With regards to using the OPV as MCM vessels does any one know the lifting weight of the crane on the back of the OPV's. Manawauni has a 13 tonne crane. Personally I'd love to see the OPV's in the MCM / Surveying role using modular equipment.
Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
I would reclassify them as EZZ Support Ships, strip them of the icebelt and any Southern Ocean pretensions, and add the module equipment they need to conduct Survey, MCM, Dive Support and work for Customs, Fisheries and other Government departments. They can still do the EZZ patrols in our EEZ alongside the 4 IPV's. That should take care of replacing the Manawanui and Resolution and finish Project Protector I.
Then I would start Project Protector II by ordering a purpose built Antarctic ship to look after Southern Ocean and Ross Sea, and followed up with ordering a Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft MHD 10000 design to replace the Endeavour as this class of Multi-role Dock vessel will have a replenishment-at-sea facility on the starboard side for underway replenishment of both solids and liquids, landing dock, 4 helicopter spots, provide an additional company group sealift capability with surge capacity of 400, a further 300 metres of lane space and another 700m2 of cargo space. Finally Project Protector III would be the replacement of the Anzacs with 3 surface combatants. It would still be a 12 ship Navy, but a far better and more capable 12 ship Navy.
So post 2020 the RNZN would look like this:
Protector I
2 x EZZ Support Ships (Otago, Wellington)
4 x IPV's (Rotoiti, Pukaki, Hawea, Taupo)
1 Sealift / Sea Training Vessel (Canterbury)
Protector II
1 x Antarctic/Southern Ocean Support Vessel (Endeavour)
1 x Multirole Support Ship (MHD-10000) (New Zealand?)
Protector III
3 x Surface Combatant (Waikato, Taranaki, Southland - Bringing back the old Leander names?)
I pretty much on the same page with a few differences. I would build two more OPVs, properly ice strengthened, not blown. One geared more for survey and the other geared more as a diving tender. Both could be used in a spot for patrolling the Southern Ocean. Have at least one of the new OPVs, if not both, designed with a mine countermeasures mission container module. I am not so sure New Zealand requires more sea lift, but at least another replenishment ship is needed. If there are funds left over for a multirole support ship, tanker/sealift, I am for acquiring one. In other words, if costs becomes a concern, drop the extra sea lift feature of the tanker. Maybe costs can be compromised with a multirole ship geared for replenishment and a vehicle deck, but without the accommodations for troops. All depends upon funds, but there are other similar approaches.
That begs the question, Toby? What would you do with the Wellington and Otago – keep them as they are but restricted to EEZ? I believe that we do need to get more roles out of them than what they will offer in their present state. That is why I like re-tasking them with the Manawanui and Resolution roles included. The hanger could be used to store the small survey tender Adventure or a small remote mine detection vessel, which would be deployed and retrieved by crane. But, by all means though, if the Defence Minister announced that two more OPV’s were a goer in the OCV configuration I would not be upset.
I’m interested in the idea of an Antarctic Support Ship like the first three Endeavours were. I’m thinking along the lines of a ship that can safely navigate the Ross Sea up to MacTown/Scott Base November through to March during the busy Antarctic NZ summer science season, keep an eye out for our Japanese Whaling friends during their December hunt to make sure they and Greenpeace behave themselves, do the resupply runs for the Auckland and Campbell Islands during the winter for the DOC outposts, and fit around those tasks the fisheries patrols. I believe that only one vessel should suffice for this role.
The Army still are aiming for access to further sealift capability. (Maybe they fear a future government saying since you can only deploy a company group at a time you really only need to be half the size) They originally wanted 1000 lane metres to lift a Battalion Group back in 2000 when Dodson was CGS. Having the scope for further sealift built into a JSS type vessel, though not its primary requirement is valuable. With the likelihood of the NZDF requiring to resupply via sealift to two operations at present RAMSI and Timor, plus the recent Samoan support mission, let alone if something sparked elsewhere requiring a full Battalion Group, having that capability in reserve is a good idea. This is why I favour the MHD 10000 design concept in that it is like a smaller version of the MHD-150 at around 10500 tonnes and 153m rather than 15000 tonnes and 182m. I am assuming that its storage capacity in the wet replenishment role would be sufficient. Enough capacity to support two RNZN frigates at sea. Noting that the Endeavour was bought during the era of a four frigate fleet it would be enough for the 2/3 future surface combatant fleet. A MHD design would also offer the ANZAC forces a further flexibility via its wet deck/dock and with the sizable flight deck space it could be used as a helicopter support platform that could operate Australian NRH-90’s, or even ARH Tigers if the crisis warranted it, alongside our own rotary using the 4 landing spots. This Anzac dimension that has been agreed to during Trans Tasman talks must also be a consideration in the design of such a ship after all we are moving from the recent era of ‘ourselves alone’ back to the traditional ‘ourselves together’ stance in the relationship.
Last edited:
Any hydropgraphic ship would need an Echo sounder sonar/keel. I was thinking of building a new OPV with such, but much alike the Resolution one could be fitted. Its that the current OPVs are somewhat overweight. Since they are overweight, i would keep them as is despite the ice strengthening default. Maybe a mine countermeasures mission container and/or diving tender mission container can be added to the two current OPVs without much fuss.
As for the Soutnern Ocean, there aren't that many fishing vessels with ice strengthening operating in first year ice. I would think the Orions could watch them and be boarded in seas without first year ice. But I would agree if there are funds available within the budget a Southern Ocean OPV or Endurance type ice breaker vessel would be a nice buy. However, I am not so sure its necessary to have such a ship patrolling in first year ice. Hopefully the White Paper will address this issue. I am flexible...
I haven't even put much thought into Anzac replacements yet. This is still a long ways off.
While its vital to replace the Endeavour, the replenishment ship, I am not so sure a second sea lift ship is needed. If a White Paper suggest a need, a tanker/sea lift multirole ship could be bought. I haven't been convinced of the worth of the German designed MHD150 as a proven design as yet.
Last edited:
One thing that is under review in the White Paper is the Survey capability under the RNZN umbrella, as well as a number of second tier defence properties. It is the ACT party, the junior in the coalition that is pushing the NZDF to be more “core business” as a military and have greater “efficiencies.” This goes as far as selling the three Air Bases and leasing them back. So potentially the Resolutions’ role maybe outsourced privately or put across to management by a Crown Science Entity which follows a more commercial model. Needless to say I do not think much of that proposal.
I really think the best option is to build a dedicated vessel that can handle the Sub-Antarctic and Spring to Autumn in the Ross Dependency. The Hoki fishery heads south of the Sub Antarctic islands lying 500kms south of Stewart Island, March through to June before spawning on the West Coast in the late winter. The toothfish poachers are known to hang around until as late as May once the Ross Dependency finally freezes over pushing northwards the toothfish as they depart the scene. (Breaking every rule in the CCAMLR Convention does not seem to worry them and they know by then any enforcement presence is long gone and they are prepared to take the risk). There might not be many but it is the illegal’s that do the damage. The vessel would make Antarctic NZ’s life down at Scott Base a lot easier in supporting science objectives on the Ice. (I also think that funding for this vessel would be a lot easier per the Green party and the media loving it to bits – in fact I would call it the HMNZS Sir Edmund Hillary then no one could turn it down without been publicly ostracised after all Sir Ed lead the 1956-57 original NZ expedition to the Pole) So with that in mind I would strip the OPV’s of that irksome girdle of flab that is causing the issues as there would be no need for them to head further south than 100kms from Bluff. The majority of people I have spoken and respect their views are not entirely confident that it is prudent to venture the OPV's too far into the Southern Ocean the way she is at present with the weight issues. Like a good women they need to be fit and slim!
Fair enough about not been convinced on the MHD’s as yet (Just as I have never been convinced about the Canterbury or the OPV’s – but you already know that Toby) but I do like the utility aspect of the concept. In many ways it supports the concept of future proofing and allowing for contingencies something that has unfortunately been politically eradicated from the NZDF. HDW were pitching their 10000 tonne design at 210m euro’s so I would like to see if a more austere Korean built version could bring the project cost down. Thing is we know that the synergies between the ADF-NZDF need to reconnect and the political will is now there with new respective leadership to pull this off. We also know that ADF planning over the last 10 years could not rely on any ‘sharing the burden’ of platforms like once happened. The additional sealift capability within an Endeavour replacement with a dock and enlarge flight deck would supplement the two LHD and possibly replace the requirement for the ADF to go out and build a direct replacement of the second RAN Kanimbla. Thus freeing up their budget for something else.
Yes the Anzac replacements are some way off. Timing is the big issue here as I think that ours were amongst the earliest and have been worked hard. The majority of the RAN Anzacs possibly could go until 2025 before replacement. They future Anzacs at this stage will be 7000 tonners which I think is is getting a tad too large for the RNZN requirements and also it is to be a class of eight ships. From that I sense the signal is for the RNZN to sort out its own Anzac replacement. The Te Kaha will be 20 in 2017 and Te Mana in 2019. If the White Paper agrees to three surface combatants and I have a reasonable hunch that long term that’s the current governments plan after hearing the scuttlebutt, then the first of three surface combatants could be phased in late next decade and the Anzacs retired as they the replacements come on line. I personally like the Danish F-370 project based on the Absalons. I like the way that with standardflex modulisation you can have three basic ships but rapidly rotate the equivalent of two sets of modules. It doesn’t have to be the F-370 Class, however the cost effectiveness and pragmatism of this approach is ideal for a small navy that has a big job on its hands with what is essentially a small budget.
Last edited:
Do you mean the Ivar Huitfeldt class? They're F361, F362 & F363. That maxes out at 6650 tons, according to the Danish defence material command website, though as delivered, they'll be 1200 tons less (under Platform).
Nye fregatter
There's an English language version, but you may not need it: such terms as "skib" (ship), "totalvægt" (total weight), "lang" (long), "bred" (broad), "under køl" (under keel), & "både helikopterdæk og hangar" (both helicopter deck & hangar) are pretty easy to work out.
I've heard about that. The thinking is that the RNZN only requires a capabiltiy for military purposes and that LINZ can do all the day to day stuff - basically Resolution is surplus to requirements.
That might be the ideal solution but the RNZN has to many ship classes, creating logistical and training headaches. If phase 2 of the Maritime Study had been completed, we may have got a better design, but I think we'll have to use the OPV's as best we can until we can replace them.
I can't see the ANZAC's lasting more than 25 years. I think the best idea is to acquire is to acquire a 3rd frigate now, which will help extend the life of the exsiting frigates and two latter as an ANZAC replacement. As a baseline the new frigate would be part of a progressive upgrade, that would use similar weapons, but offer improved capabilities in terms of hanger space, sensors etc. In terms of displacement the RNZN is already struggling with managing weight and stability issues on the ANZAC - I would suggest that 5-6000 tonnes would be needed in the future.
'Stripping the ice belt" suggests this is a simple overlay that can be removed. This is not how ice strengthening works rather it is a combinations of increased frame numbers/size/depth and increased hull thickness at the water line and other critical areas. The increasing hull thickness is achieved by fairing in thicker plate not by an over lay. As such 'stipping the ice belt" would involve skining the vessel in areas and replating, an expensive and time consuming task. Similarly removing frames would not appear to be a practical option either.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Out of curiosity ... seeing the OPV's are modular (eg as mentioned here etc), ahem, could one unbolt the hangar, funnel and bridge modules and remove the plant and machinery etc, and re-attach/weld and re-cable etc, into a new redesigned hull fit for purpose for example?
If so, one or maybe two years of "pain" (during this phase) would be better than a ship's lifetime of being under spec capability wise, so to speak, perhaps etc?
Fair enough Alexsa. The darker arts of naval architecture for ice conditions are not my forte. Thanks for pointing that out. We learn something new everyday. The point I was making was that the vessels need to go on a diet. As for who pays for the weight to be removed - I hope that it is not the tax payer. The constructors signed a contract saying they would be able to deliver a ship with defined specifications for a certain price. The onus is on the constructor to take all reasonable steps to deliver the terms of the contract. This could be the "tens of millions" that Dr Mapp mentioned regarding mediation betweeb the Government and the Constructor.
Modular in construction rather that disconnectable. The untis are still welded together and then internal systems run once the sections have been joined.
So the short answer is..... no.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Thanx Alexsa. I thought it was a no but was worth an ask. If plugging isn't realistic either then one supposes the status quo has to be accepted (i.e. operate the OPV's with some known limitations) but expect any possible additional OPV's (of the same class?) to have the weight issue better understood or taken into account due to what defence planners here have learnt from bitter experience now etc.
the only vessels I'm aware of that are modular with main system connectivity in place (ie major system interconnects, electronic and base plumbing) are the Virginias.
New Zealand most likely will be stuck with the OPVs, although New Zealand will probably see a reduction in their price, like rebate. If New Zealand refuses the ships, I doubt whether BAE/Tennix would ever bid a good low price in the near future. New Zealand has done well with BAE/Tennix with the Anzac frigate program along with the Project Protector program. Many ship modules and all of the inshore patrol vessels were built in New Zealand providing considerable offsets. These offsets helped New Zealand to afford the programs in the first place.
How much of a reduction will have to be negotiated. I don't see ten percent. or $50 million. $20-30 million maybe, probably less. A government has to develop a military industrial complex as well. A military industrial complex has to earn a profit in the long run or it don't exist. Australia wants one for self sufficient reasons. And I am sure New Zealand would like to build as much of the navy's ships as possible in New Zealand too. There is a big picture as well as a small picture feature being played out here.
I am sure BAE/Tennix learned a lesson botching the ice strengthening. In the future they will do better having learned a lesson. I am not so sure they ever built a ice strengthened vessel before.
How much of a reduction will have to be negotiated. I don't see ten percent. or $50 million. $20-30 million maybe, probably less. A government has to develop a military industrial complex as well. A military industrial complex has to earn a profit in the long run or it don't exist. Australia wants one for self sufficient reasons. And I am sure New Zealand would like to build as much of the navy's ships as possible in New Zealand too. There is a big picture as well as a small picture feature being played out here.
I am sure BAE/Tennix learned a lesson botching the ice strengthening. In the future they will do better having learned a lesson. I am not so sure they ever built a ice strengthened vessel before.
Just to clarify, there is nothing wrong with the ice strengthening on the OPVs. In fact, currently, there is nothing wrong with the ship and it will meet all the requirements except one. The requirement it misses is the end of service life margin (EOSL) which is a weight margin. The ship is supposed to be capable of accomodating a weight increase over the course of its life.
Unfortunately, the ship was built heavier than it should have been, so when the EOSL margin is applied, the ship sinks slightly below the ice belt.
What this means is that the ship as is, is just fine, but in twenty years time, if a weight equivalent to the EOSL margin is applied, the ice belt will be underwater. So the answer is don't apply a weight equal to the EOSL margin and you'll never have a problem. Of course there is a reason that EOSL margins exist, but it is not nearly as dramatic a problem as you are making it out to be and doesn't really have much to do with ice strengthening.
Given the OPV's are not intended to be combat vessels per se I guess it a reasonable assumption that growth in weight due to weapon system enhancements is not likely to be an issue (no 57mm upgrade) (and if you use a marinised A109 rather than a Seasprite you would also save a bit
), would not the amount of fuel carried be the biggest weight variable on the vessel ?Fuel would be the biggest factor during operation, but all current weights, including the helicopter and fuel are accounted for and do not pose a problem. What is not met is the requirement for future weights. Even then, there is an EOSL margin, it's just smaller than was contractually required, so the navy could likely upgrade to a 57mm without making any other sacrifices, but they would have to consider it carefully against other desired upgrades.Given the OPV's are not intended to be combat vessels per se I guess it a reasonable assumption that growth in weight due to weapon system enhancements is not likely to be an issue (no 57mm upgrade) (and if you use a marinised A109 rather than a Seasprite you would also save a bit
But you are correct that 20 years from now, the navy could upgrade to new and heavier weapons systems, but downgrade the helicopter or range (reduced fuel) and still meet all other operational criteria.
Probably in an attempt to score political brownie points. Its not like patrol boats increase in weight all that much as they age compared to warships.