Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[swerve]

I done more research, and I have to agree New Zealand won't be able to afford the Poseidon aircraft. Well, not in numbers. Therefore, I agree the Ocean Sentry would probably be New Zealand's best bet to replace the Orions for EEZ ocean patrols.... Probably save on operational costs as well...

HC-144 is an EADS-CASA CN-235, with additional equipment fitted by Lockheed Martin. EADS-CASA does its own MPA version, with a few customers.

There are plenty of other options which are cheaper than the P-8. For example, EADS-CASA builds an MPA version of the C-295 (bought by a few countries so far, including Chile & Portugal) , with the FITS combat system, also fitted to Brazils P-3s as part of their recent upgrade. That has significantly more capacity, & greater aircraft performance, than the CN-235. Alenia makes an MPA version of the ATR-42.

 

[Lucasnz]

I agree the Absalon would be an old design by they time the ships are needed, but an updated concept might end up being cheaper and more capable. Particular the big flight deck twin hangar, large flexi deck and a weapons fit broadly the same as ANZACs. An updated version would probably be capable of taking the systems of a C1/C2, probably at a fraction of the cost.

Although I do like the idea of a Commonwealth ship, I think it would require a change of attitude in the RN to understand it needs to pool with other Navies to get the volume to support designs and this requires some compromise in approach.

I still see the Absalon class as a viable supplement to the combat capaibilities of the ANZAC's and supplementing the heavy lift capability of Canterbury with an additional light over the beach capability. For the a technologly presepective the Absalom aren't dated yet.

I think theres a lot going in favour of a joint Commonwealth design, but NZ needs an increase in combat capability now. The way I see it NZ should buy one Absalom (at what is effectively the ANZAC's half life). Then buy replacements for the ANZAC's from the Commonwealth design with NZ replacing the Absalom with one (or even two) late build Commonwealth's - that will probably be an improved design on the original anyway.

Originally Posted by Sea Toby View Post
I done more research, and I have to agree New Zealand won't be able to afford the Poseidon aircraft. Well, not in numbers. Therefore, I agree the Ocean Sentry would probably be New Zealand's best bet to replace the Orions for EEZ ocean patrols.... Probably save on operational costs as well...

The issue of cost is only one factor in replacing the P-3. Our relationship with Australia is likley to have a huge impact in the decision to either acquire or not acquire Posedion's. The most likley outcome is a return to the early 1980's with the purchase of 5 P-8 and three medium range Patrol aircraft. A purchase of anything less than 5 P-8 would fail to provide NZ with a operationally viable force. A force of 4 aircrat given that one aircraft is in depot maint and another is on 24 SAR alert as a rule, would only leave two aircraft available for operational and training duties.

 

[StevoJH]

I still see the Absalon class as a viable supplement to the combat capaibilities of the ANZAC's and supplementing the heavy lift capability of Canterbury with an additional light over the beach capability. For the a technologly presepective the Absalom aren't dated yet.

I think theres a lot going in favour of a joint Commonwealth design, but NZ needs an increase in combat capability now. The way I see it NZ should buy one Absalom (at what is effectively the ANZAC's half life). Then buy replacements for the ANZAC's from the Commonwealth design with NZ replacing the Absalom with one (or even two) late build Commonwealth's - that will probably be an improved design on the original anyway.

Ring up BAe Australia and purchase another ANZAC class with the full upgrade package installed then.

 

[Lucasnz]

Ring up BAe Australia and purchase another ANZAC class with the full upgrade package installed then.

Why - ANZAC's suffer from weight management problems, lack the spare berths the RNZN needs for training and qualifying surface warfare officers and ratings in general and offer less capability than a Absalom for the price.

 

[StevoJH]

Why - ANZAC's suffer from weight management problems, lack the spare berths the RNZN needs for training and qualifying surface warfare officers and ratings in general and offer less capability than a Absalom for the price.

They are available now though, the Dock used for Absalon currently has three frigate sitting in it in various points of construction.

Use Canterbury for general qualifications and training, only need ANZAC for qualifying on combat systems which would be different from Absalon anyway.

Canterbury means New Zealand does not need the "Flex deck" space, and as a combat ship, an ANZAC is much more capable, especially the RAN ones getting the full mid-life update (the RNZN ones arent getting it).

 

[Todjaeger]

They are available now though, the Dock used for Absalon currently has three frigate sitting in it in various points of construction.

Use Canterbury for general qualifications and training, only need ANZAC for qualifying on combat systems which would be different from Absalon anyway.

Canterbury means New Zealand does not need the "Flex deck" space, and as a combat ship, an ANZAC is much more capable, especially the RAN ones getting the full mid-life update (the RNZN ones arent getting it).

The problem here is that the Anzac FFH is not available right now. The production lines for that class have shut down. While the facilities used to construct the various modules could be restarted (or replaced), at present no one ise setup to resume Anzac production. A case in point, the Tenix facility Whangarei, in NZ which produced ~60% of the Anzac modules has been closed by BAE now that the Project Protector fleet is basically complete. Basically the Whangarei facility would either need to be re-opened and then setup to restart module construct, or a new facility would need to be selected and then setup.

This could of course be done, but there would be a significantly higher cost than was originally paid per ship, since there would be additional startup and line shutdown costs where originally were amortized across the entire Anzac production run. If it were to be done now, those costs would all be included with the current materials and production costs for a single Anzac. At a guess, that could potentially double the cost of the vessel which I believe would be more than was paid for the entire Project Protector fleet.

In addition, I am not certain that it would be a wise move on NZ's part to add another combat vessel to the RNZN at this point. As much as I would like the RNZN to have three combatants (four would be better) I am not certain that would be either wise of feasible at present. With the addition of the Project Protector fleet, the RNZN has three new large vessels to crew, the OPVs and the Canterbury. Given the small number of RNZN personnel, there has been concern about crewing the Protector fleet and the rest of the RNZN. The addition of another ship and then need for a further ~120 crew would make the situation even worse.

IMO what needs to be done is a plan to increase both recruitment and retention of RNZN personnel needs to be developed. Coinciding with that should be the development plans for the Anzac replacement.

What I feel is/would be needed for the Anzac replacement is a long-ranged, seaworthy vessel capable of general combat operations. It should be able to perform ASuW, ASW and air defence operations. In terms of air defence it needs to capable of self defence and at least limited area air defence when acting as an escort. It should also be capable of operating independently or in cooperation with other vessels and fitted with a towed sonar array, more advanced radar/FCS, AShM and more/more advanced SAMs. In short, something like an enlarged version of the planned RAN Anzac upgrade.

-Cheers

 

[CJohn]

The situation concerning long range MPA for NZ into the future is a precarious one. As has been suggested earlier, the governments apparent interest in medium range MPA platforms may imply this. The eventual future replacement of the P-3's will be problematic. NZ's vast EEZ with commitments in the southern ocean and the Pacific require a dedicated long range MPA.
NZ's ability to fund such a program could be in question. There seems to be only a few contenders for this role to date.

The US's decision to go with the Boeing P-8 has set the way forward and will change everything.
The Indian Navy's purchase of P-81's are reported at us$220 mil. per unit. The Australians have signed up and maybe in time the Canadians will. But I would imagine export sales may be limited with a price tags in that order.
Japan's decision to go it alone with the Kawasaki XP-1is an interesting one, but export of this aircraft is probably not an option.
I suspect the European EADS MPA320 concept will be offered with certain European nations in mind, and export variants would be offered. I imagine the unit cost would not be far from the P-8 considering the platforms these aircraft derive from.
The variants of maritime UAV's show much promise in this field, but there are shortcomings in there role for search and rescue operations and their present design. A single engined long range MPA is not the safest way to roam the oceans.
I have no idea which way the government will eventually move on this issue but there is no easy solutions on the horizon, I would think.

IMO the conclusion for NZ is twofold in this area, NZ will end up with at lest two types of MPA in the future and that defence spending looking ahead must inevitability increase to accommodate the capabilities that are now present, let alone enhanced capabilities.

Cheers

 

[MrConservative]

There are some absolutes that NZ requires in terms of defence and one of those is a top end Maritime Patrol asset. Possibly it is the most important and significant cornerstone defence asset as it directly impacts on the nations sovereignty both economically and territorially in a way that no other defence asset does. It as significant as any fundamental item that gets public funding such as a police force, schools and hospitals. It is the one defence asset that no government would cut corners on. When it comes time to replace the P-3’s post 2020 its replacement will be in the first tier of capability. That may well be the P-8 with possibly a Global Hawk mix. It is total nonsense from those who contend that NZ cannot afford it – it is the defence asset that they cannot do without. The country cannot afford to have anything less than the most capable MPA asset. People need to actually look at comparitive external debt levels between nations to see who is really overspending on defence in terms of affordability and who is selling their people short in terms of what the public purse spends their money on. NZ underspends considerably an yet has a fairly good sized nominal GDP and relatively a low external government debt.

 

[Gibbo]

Some stability work done on Canterbury!?!

Interesting snippet picked-up from latest Navy News (April 2010). Story about what Canterbury's been up to includes the following comment...

[quote\]...we returned to Sydney, after first testing the effects of our recent roll-reduction modifications. The results were pleasing, with even beam and quartering seas proving to be much more comfortable.[/quote]

Anyone know what these involved? Recent photos show definite mods around the top of the funnel area - with that whole area being effectively widened.

 

[mug]

Recent photos show definite mods around the top of the funnel area

Correct - ballast has been added up top.

 

[Gibbo]

Correct - ballast has been added up top.

Ah, thanks for clarifying that mug! Any idea what form of ballast - concrete, steel, Helen Clark's chastity belt?...:smash

Actually, scrub that last item, surely not required!nfloorl:

 

[Gibbo]

Otago on her way

Navy Ship Otago Heads To Auckland | Voxy.co.nz

Ignore the story in this 2nd link - there's a great image of Otago...

Bang for Bucks | Otago Daily Times Online News

 

[recce.k1]

Crickey the ODT editorial is a bit (or should I say quite a bit) off the mark. For one thing they need to realise there's no point knocking the RNZN for acquisitions such as Charles Upham, the Canterbury and the OPV's etc - the Navy gets the cards dealt to them by the politicians, who set the funding parimeters via the Minister to pass down to the Ministry and onto NZDF etc. This determines what can be bought (and after all it was the Govt not Navy that stipulated a $500M project budget). Sheesh.

Anyway hat's off to the Ministry for sucessfully negotiating some $84M from BAE Systems to get the problems remedied for Projector Protector as a whole (not entirely for the Canterbury as the ODT implied). The last known figure was $20M from BAE to fix up Canterbury (and no dopey journo has ever thought to ask the Minister how "we" then got to $84M - and exactly what that covered - as announced only a week or two ago). Anyway well done MoD!

Another thing, the ODT said "One trusts its weight and other issues are all but sorted, and it has the required ability to patrol effectively in Antarctic ice as well as in rough seas."

According to the April Navy Today magazine, the OPV weight/growth issue is finally explained and in essence the OPV's will have no issues with their protective ice belts being below the water line. They will be fine in the short to medium term for Antarctic patrols but it is in the future as weight grows due to future changes will this potentially be an issue and thus has to be properly managed - same issue as the ANZAC frigates (Gibbo, ya got your copy handy to quote what it said exactly? Mine's gone walkabout already and the website PDF copy is always a month or two late ie it ain't online)!

[Geez Wayne, as we kiwis used to say ... just re-read the ODT editorial and they mix up the LOV's with the LAV's! And wasn't one reason why the LOV was 63 months late (eh 63? That's 5 years late, surely not!??) was because Govt made MoD re-tender and changed the criteria to exclude 4 wheelers so that Army couldn't get the Humvees they wanted, instead the end of production line 6 wheeled Pinzgauers? Was Helen trying to sell butter back to the EU that year or something???? Mind you the Pinz appears to be a good and reliable utility vehicle from all accounts].

 

[dave_kiwi]

April Navy Today magazine - on-line via web already

 

[recce.k1]

April Navy Today magazine - on-line via web already

Doh! You're right (I clicked on the one that is on the welcome page of the RNZN website which took me to the Feb issue), so if I instead click on the actual NT link, here's the April edition.

http://www.navy.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/navy-today/nt153-web.pdf

And here's the bit about the OPV's.

The question of weight.

Although the OPVs are heavier than designed they are currently well within the weight margin that allows them to operate as specified. The issue is keeping growth in weight within the operating margin over the lifetime of the ships. The Navy does not expect the additional weight to be a significant operational issue in the short or medium term and will put systems in place to carefully monitor weight gain over the lifetime of the ship. The OPVs have strengthened hulls which enable them to enter southern waters where ice may be encountered. They are not designed as ice-breakers or to enter Antarctic ice-packs, but have the range and capability to undertake patrols in the Southern Ocean. The ships are currently well within the operating margin for weight, which means the ice-strengthening will be effective in waters where ice may be encountered. Over the life of the ships the weight will need to be monitored to ensure the
ships remain within safe limits.

And:

Minister of Defence announces Project Protector settlement

Defence Minister, Dr Wayne Mapp, announced in Parliament on 25 February that a settlement has been reached with BAE Systems over Project Protector. The $NZ 500 million project had encountered various problems and delays. "We have now finished the delivery process of the first of two Offshore Patrol Vessels, the OTAGO. [Delivery of] the second, WELLINGTON, will take place in April. This completes the delivery of the Project Protector Fleet and [the new ships] will be a substantial addition to the Navy,” Dr Mapp said. He went on to say, “We have now settled the dispute on the defects of the CANTERBURY with BAE Systems, by mediation. BAE has paid $84.6 million to the Crown, based on current exchange rates. We initiated a legal process which resulted in a very good outcome; it will enable a comprehensive rectification of the defects of the CANTERBURY.” The CANTERBURY has had problems due to the location of its RHIBs (seaboats) in alcoves below the flight deck. The ship lost one boat when heavy waves struck the ship near Auckland in 2007. The damaged RHIB later washed ashore on Great Barrier Island. An inquiry found flaws in the alcove design, that water entered the cargo deck after the alcove doors were forced open by the sea, and that the ship endured severe rolling. In October 2007, AHSO Byron Solomon drowned when an RHIB capsized after being lowered into the sea.

IMO some clarification is still needed, as above it states the $84M was indeed to fix Canterbury so does that mean the cost to remedy the OPV's and IPV's were nil? I don't think so, so surely the $84M is for the whole lot, because the article says the issue has been settled with BAE Systems? (Or maybe the crown wore the cost of the OPV's and IPV's as a compromise whereby $84M was indeed for Canterbury only)?

 

[Sea Toby]

Since its in a paragraph involving all the ships, I would assume it implies compensation for all of the ships. If it were for just the Canterbury it should have beem the only ship in the paragraph...

 

[KirbyNZ]

Since its in a paragraph involving all the ships, I would assume it implies compensation for all of the ships. If it were for just the Canterbury it should have beem the only ship in the paragraph...

Actually the comments of the Minister are taken from two separate questions during question time. The first related to progress on Project Protector and the second only related to rectification of the defects of the Canterbury. So the Minister was apparently talking about the Canterbury. However, in saying that (reading between the lines) the question was just an easy lob so the Minister could criticize the previous Labour government for not dealing with the problems so the Minister is probably fudging it a wee bit. So in short, recce.k1 is right a bit of clarification is still needed.

 

[Norm]

HMNZS Otago Arrival

Navy Ship Otago Heads To Auckland | Voxy.co.nz

Ignore the story in this 2nd link - there's a great image of Otago...

Bang for Bucks | Otago Daily Times Online News

Arrived yesterday,no coverage in the Herald! Here is a piece from the Dominion

Defence Minister Wayne Mapp has leapt to the defence of the navy and its newest $110m boat, which arrived from Australia more than two years late.

Engine problems had held up Otago's delivery for another fortnight.

The offshore patrol boat was built in a Melbourne dockyard and is to be used for maritime counter-terrorism, surveillance and reconnaissance, apprehension and escort of boats, and search and rescue.

Dr Mapp said though New Zealand was not at any risk of maritime terrorism at present, the boat was still value for money. "When you've got unstable states, you've certainly got the prospect of trans-national crime, drug-running, piracy and things of that nature," he said.

"We haven't had those things in our area as yet, but the whole point of a defence force is to be prepared for contingencies that might happen."

The boat was welcomed yesterday in a ceremony that included the navy band playing When the Saints Go Marching In, and a haka performed by the personnel of the training establishment Philomel.

Otago's personnel have been in Melbourne since January. The trans-Tasman delivery trip took six days.

For Able Chef Katie Wynands, 22, the journey was her first shipboard job.

"I didn't get homesick at all, but I'm happy to see my family here today. I was thinking that I was going to get seasick, but I didn't at all – it was pretty smooth sailing," she said.

The navy is expecting delivery of Otago's sister ship Wellington late next month or early June.

Commodore Ross Smith said that the navy had learnt from the problems that delayed Otago for two years and did not foresee similar problems with Wellington. Extract ends.

Interesting DFM Mapp last year was talking about getting rid of Defence assets that are "never" used , seems to have swung around to a more balanced view. Quote"...We haven't had those things in our area as yet, but the whole point of a defence force is to be prepared for contingencies that might happen".

New navy ship arrives nearly two years late | News Video

$110m navy boat finally reports for duty | Stuff.co.nz

 

[at0]

The tvnz article at the bottom of the previous post is really interesting around 40-50 seconds. An office in the Royal New Zealand Navy states that they don't see any problems happening in the next decade but depending on how you interpret what he says it still sounds like the offshore vessels are still faulty to some extent and that the service life could be affected. Did anyone else come to that conclusion?

 

[Sea Toby]

The tvnz article at the bottom of the previous post is really interesting around 40-50 seconds. An office in the Royal New Zealand Navy states that they don't see any problems happening in the next decade but depending on how you interpret what he says it still sounds like the offshore vessels are still faulty to some extent and that the service life could be affected. Did anyone else come to that conclusion?

I don't, but the navy will have to watch the weight as the ship ages. I see it as chunking the junk to avoid a cluttered house. Simply put, the sailors aboard won't be able to pack rat as much, nor the navy itself...