defence ministry acquisition chief Bruce Green.


He is fuming that a report on the safety of the ship, issued last week, had "effectively stuffed my career" by blaming his management of the shipbuilding project.

The report by former British naval expert John Cole said $20 million was needed to fix problems with the ship but even then it would probably still perform poorly in rough seas.

Mr Green said the Government wanted a roll-on, roll-off-type ship for no more than US$100 million (NZ$150 million) and that was what it got. The ship design had been evaluated by the navy.

"It's always easy to blame the person who bought the bloody thing," said Mr Green, who resigned from the ministry this year after seven years in the job.

Mr Green, who emphasised his resignation had nothing to do with this project, said he was disappointed there was no commentary in the Cole report on the navy's ability, training and skills to handle such a ship.

On its first voyage into Auckland, when one of the ship's boats was ripped out of its alcove and another was badly damaged, the captain did nothing to change course or speed in tough conditions. "They were hell-bent on getting to Auckland ...

"The boat went over on its side and ripped the RHIB [boat] out. They were doing 19 bloody knots. What would a prudent seaman, an experienced roll-on, roll-off captain, have done in those conditions? The crew on this boat had no experience in running a ship of this nature."

He said the report concluded "this is a very capable ship ... the bottom line is you've got something you wanted and got it at a good price - you've just got to learn how to use it".

"I'm just disappointed that emphasis was placed on the acquisition process when there should have been just as much emphasis on the ability of the navy to use the ship and the actions of the navy during that storm."

Navy deputy chief Bruce Pepperell said Mr Green's comment was an individual view on the report. It was an independent review by an authoritative source, he said.

Mr Cole did consider poor seamanship in his investigation, but dismissed it in his report and said there was no evidence to support it. He said the fault lay in the design of the ship's alcoves.

Defence spokesman Shaun Fogarty said officers and crew on the Canterbury were experienced mariners but, having said that, it was a new ship being brought home for the first time.

He was sure they were not "hell-bent" on getting it to Auckland as Mr Green claimed - his comment on the way the ship was sailed was only his view."

As a Devonport resident Norm does hear a little bit of Scuttle Butt , crew members that have been to sea on her describe the ride as being on a Bouncy Castle, no rest, its moving about all the time.This has to be the Ballasting (see page 25 (k) (i)(m)of the report ,issue to be addressed as part of the $20M recommended "Get well Programme" recommended in the report.Old adage you get what you pay for,the Government wanted a lot of boats on the cheap. A roll on roll off ferry design based in part on the Ferry Ben my Chree which no one actually visited was the platform for the design. end result it cannot operate 150-200 miles of land until properly ballasted , page 23 (8).On a positive note I was yarning with a RNZN officer who said she will be all right once the issues are addressed.Page 24 10 a-f ,c in particular are a worry.Interested in what the Forum posters to this thread have to say.

 

[recce.k1]

The Irish have always felt adding a hangar would be a mistake for the OPVs. They never thought the ship, a modified Roisin class, was large enough to handle helicopters properly. There is a reason why navies worldwide build larger ships, frigate sized vessels are considered by many to be the absolute minimum size for proper helicopter operations.

Pardon my ignorance, but is this strictly so? The RN's modified River class OPV (H) is very similar to the RNZN's Protector class OPV in terms of displacement, length, range, the ability to carry a helicopter, crewing and space for additional civilian/military personnel etc. The OPV (H) operates in around the Falkland Islands in similar if not worse weather and sea states to NZ's southern ocean etc, but can anyone report on how HMS Clyde is actually fairing in practice?

VT teamed up with Fitzroy engineering to offer their OPV for the Project Protector (but lost out obviously). I suppose if the Tenix/BAE Systems don't get the Protector OPV sorted, perhaps the Opposition defence spokesman will also be able to claim that the NZ Govt should have gone for a proven OPV design like the modified River class (like he has previously stated with the "MRV", probably thinking about RSS Endurance or possibly even HMS Ocean?)!

Mr Green said the Government wanted a roll-on, roll-off-type ship for no more than US$100 million (NZ$150 million) and that was what it got. The ship design had been evaluated by the navy.

What's Mr Green's background? Ex-military, commercial or public servant etc?

His above quote nails it on the head, after all with all due respect to the Ministry of Defence, they are no different to any other govt dept following govt orders are they not? The report (and media reporting) alluded to MoD v NZDF relationship problems (time to merge the two entities together perhaps, if the govt changes?). Of course the Navy evaluated the the ship design, but would it have been their first choice? The unflexible budget made sure it was I'm sure.

 

[Sea Toby]

"On the other hand, I have heard the navy likes and looks forward to the new ships to do patrol missions, a mission they were quite unable to do before."

That is news to a lot of us down here. The RNZN was well capable of of doing a top job in EEZ patrols right up until the end of the 1990’s. The RNZN was well capable of doing excellent EEZ patrol right up until the end of the 1990’s. It had 7 Moa Class IPC’s until 2000. The Moa, Kiwi, Hinau and Wakakura were dedicated to patrol. The Kahu was for navigation training and though the Tarapunga and Takapu were for inshore survey, these three vessels did do MAOT and EZZ backup. The Frigate Wellington until 2000 was the designated EZZ and Training Ship. The Tui until 1997 and the Monowai until 1998 were also defacto / back-up EZZ patrol ships until they were replaced.

Not at the time of the maritime review of 2002.... especially out to sea more than 20 miles off the coast.

 

[Sea Toby]

Here is another take on Canterbury from the Dominion:
"The navy needs to take responsibility for lacking the experience and training to sail its new multi-role ship HMNZS Canterbury in rough weather, says former defence ministry acquisition chief Bruce Green.


He is fuming that a report on the safety of the ship, issued last week, had "effectively stuffed my career" by blaming his management of the shipbuilding project.

The report by former British naval expert John Cole said $20 million was needed to fix problems with the ship but even then it would probably still perform poorly in rough seas.

Mr Green said the Government wanted a roll-on, roll-off-type ship for no more than US$100 million (NZ$150 million) and that was what it got. The ship design had been evaluated by the navy.

"It's always easy to blame the person who bought the bloody thing," said Mr Green, who resigned from the ministry this year after seven years in the job.

Mr Green, who emphasised his resignation had nothing to do with this project, said he was disappointed there was no commentary in the Cole report on the navy's ability, training and skills to handle such a ship.

On its first voyage into Auckland, when one of the ship's boats was ripped out of its alcove and another was badly damaged, the captain did nothing to change course or speed in tough conditions. "They were hell-bent on getting to Auckland ...

"The boat went over on its side and ripped the RHIB [boat] out. They were doing 19 bloody knots. What would a prudent seaman, an experienced roll-on, roll-off captain, have done in those conditions? The crew on this boat had no experience in running a ship of this nature."

He said the report concluded "this is a very capable ship ... the bottom line is you've got something you wanted and got it at a good price - you've just got to learn how to use it".

"I'm just disappointed that emphasis was placed on the acquisition process when there should have been just as much emphasis on the ability of the navy to use the ship and the actions of the navy during that storm."

Navy deputy chief Bruce Pepperell said Mr Green's comment was an individual view on the report. It was an independent review by an authoritative source, he said.

Mr Cole did consider poor seamanship in his investigation, but dismissed it in his report and said there was no evidence to support it. He said the fault lay in the design of the ship's alcoves.

Defence spokesman Shaun Fogarty said officers and crew on the Canterbury were experienced mariners but, having said that, it was a new ship being brought home for the first time.

He was sure they were not "hell-bent" on getting it to Auckland as Mr Green claimed - his comment on the way the ship was sailed was only his view."

As a Devonport resident Norm does hear a little bit of Scuttle Butt , crew members that have been to sea on her describe the ride as being on a Bouncy Castle, no rest, its moving about all the time.This has to be the Ballasting (see page 25 (k) (i)(m)of the report ,issue to be addressed as part of the $20M recommended "Get well Programme" recommended in the report.Old adage you get what you pay for,the Government wanted a lot of boats on the cheap. A roll on roll off ferry design based in part on the Ferry Ben my Chree which no one actually visited was the platform for the design. end result it cannot operate 150-200 miles of land until properly ballasted , page 23 (8).On a positive note I was yarning with a RNZN officer who said she will be all right once the issues are addressed.Page 24 10 a-f ,c in particular are a worry.Interested in what the Forum posters to this thread have to say.

I agree. Anyone who sails a ship having difficulty with the alcoves should have slowed the ship down.... Unfortunately, they didn't. They went ahead balls to the wall.

Having said that, the location of the RHIBs and their alcoves are very close to the sea, I would have preferred a higher location.

Hopefully, the extra $20 milion will fix her once and for all. Still, a wonderful bargain as a sea lift ship.

 

[Sea Toby]

Pardon my ignorance, but is this strictly so? The RN's modified River class OPV (H) is very similar to the RNZN's Protector class OPV in terms of displacement, length, range, the ability to carry a helicopter, crewing and space for additional civilian/military personnel etc. The OPV (H) operates in around the Falkland Islands in similar if not worse weather and sea states to NZ's southern ocean etc, but can anyone report on how HMS Clyde is actually fairing in practice?

VT teamed up with Fitzroy engineering to offer their OPV for the Project Protector (but lost out obviously). I suppose if the Tenix/BAE Systems don't get the Protector OPV sorted, perhaps the Opposition defence spokesman will also be able to claim that the NZ Govt should have gone for a proven OPV design like the modified River class (like he has previously stated with the "MRV", probably thinking about RSS Endurance or possibly even HMS Ocean?)!



What's Mr Green's background? Ex-military, commercial or public servant etc?

His above quote nails it on the head, after all with all due respect to the Ministry of Defence, they are no different to any other govt dept following govt orders are they not? The report (and media reporting) alluded to MoD v NZDF relationship problems (time to merge the two entities together perhaps, if the govt changes?). Of course the Navy evaluated the the ship design, but would it have been their first choice? The unflexible budget made sure it was I'm sure.

I said the Irish. Where in the above statement did I say the British? The reason why NZ bought these ships was because they were cheap. If they really put some more brains into the decision, they would have bought a sea lift ship with a well dock, an OPV with a larger gun mount, say at least 57-mm, and an IPV with a 25-mm Bushmaster gun mount similar to the Aussies. But they didn't. They went cheap instead.

 

[recce.k1]

RHIB & Protector ship news

This article was in yesterday's NZ Herald. Can anyone enlighten us about the RHIB issue i.e. why the original Gemini model was not satisfactory and how that compares with the (temporary?) Zodiac replacements? What will be the final replacement, a different Gemini model or is it these Zodiacs? Finally the article possibly suggests the RHIB issue is holding up the first OPV commissioning, is that the case?

Navy's new ship faces weeks in dock waiting for replacement inflatables

The Navy's newest ship, HMNZS Canterbury, will stay tied up at Devonport Naval Base on the North Shore for a few more weeks, awaiting delivery of new inflatable sea boats.

The 8000-tonne multi-role ship, commissioned last year, has been in dock for several weeks after its two $150,000 7.4-metre rigid-hulled inflatable sea boats failed to meet safety standards.

Replacements have been ordered from Australia but the Navy said it would be several weeks before they arrived and the ship was fully operational again.

The sea boat problem is also delaying the formal commissioning of offshore and inshore patrol boats being built under the $500 million Project Protector
programme.

The Canterpury and its sea boats came under the spotlight after one was swept out of its alcove on the side of the ship and lost and the other was badly damaged in heavy seas in the Bay of Plenty last July.

Last October, one of the boats capsized as it was being launched and a seaman drowned when he was trapped under water.

Defence Minister Phil Goff ordered an independent inquiry by British maritime expert John Coles, who said the ship was "intrinsically safe" but needed $20
million spent on it to bring it up to scratch.

That included modifications to the sea boat alcoves and new sea boats.

The original Gemini boats were supplied with the ship when it was delivered to the Navy from the Tenix yard in Melbourne, where the ship was fitted with its communications and other systems and armament after being built in Holland.

The Navy ordered 14 of the sea boats, estimated to cost $2 million, for the seven new ships being built under Project Protector.

As well as the Canterbury, the Navy will also get two 85m offshore patrol boats and four 55m inshore patrol boats, each fitted with the inflatable sea boats.

Although the Navy ordered 14 of the new inflatable boats, technically it owned only the two on the Canterbury that were replaced when the first two were destroyed and damaged.

Negotiations are taking place with Tenix (now BAE Systems Australia) over the rest of the sea boats for the offshore and inshore patrol boats.

In the meantime, the Navy has ordered four similarly sized Zodiac inflatable boats from Australia, two for the Canterbury and two to get other new ships in the fleet ready to be commissioned to sea.

The first of the two 85m offshore patrol boats, HMNZS Otago, was launched in Melbourne nearly two years ago and is still there. It has done its sea trials but is still waiting for its new sea boat. Its sister ship, HMNZS Wellington, was launched last October.
-NZPA

 

[Stuart Mackey]

snip

Of course, in the big scheme of events, Labour never did a defence white paper, instead they did a pacifists civilian based maritime review. No wonder why none of the Project Protector fleet fully meets military standards. Labour should take the blame for their military stupidity.

This sort of name calling does not exactly help matters, you know, indeed it tends to play right into anti-military types hands by giving them the chance to put up strawmen arguments about 'cold war dinosaurs who are not interested in New Zealand's real needs, but only in fighting the wars of America and Britain' etc. You need a rational argument for why NZ needs better equipped defence forces, forces that can fight, and above all why they must be so equipped.
Of course I would also be questioning why it is that Defence force advice to ministers was so appallingly bad that this situation has happened in the first place and why there have not been resignations.

[/QUOTE]

 

[StevoJH]

This sort of name calling does not exactly help matters, you know, indeed it tends to play right into anti-military types hands by giving them the chance to put up strawmen arguments about 'cold war dinosaurs who are not interested in New Zealand's real needs, but only in fighting the wars of America and Britain' etc. You need a rational argument for why NZ needs better equipped defence forces, forces that can fight, and above all why they must be so equipped.
Of course I would also be questioning why it is that Defence force advice to ministers was so appallingly bad that this situation has happened in the first place and why there have not been resignations.

To put it bluntly, why have a defense force if it cant fight? Call it coastguard

 

[greenie]

What ever happened to the towed Array gear they took off the ANZACs ?, It sounds like the OPVs are now heavy weights but just wondering if this system could bet fitted to them and in turn giving them an extra ( and much needed)military tasking.
I feel that the NZDF sub hunting ability is desperatly wanting and more important today than ever.

 

[Sea Toby]

To put it bluntly, why have a defense force if it cant fight? Call it coastguard

In my mind and many others, one needs a coast guard first before needing a navy. While the navy is much more useful during a war, during the peace a coast guard watching and protecting our EEZ is more important. Its the old argument, does one need a police force or an army? The answer is both. Not one or the other. And this is from a retired USCG person. New Zealand isn't that isolated.

Unfortunately, New Zealand doesn't have a suitable Coast Guard. Thus, the navy has to take on constable duties as well as war fighting.

 

[Sea Toby]

This sort of name calling does not exactly help matters, you know, indeed it tends to play right into anti-military types hands by giving them the chance to put up strawmen arguments about 'cold war dinosaurs who are not interested in New Zealand's real needs, but only in fighting the wars of America and Britain' etc. You need a rational argument for why NZ needs better equipped defence forces, forces that can fight, and above all why they must be so equipped.
Of course I would also be questioning why it is that Defence force advice to ministers was so appallingly bad that this situation has happened in the first place and why there have not been resignations.

[/QUOTE]

As I recall Admiral Wilson did leave the navy upset and questioning the maritime review. He wanted a third frigate. Questioning political review of the armed forces usually leads to an end of one's career. The politicans hold the key to the purse, always have and always will.

The Coles report explains perfectly why things went wrong, and recommended solutions to get things right. I support his conclusions fully.