Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[mattyem]

Flew over Devonport yesterday , mice to see all 4 IPV's tied up at port, any idea when they will start patrolling, or are thet still fitting out ?

Rotoiti will be the first to leave the wall, with her Harbour SARC and Sea SARC soon and then on patrol in the next months, and the other three will follow suit. They are all ment to be off the wall by Oct from what ive herd.

Hope this helps

SARC - safety and readiness checks

 

[Twickiwi]

Australia looks to Navantia

Navantia has been confirmed as some sort of preferred supplier by Australia. There has been some discussion in that thread of the use of BAM as a template for the white paper OCVs.

See below pictures of the modular BAM design:
http://funkoffizier.files.wordpress....ciones5ci2.jpg

How does this design fit into NZ's requirements, particularly the need for a hydrographic survey replacement?

The modularity of the design and the avoidance of Protector style design risk make this idea attractive. Governments are never this nimble at taking advantage of evolving developments, but there seems an opportunity for Oz and NZ to use the replacement of HMNZS Resolution as a proof of concept for the OCV.

 

[StevoJH]

Navantia has been confirmed as some sort of preferred supplier by Australia. There has been some discussion in that thread of the use of BAM as a template for the white paper OCVs.

See below pictures of the modular BAM design:
http://funkoffizier.files.wordpress....ciones5ci2.jpg

How does this design fit into NZ's requirements, particularly the need for a hydrographic survey replacement?

The modularity of the design and the avoidance of Protector style design risk make this idea attractive. Governments are never this nimble at taking advantage of evolving developments, but there seems an opportunity for Oz and NZ to use the replacement of HMNZS Resolution as a proof of concept for the OCV.

Probably not much point talking about the OCV for another 5-10 years since the RAN's minor war vessel fleet is very new. The Armidales are only a couple of years old, the Huons are less then 10 years old as are the Leeuwin class. The oldest ships of the Survey fleet are the four Paluma class coastal survey vessels, which are around 20 years old. Not sure how hard the Paluma's are worked though.

 

[dave_kiwi]

"Naval" Aviation Kiwi Style

HMNNZ Canterbury been rather busy of late - just back from one major deployment with two Sea Sprites, now of to Samoa delivering 4 RNZAF Iroquois .... plus embarking its own Sprite.

Youtube action - Iroquoi landing

YouTube - Navy Ship Gets Huey Choppers.

See this link for a summary of Canterbury's latest travels -- seems that the RNZN is making up for lost time when it comes to using Canterbury.

NZDF - Navy ship on short tasking as Air craft carrier

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I would think Austal would be the proffered supplier of the OCV's, rather than Navantia.

What do you think you guys will do for an ANZAC replacement. The RAN is moving towards a full destroyer sized main combatant. A 6,000 ton ANZAC II, equipped with 48x VLS, AUSPAR radar and SM6 is probably going to be both overkill for the RNZN and expensive to boot. Does the RNZN even need a frigate sized combatant? Would you guys be better served with 4~6 MRV based combatants rather than 2~3x ANZAC's?

 

[Kip]

I read the article about the Canterbury's movements, from Dave's second link. It is good to see it is getting up to speed and (so far) doing a competent job. I'm especially happy to hear it will move Australian vehicles and equipment to Dili.

"CANTERBURY has also embarked a number of New Zealand Army vehicles and once No. 3 Squadron RNZAF has been safely transported to Apia, CANTERBURY will then move on to DARWIN to uplift Australian Defence Force vehicles and equipment which she will then transport on to Dili in Timor Leste. On completion of this final tasking, HMNZS CANTERBURY will attend the Indonesian Fleet Review in Bitung Waters on 21 August."

Working as a team has many advantages - and if we have spare capacity, it might as well be used on a project that we both agree on. I'm assuming sending the vehicles by Australian C17s would have been more expensive (?).

 

[at0]

There should be major concerns with the build quality of the Canterbury. Although this is likely to be proven wrong, the vessel has a cheap and tacky appearance. Like the ANZAC frigates, there is also the risk that they will be overused and pushed to their limits, severely cutting its safe service life.

It is emerging as a bit of tradition now for New Zealand to spend a minimal amount on defense. This results in the purchasing of not so appropriate equipment in terms of quality and quantity, while subsequently expecting wonders from it. This has been going on since the 60s/70s with the decision to buy inferior frigates and fighter aircraft to satisfy other political objectives. Although this is common knowledge to most.

 

[mattyem]

There should be major concerns with the build quality of the Canterbury. Although this is likely to be proven wrong, the vessel has a cheap and tacky appearance. Like the ANZAC frigates, there is also the risk that they will be overused and pushed to their limits, severely cutting its safe service life.

It is emerging as a bit of tradition now for New Zealand to spend a minimal amount on defense. This results in the purchasing of not so appropriate equipment in terms of quality and quantity, while subsequently expecting wonders from it. This has been going on since the 60s/70s with the decision to buy inferior frigates and fighter aircraft to satisfy other political objectives. Although this is common knowledge to most.

mate the defence budget is only minimal by comparison to other countries, and our annual gdp is also fairly minimal!! we get the best we can with the money we got!

 

[Sea Toby]

While the Canterbury may have had a design flaw with the location of her RHIBs alcove, the original concept of the sealift ship wasn't. In her exercises to date she has performed wonderfully with all the roles expected of her. From tactical and strategic sealift, to supporting helicopters, to providing humanitarian assistance. Her command facilities have been praised by all of the exercise commanders. Sometimes the critics can't see the forest through a tree....

Could a better and more expensive ship do the same? Yes. On the other hand could a better and less expensive ship do the same? No.

 

[KiwiRob]

There should be major concerns with the build quality of the Canterbury. Although this is likely to be proven wrong, the vessel has a cheap and tacky appearance. Like the ANZAC frigates, there is also the risk that they will be overused and pushed to their limits, severely cutting its safe service life.

I disagree her sister ship works the Irish Sea daily, it's a pretty rough crossing, she has performed without incident for many years, the Canterbury will spend much more time tied up than a ferry (which is what she is) ever would.

 

[recce.k1]

Well to be fair to at0, he may know something that we don't. If so, it would be interesting to hear at0's perspective in due course.

As for me, Sea Toby summed up the situation rather well.

 

[RWC]

OPV Weight Growth

I haven't managed to read the entire thread, but in what I've read I haven't seen a satisfactory explanation of the cause, impact, or solution to the weight growth issue on the OPV, so I thought I'd take a crack at what my impression of it is.

The OPVs are designed with ice strengthening in the form of an ice belt. To keep the weight down (ironically) and maximize the speed performance, the ice belt was optimized to suit the initial launch and end of service life draughts based on the calculated weight of the ship. This optimization should have been paired with careful weight management during construction. Unfortunately, it was not, and likely due to some "economical" equipment choices, the ships came in heavy.

As a result, with the full expected weight growth over the course of their lives, the OPVs will submerge their icebelts by the end of their expected service lives. This has no impact on their current performance and very minimal impact on their future performance, except that they will be limited to ice free waters near EOSL if the expected weight gain occurs.

The solution for the present vessels is that careful weight management must be maintained to avoid any limitations on the operational profile in ice infested waters near EOSL.

I've seen some suggestions that the design is too small for purpose, shouldn't have been modified from the base Irish design, needs to be plugged etc. All of these ideas/solutions are far more drastic than what would actually be required to correct the flaw in a third new build. There are two options: Spend a bit more to buy lighter equipment or shift the ice belt up by 15 cm. Easy Peasy.

While it's unfortunate that the ships didn't come out perfectly, it's sad to see what seems to be an otherwise capable ship pilloried for a problem with relatively minor impacts and relatively simple solutions.

 

[Sea Toby]

I disagree her sister ship works the Irish Sea daily, it's a pretty rough crossing, she has performed without incident for many years, the Canterbury will spend much more time tied up than a ferry (which is what she is) ever would.

Not only is there the Isle of Mann Steamship Company's Ben My Chree, Canterbury has two near sisters in Danish service serving the island of Bornholm, and another near sister serving the island of Jersey.

Even the Interislander ferry, MV Kaitaki, serving New Zealand is similar, although longer in length.

 

[recce.k1]

I haven't managed to read the entire thread, but in what I've read I haven't seen a satisfactory explanation of the cause, impact, or solution to the weight growth issue on the OPV, so I thought I'd take a crack at what my impression of it is.

The OPVs are designed with ice strengthening in the form of an ice belt. To keep the weight down (ironically) and maximize the speed performance, the ice belt was optimized to suit the initial launch and end of service life draughts based on the calculated weight of the ship. This optimization should have been paired with careful weight management during construction. Unfortunately, it was not, and likely due to some "economical" equipment choices, the ships came in heavy.

As a result, with the full expected weight growth over the course of their lives, the OPVs will submerge their icebelts by the end of their expected service lives. This has no impact on their current performance and very minimal impact on their future performance, except that they will be limited to ice free waters near EOSL if the expected weight gain occurs.

The solution for the present vessels is that careful weight management must be maintained to avoid any limitations on the operational profile in ice infested waters near EOSL.

I've seen some suggestions that the design is too small for purpose, shouldn't have been modified from the base Irish design, needs to be plugged etc. All of these ideas/solutions are far more drastic than what would actually be required to correct the flaw in a third new build. There are two options: Spend a bit more to buy lighter equipment or shift the ice belt up by 15 cm. Easy Peasy.

While it's unfortunate that the ships didn't come out perfectly, it's sad to see what seems to be an otherwise capable ship pilloried for a problem with relatively minor impacts and relatively simple solutions.

Thanks RWC, that's an interesting summary. The RNZN publically have said the issue is managable so here's hoping the OPV's are commissioned soon.

I'd be curious to know what Alexsa and co think (as they have experience with ship design it seems etc) if they are looking at what you wrote etc.

As for me I'm also curious as to what lighter equipment could be (or could have been) bought to assist with the weight issue if you have the time to explain.

 

[mattyem]

from the talk i have been hearing around base, OPV1 is looking at being at D.N.B around December

 

[RWC]

Thanks RWC, that's an interesting summary. The RNZN publically have said the issue is managable so here's hoping the OPV's are commissioned soon.

I'd be curious to know what Alexsa and co think (as they have experience with ship design it seems etc) if they are looking at what you wrote etc.

As for me I'm also curious as to what lighter equipment could be (or could have been) bought to assist with the weight issue if you have the time to explain.

The part about the lighter equipment was a little bit of speculation on my part, but often a particular piece of equipment will be specced and put in the weight estimate, then another piece of heavier equipment gets bought for cheaper and installed. Not usually a big deal as the yard has a build margin to account for that, but if you don't carefully keep track, it can spiral out of control and the yard burns up the build margin and starts eating away at the EOSL margin.

Since, as far as I'm aware, there wasn't a proper weight management program, it's hard to say exactly where they went wrong. Another possibility for added weight includes using heavier plate (it's acceptable to do things like use 12mm plate in place of 10mm if you happen to have some extra lying around), but again, you need to keep careful track to make sure you don't end up with too much weight added.

Modern ship production design uses 3D modeling quite extensively, so every bracket, every bit of plate, every pipe spool, valve, etc. gets modeled and included in the weight estimate. It's pretty hard to be a long way off on the weight estimate if the ship is built to print. On the other hand, it's easy to add a few tonnes here with a budget oily water separator and a few tonnes there with a cheaper gearbox and end up with a ship that doesn't match the weight estimate anymore.

In the abscence (hopefully) of any other major flaws with the ship, this one should be quite manageable and won't restrict the operation of the ship. Basically, it means that the buck for careful weight monitoring has been passed from the yard to the RNZN.

 

[mattyem]

The part about the lighter equipment was a little bit of speculation on my part, but often a particular piece of equipment will be specced and put in the weight estimate, then another piece of heavier equipment gets bought for cheaper and installed. Not usually a big deal as the yard has a build margin to account for that, but if you don't carefully keep track, it can spiral out of control and the yard burns up the build margin and starts eating away at the EOSL margin.

Since, as far as I'm aware, there wasn't a proper weight management program, it's hard to say exactly where they went wrong. Another possibility for added weight includes using heavier plate (it's acceptable to do things like use 12mm plate in place of 10mm if you happen to have some extra lying around), but again, you need to keep careful track to make sure you don't end up with too much weight added.

Modern ship production design uses 3D modeling quite extensively, so every bracket, every bit of plate, every pipe spool, valve, etc. gets modeled and included in the weight estimate. It's pretty hard to be a long way off on the weight estimate if the ship is built to print. On the other hand, it's easy to add a few tonnes here with a budget oily water separator and a few tonnes there with a cheaper gearbox and end up with a ship that doesn't match the weight estimate anymore.

In the abscence (hopefully) of any other major flaws with the ship, this one should be quite manageable and won't restrict the operation of the ship. Basically, it means that the buck for careful weight monitoring has been passed from the yard to the RNZN.

Yes its true that you cant expect a ship to meet all the criteria set out by the MoD with the price they gave it, but surely intelligent business practice on tenix's behalf should have informed us that they couldn't deliver! instead of trying to hand over a ship that blatantly didn't meet contractual standards and requirements set out from day one of the contract agreement. But in the end it is what has happened

 

[RWC]

I disagree with the idea that because the RNZN bought a lower cost OPV instead of a higher cost surface combattant, the quality should be questionable. It's a different type of ship, not necessarily a cheap ship. This seems to be a process flaw, so it could affect anything from a $2m tug to a $2b frigate.

The trouble with lacking a weight monitoring program (and one of the reasons I suspect that is the root of the problem) is that Tenix wouldn't have known that the ship they were building was too heavy until it hit the water and everyone could see that she was floating too deep. They would have been as surprised as everyone else.

I'd be interested to know if the statement of work given to Tenix included a requirement for weight monitoring or just stated that the ship would have to meet the EOSL margin without saying how. It certainly highlights something for the contractual folk and the navy inspectors to watch out for in future builds. Again, I don't think the presumption should exist that if RNZN paid more for this ship it wouldn't have this problem. It needs to be addressed from the client's end via stricter contractual obligations and focussed shipyard inspection.

 

[MrConservative]

Yes its true that you cant expect a ship to meet all the criteria set out by the MoD with the price they gave it, but surely intelligent business practice on tenix's behalf should have informed us that they couldn't deliver! instead of trying to hand over a ship that blatantly didn't meet contractual standards and requirements set out from day one of the contract agreement. But in the end it is what has happened

On the positive side of the ledger one could argue that Project Protector (stage 1) has been able to deliver EZZ patrol requirements per the IPV's and the OPV's and the Sealift and Sea Training requirements per the Canterbury. For $500 million that is good spending.

What we need to do now is get on with fufilling properly the Southern Ocean and Long Range Pacific patrol capability that Project Protector stage 1 was not able to accomplish because of the under-funding by Treasury.

Let Project Protector II begin and have the Endevour replacement and two ice strengthen "Ocean Patrol Ships with surface combatant capability" as part of it.

Once Project Protector II is completed then we would have quite a great little Navy.

 

[KiwiRob]

Thinking about names for a minute, how come there has never been an HMNZS Auckland, we have had a lot of other place names used for ships but never one named after the biggest and most important region in NZ, it's really quite insulting. Maybe this could/should be corrected with the ANZAC replacements.