Thanks. Im glad theyve at least thought of that.Now we just need the big Es replacement and well be away .
Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
Yes, a replenishment ship is vital. With the Endeavour reaching twenty years in age, I would think the next priority for the RNZN is her replacement. That is, after fixing the Canterbury with the Cowes report requested fixes, along with the Anzac class frigates mid life upgrades. I would think a replenishment ship similar in size of Endeavour could be bought for a price near $100-150 million. Look how well Australia did with their new larger replenishment ship.
And like Australia, it would not be a bad idea to join the Aussies again in planning the replacements for the Anzacs. Their replacements are still a ways off, the replenishment ship will need to be acquired first.
And like Australia, it would not be a bad idea to join the Aussies again in planning the replacements for the Anzacs. Their replacements are still a ways off, the replenishment ship will need to be acquired first.
tongan_yam
New Member
With the recent debacle that is the Canterbury (another Charles Upham?), maybe we should be looking at two JSS type ships in the vain of the the Rotterdam/Enforcer series that has the ability to sealift a battlegroup of 550-to-600 troops. It also has a well deck allowing loading of landing craft from the interior vehicle lanes, which would allows disembarking at a higher sea state than the Canterbury.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
On a related theme, the Canterbury can carry about 250 troops whereas the Enforcer type you say 500-600. There was some scoffing on that 250 figure from some of our cousins here (compared to their new LHD), but I'm still somewhat puzzled, in what context would NZ deploy 250 or even 500+ troops around this Pacific region? Wouldn't it be easier to fly them in? If not, what's the optimum figure - 250 or 500+?
On the other hand if the Canterbury was to take part in a landing in say for example somewhat further away like in Timor or similar again (as NZ's contribution to another Australian led intervention, alongside RAN sealift vessels), then I could see that the Canterbury (etc) could be used to deploy troops flow in from NZ to say Darwin, but then again our Govt has suggested that the Canterbury was not designed for operations in such theatres (and hence it doesn't require much in the way of self-protection). So which one is it? Use it around the Pacific against tiny island states (but hardly ever eg once a decade or two) or use it with joint coalition forces (where it would more likely be employed more)? (Then again maybe it would be useful for sitting off the coast of Fiji whilst the politicians wrangle over ousting any coup etc)?
Maybe my post seems strange but if we had some clarity then maybe that will help with your answer of what to replace the Endeavour with etc?
The other important thing surely for NZ is strategic port-to-port offloading of vehicles and cargo (and less so troops?) as we are too far away to make air transport efficient (not unless we bought some bigger airlifters)? More-so than tactical sealift? Or perhaps the big E's replacement needs to be more of a strategic sealift vessel with RAS facilities as suggested a few months ago or was it last year somewhere on this thread?
On the other hand if the Canterbury was to take part in a landing in say for example somewhat further away like in Timor or similar again (as NZ's contribution to another Australian led intervention, alongside RAN sealift vessels), then I could see that the Canterbury (etc) could be used to deploy troops flow in from NZ to say Darwin, but then again our Govt has suggested that the Canterbury was not designed for operations in such theatres (and hence it doesn't require much in the way of self-protection). So which one is it? Use it around the Pacific against tiny island states (but hardly ever eg once a decade or two) or use it with joint coalition forces (where it would more likely be employed more)? (Then again maybe it would be useful for sitting off the coast of Fiji whilst the politicians wrangle over ousting any coup etc)?
Maybe my post seems strange but if we had some clarity then maybe that will help with your answer of what to replace the Endeavour with etc?
The other important thing surely for NZ is strategic port-to-port offloading of vehicles and cargo (and less so troops?) as we are too far away to make air transport efficient (not unless we bought some bigger airlifters)? More-so than tactical sealift? Or perhaps the big E's replacement needs to be more of a strategic sealift vessel with RAS facilities as suggested a few months ago or was it last year somewhere on this thread?
Last edited:
It should be remembered that the Canterbury (Can'terbury?) was originally ordered as the "multi-role vessel" part of the Project Protector fleet. It therefore had many objectives - resupply of our outlying islands (Raoul, Campbell etc) plus the Antarctic operations, plus supplementing the OPV's for offshore patrol, no doubt new sailor training, chopper crew training, oh and yes deploying the Army. Whenever you want a single unit to cover many bases, it tends to not cover any of them well. I suspect that Tenix, the frontrunner with the OPV and IPV designs, always had the inside track for the MRV, no matter what it offered.
The original Maritime Review also recommended a 57 - 75mm gun for the OPV's and MRV - instead they get a 25mm naval Bushmaster. So much for indirect fire support.
I would suggest that the 250 personnel capacity is perfectly ample for NZ, we would struggle to achieve that level of deployment!
The Project Protector budget was NZ$500m - at a time when that was US$200m. The MRV aka Canterbury was slated for half of that. However, with high domestic interest rates pushing up the NZ$ value cf the US$, Canterbury ended up costing NZ$177m according to the recent reports, so we saved money over the budget - but dont get the value in terms of utility. How was the NZ$500m cap calculated? Good question - probably plucked from thin air, or because the new army-centric government saw that the previous one had allocated that for the army, and switched the funds. So we spend NZ$1billion on army vehicles that we will use occasionally (and no doubt even less operationally) versus less than NZ$500m on ships we will use regularly. Great prioritisation! Go figure that!
BTW the survey ship HMNZS Resolution (formerly USNS Tenacious) can carry a towed array from its former life as Soviet sub monitoring ship, and I believe we have used one for various survey work.
Anyone for the Danish design to supplement the ANZACs and Canterbury? We could dress that up for frigate style ops or down for supply operations, and with 2 chopper hangers and vacant deck space it gives more options - a concept I admit I abused above, but can work if you dont overload it with expectations!
The original Maritime Review also recommended a 57 - 75mm gun for the OPV's and MRV - instead they get a 25mm naval Bushmaster. So much for indirect fire support.
I would suggest that the 250 personnel capacity is perfectly ample for NZ, we would struggle to achieve that level of deployment!
The Project Protector budget was NZ$500m - at a time when that was US$200m. The MRV aka Canterbury was slated for half of that. However, with high domestic interest rates pushing up the NZ$ value cf the US$, Canterbury ended up costing NZ$177m according to the recent reports, so we saved money over the budget - but dont get the value in terms of utility. How was the NZ$500m cap calculated? Good question - probably plucked from thin air, or because the new army-centric government saw that the previous one had allocated that for the army, and switched the funds. So we spend NZ$1billion on army vehicles that we will use occasionally (and no doubt even less operationally) versus less than NZ$500m on ships we will use regularly. Great prioritisation! Go figure that!
BTW the survey ship HMNZS Resolution (formerly USNS Tenacious) can carry a towed array from its former life as Soviet sub monitoring ship, and I believe we have used one for various survey work.
Anyone for the Danish design to supplement the ANZACs and Canterbury? We could dress that up for frigate style ops or down for supply operations, and with 2 chopper hangers and vacant deck space it gives more options - a concept I admit I abused above, but can work if you dont overload it with expectations!
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
An Absalon would indeed have made for a better patrol-capable MRV. However, I do not think it would function better as a lift ship, as the Canterbury has nearly 50% more cargo space ~1,451 sq m vs. ~915 sq m in an Absalon. Also the Canterbury has provision to embark up to ~250 troops, where as the Absalon can embark up to 70 within the ship for service as additional HQ staff, etc and up to 130 in container accomodation that can be installed in the flex deck. I believe though that the flex deck can be used as either/or, i.e. a vehicle deck or a troop deck, not both at the same time, or at least, not meeting both requirements to the level that the Canterbury does.
Personally I do not have much problem with the Canterbury, provided she is used as a Lift Ship appropriately. However, expecting a vessel to meet such divergent requirements Southern Ocean patrolling and company-level trooplift IMV is not something realistic.
-Cheers
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Absalon has similar Armaments to the ANZAC's and could have cost 3 to 4 times as much as Canterbury without the same level of Sea Lift Capabilities, possibly worth it if you have them in numbers by replacing the ANZAC class with them, but not otherwise.
I for one would support a couple of Absalom's as a supplement to the lift capability of Canterbury and beefing up the combat capability of the RNZN. With a top speed of 23-24kts its not going to fight a major battle but would be an excellent escort ship is a situation like East Timor.
As for the big Es replacement A RFA type I feel woul be great, but as long as it had as a minimum dual hanger and a usuable flight deck ( unlike the Es) and also a similar crane to the MRV because would like it to carry extra LCMs ,you can never have to many of them.
As for the other ships , lets just get them going and see how we are going to crew them beyond 6 months when the crews start requesting leave.
The ANZAC replacement is going to also be competing against several of the RNZAF big replacement (and very exspensive ) projects , get in quick i say.
As for the other ships , lets just get them going and see how we are going to crew them beyond 6 months when the crews start requesting leave.
The ANZAC replacement is going to also be competing against several of the RNZAF big replacement (and very exspensive ) projects , get in quick i say.
tongan_yam
New Member
When I first saw the Absalom class I was impressed, bit of a swiss army knife of the navy. Further research point out that the Danish Navy charter there Ro-Ro transport ships and they have no replenishment ship. Would this be the rational for the Absalom's sealift ability?
Back to the knife analogy in regards to the ANZAC replacements, lets bring a hunting knife to the fight, rather than some compromised asset that political 'will' has deemed fitting for our security needs. Leave the sealift and supply roles to the correct platform (also being of better capital value due being built to commercial standards as per project protector).
As for the replacement of the ANZAC I haven't picked up in the threads the need to integrate with the RAN's AWD. Something along the lines of the Fridtjof Nansen class with the Agies system would complement the RAN's AWD, moving our naval assets towards an integrated weapon platform alongside our allies.
Back to the knife analogy in regards to the ANZAC replacements, lets bring a hunting knife to the fight, rather than some compromised asset that political 'will' has deemed fitting for our security needs. Leave the sealift and supply roles to the correct platform (also being of better capital value due being built to commercial standards as per project protector).
As for the replacement of the ANZAC I haven't picked up in the threads the need to integrate with the RAN's AWD. Something along the lines of the Fridtjof Nansen class with the Agies system would complement the RAN's AWD, moving our naval assets towards an integrated weapon platform alongside our allies.
Last edited:
The problem with the Nansens are they cost twice as much as an Anzac. That Aegis system is expensive. Usually better ships do. But I will agree they would make excellent escort ships.
Since the Kiwis are stuck with the Canterbury, she cost too much to easily discard her like the Charles Upham, I would think fixing her ills along the Cowes report suggestions would be the way to go. She will be useful as a strategic and tactical sea lift ship. The other alternatives cost twice as much, if not more.
The $500 million for Project Protector, wasn't that the price of the third Anzac?
Since the Kiwis are stuck with the Canterbury, she cost too much to easily discard her like the Charles Upham, I would think fixing her ills along the Cowes report suggestions would be the way to go. She will be useful as a strategic and tactical sea lift ship. The other alternatives cost twice as much, if not more.
The $500 million for Project Protector, wasn't that the price of the third Anzac?
Current Defence Minister Phil Goff quoted at the Auckland University Defence Seminar 21 October 1999
“No decision has yet been taken by Labour on what we will purchase in place of further ANZAC frigates. However, we are investigating the utility of the new Danish Standardflex 3500 as a multi‐role peacekeeping support ship.”
“The Standardflex ship is designed around a modular exchangeable container system, which allows it to fulfil a variety of roles. A crane module for example can be exchanged for a 3.5 inch gun module in 45 minutes. It has a roll‐on/roll‐off capability. It can carry additional helicopters. It can be ice‐strengthened. It is suitable for operation around the Pacific Islands. It can be fitted with the same armaments as the ANZAC frigates. Its price is half that of the ANZAC frigate. I accept the view of Lieutenant Commander (Retired) David Davies, RNZN, that the Standardflex, with these features, merits close consideration as an option for our Navy.”
The Absalon Class of which the Danes now have two in service, is basically the improved production version of the Standardflex 3500 that Goff was talking about.
The CASR website quotes that the two ships delivered to the Danish Navy Absalon (L16) and Esbern Snare (L17) have cost Canadian $565 million as at May 2008. (BTW the 3rd Anzac was to have been discounted to $375 million as a last ditch effort/sweetner if i recall).
“No decision has yet been taken by Labour on what we will purchase in place of further ANZAC frigates. However, we are investigating the utility of the new Danish Standardflex 3500 as a multi‐role peacekeeping support ship.”
“The Standardflex ship is designed around a modular exchangeable container system, which allows it to fulfil a variety of roles. A crane module for example can be exchanged for a 3.5 inch gun module in 45 minutes. It has a roll‐on/roll‐off capability. It can carry additional helicopters. It can be ice‐strengthened. It is suitable for operation around the Pacific Islands. It can be fitted with the same armaments as the ANZAC frigates. Its price is half that of the ANZAC frigate. I accept the view of Lieutenant Commander (Retired) David Davies, RNZN, that the Standardflex, with these features, merits close consideration as an option for our Navy.”
The Absalon Class of which the Danes now have two in service, is basically the improved production version of the Standardflex 3500 that Goff was talking about.
The CASR website quotes that the two ships delivered to the Danish Navy Absalon (L16) and Esbern Snare (L17) have cost Canadian $565 million as at May 2008. (BTW the 3rd Anzac was to have been discounted to $375 million as a last ditch effort/sweetner if i recall).
The crazy thing about the whole ANZAC project that was never talked about was the off-sets that NZ companies got and were payed (and in turn the govt thru taxes) .From what I was led to understand the third FFH really only cost 2/3rds of the ticket price BUT the last FFH was almost at no cost at all.
If the project was extended beyond 14 units it only gets better!!!!
If the project was extended beyond 14 units it only gets better!!!!
No. Denmark uses other NATO assets for replenishment (e.g. Absalon has been replenishing from a Canadian ship off Somalia recently), & the chartered sealift is also part of a collective effort. The ro-ros are registered as Danish, but used (& paid for) by a consortium, including Germany.
Absalon & Esbern Snare are designed the way they are because Denmark thinks its navy is too small for dedicated amphibious ships. Multi-role ships were thought preferable to specialists. They don't need escorts (they can fight!), leaving other ships free for other tasks. Two is the minimum number to have one always operational. When necessary, they can act as minelayers (a major role in the Danish navy, for geographical reasons), transports, full-on warships if necessary (but secondary to the new destroyers, which are built on the same hull), & perform minor amphibious operations (e.g peacekeeping).
As has been said on another thread, where Absalons current deployment to Somalia was discussed, she's so well-suited to the task that she could have been designed specifically for it.
Last edited:
A bit funny, that the mines now have been abolished by the danish navy.
So the Absalon Class will more act as an escortship and commandship.
There are members from the danish navy frogman unit on the Absalon at coast of Somalia to support the boarding teams. They normally has some containers with gear with them, so its good that there is a lote of extra space on the Absalon
OK, I'm out of date. It was a major role, but isn't relevant to Absalon.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
It was discussed, but iirc I don't think the MIW role in the Danish navy was scrapped at the end of the day.
Grand Danois is right. The danish defence command just suggested to abolish the seamines. Sorry for jumping to conclusions !
But with a new defence agreement coming up within the next year, the abolishment of the seamines will most likely happen.