So are you proposing using our OPV's to patrol the Australian far north, I don't believe any boat people have ever (nor are currently stupid enough) tried to try for NZ from the places boat people traditionally come from.
Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Furthest south i've heard about was when a boat full of them washed up on the NSW Mid-North coast a few years ago.
I said these ships could be used for such a role, I didn't say New Zealand would. There is a difference between could and would.
The point I made is that the OPVs will be and are wonderful patrol ships. But I won't classify them as warships, they are not equal to a frigate. They never have been nor will they ever be a frigate.
And yes, I agree with others, Australia would do well buying a few OPVs for the same missions New Zealand will be using them. Having said that, I will also add they should not build any OPVs at the expense of a frigate. Something New Zealand has done.
I realize the word frigate is a dirty word in New Zealand, but surely, no OPV anywhere in the world is an equal to a frigate. Or to put it in other words, the USCG has a large number of cutters, but the US Navy doesn't consider any of these cutters equal to a frigate. Again. for the millionth time. the OPVs will make great patrol ships, not warships.
I don't see any could or would in your post only "they will".
I also don't know why you think frigate is a dirty word in NZ, I'm pretty sure that when the ANZAC's are replced they will be replaced with frigates and that we might even look into getting a third. I have never heard of any intention to use the OPV's for frigate substitutes in environments where a frigte would be required give us some credit.
I dont know where everybody is getting this idea that the opv's are going to be a frigate substitue. I can garantee that naval staff in wellington would do absolutly everything under the sun to stop that if it where to ever happen. Whilst they can fill about 80% of the role of a frigate, we will always have the need for the frigates to forfill our role with the UN and our allies.
hahahah that is providing we actually take delivery of these 'somewhat mythical' ships
hahahah that is providing we actually take delivery of these 'somewhat mythical' ships
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
One of the NZ political parties, I will not say which, aside from its a colour and rhymes with "keen" has as part of their defence "plan" as it were, to replace the frigates with, and I quote...
The defence policy page this was quoted from is located here.
With that as a publicly declared intent on the part of one of NZ's political parties, the possibility it could come to pass must be considered.
-Cheers
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
The greens party don't count. If they are anything like the Greens party in Australia, their chances of ever forming a government are somewhere around zero.
stryker NZ
New Member
ok i know im about to show my total naivety in this matter right now but why is the over stability a bad thing and by welding more steel to the upper decks does that mean they are just sticking hunks of metel on her to weigh her down?
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
The Greens weren't actually part of the former Labour coalition, however they ruled out working with the incoming National Govt prior to the election (held yesterday), so their wish to replace the Frigates won't come into play. (IMO I doubt even Labour would go along with that wish if they had to form a coalition govt with them in the future). So the Frigates are safe!
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Quite true, however IMV a minor party like the Greens has more influence in NZ than a minor party would in another country like the US, where it is much more a two-party system. By extension, if the Greens with a greater potential ability to influence a government or coalition felt secure enough with their defence proposals, then it would likely mean that a number of Kiwis either felt there plans were acceptable or just did not care.
Having lost in the recent election, then it would not be an issue at present. However that sort of prevailing attitude on the part of the populace in general would need to be changed so that Kiwis in general realise what sort of situation they would find themselves in.
Sorry to get the post somewhat political.
-Cheers
true but they tended to vote with Labour rather than side with the opposition. National don't need them anyway, with ACT in the back pocket they don't need anyone. I wonder what this will mean for defense spending in NZ, I personally don't see a lot of change from the current situation, although I would like to see another OPV ordered, HMNZS Auckland would be a good name.
Maybe should be HMNZS Akarana to keep the Maori party happy
Need to get the 2 that have been finished into service yet
Its actually a complicated matter. While the Canterbury is a good sized ship, and when loaded as a sea lift ship she handles the seas well, when she is used as a training or patrol ship she doesn't carry much of a load. In order for her to be more useful as a patrol ship not heavily loaded with troops or equipment, a bit more ballast is needed to maintain her proper depth as far as her propellers are concerned. Propeller emergence is not good for the propellers or the engines. She needs to be heavier, or ride slightly deeper at sea when she isn't heavily loaded.
The other civilian ferries of this type needed some ballast as well. Frankly she is a short fat ship, a longer version of her would handle the seas much better. The Coles Report said it all, and confirmed the Canterbury should receive some ballast, with the emphasis of controlling her depth when lightly loaded.
While technically complicated, its easy to add more ballast. Its not the end of the world, and should make her a better ship.
I know a little about stability (I will know a whole lot more when I do an 100 hour course on it next year
). Toby you said that she was quite stable when loaded in the sea lift role but bobed around the ocean like an esky when lightly loaded .(Translation for Americans Esky = cooler, Translation for Kiwis Esky = Chilly bin ).So instead of permanently ballasting the ship maybe they could buy a whole heap of low loader trailers that are stacked with concrete blocks that they could bring onboard when she was lightly loaded.
I am no expert either. I just read the findings of the Coles report. Notice what the Coles report said about ferries, ferries being designed more for coastal operations than for long voyages at sea. I believe he wanted to place the increased ballast in the forward part of the ship. Your solution would add the ballast towards the stern of the ship, or at best midships. The idea is to reduce bow slamming as well.
While the ship may have cost around NZ$170 million, spending an extra NZ$20 million to make her right is still a good bargain compared to other ships. Even the Ben My Chree, the civilian ferry, had to add ballast after her first year of service. Aren't our servicemen safety worth an extra NZ$20 million? We'll probably save more money adding ballast than replacing the drive train and engines later. Its pay a little now or pay much more later.
I am not what they call in America a Monday morning quarterback. Asking whether this ship should have been chosen or not won't make her right. I noticed the Labour MOD has already budgeted the funds this year, and I doubt whether National will change this decision, backed by Coles himself. Not after National made such an issue of this issue.
While the ship may have cost around NZ$170 million, spending an extra NZ$20 million to make her right is still a good bargain compared to other ships. Even the Ben My Chree, the civilian ferry, had to add ballast after her first year of service. Aren't our servicemen safety worth an extra NZ$20 million? We'll probably save more money adding ballast than replacing the drive train and engines later. Its pay a little now or pay much more later.
I am not what they call in America a Monday morning quarterback. Asking whether this ship should have been chosen or not won't make her right. I noticed the Labour MOD has already budgeted the funds this year, and I doubt whether National will change this decision, backed by Coles himself. Not after National made such an issue of this issue.
Last edited:
It is an operational issue not a pure design issue and one every compentent merchant navy officer would be aware of. This is, after all, a merchant ship and the parent (in so far as design is concerned) operates in waters that can be far less than ideal. From the information provided it appears the problem is they to want to operate the ship light laoded AND do so with the tanks pressed up giving the ship a very high GM and as a result she will have a very sharp motion (a stiff ship).
Putting extra ballast down low will only excentuate the problem if this is the case. If you want to make the ship more tender then mass must go above the transverse CoG.
You could permenantly modfiy the vessel to provide this but it would detract from carrying capacity and flexibilty.
Any half decent stability programe (failing that use the approved stability data and calculate it) with give details of the static and dynamic stability. From this you can determine if the ship is too stiff and how much additional top weight is required to address the problem.
I cannot image it would be difficult to provide roll on top weight as a fix but the officers involved need a good working understanding of ship operations and stability. Having worked on both sides of the fence I have to say the Naval Officers are normally well behind their MN Officer counter parts in this respect. To the latter this is a critical part of maximising the utility of the vessel they operate.