What would the crewing requirements of a vessel like the MESHD be while running in AOR mode, compared to the Endeavour?
Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
It was also fairly neutral because whether National would like to 'rebuild' or not, they know the money isn't there, won't be there for a very long time, and that the general public still have issues with large military purchases.
The DWP has spelt out their intentions, and even those may be a hard ask with the funding they're proposing. It was clear the DWP was always going to largely propose 'steady as she goes'.
p.s. and there's one thing that really worries me - Mapp is leaving parliament at the next election (this year) - he's been a great advocate for Defence and there's just no-one at all in the National line-up that comes across as having any interest in Defence. I suspect we'll see Mapp replaced as DefMin by someone who'll be mediocre at best - who'll show more interest in the fiscal side of the portfolio at the expense of meaningful capability & contribution.
Without delving too far into politics, it is likely Key will have a reshuffle around the time of the next election. I think Judith Collins would make a reasonable DefMin, she's well thought-of in the Police (her current portfolio).
I agree Mapp has been good for Defence, although it's worth remembering that in 1991 he stated that the ACF should be disbanded or integrated into the ADF. This may be one reason why an ACF wasn't mentioned in the DWP.
Why exactly does everyone keep bagging the Cant? To me for the role it is designed to cover it does it sufficiently. Sealift, seamanship training, disaster releif ahh does it not do these things? If it was designated an aircraft carrier or a beach assault hovercraft then heck yeah it is completely poorly designed however it is not so why are we already sending it to the bottom of the ocean.
People need to remember we are not in the game of keeping up with the jones's, there is always going to be something better out there so just get something that will do the specified job, no need to gold plate a coke can just to drink out of it, and either way Cant is a vast improvement on what we had. And all this talk of the ship being parked up alongside more often than not well if you go back through the navy magazines it has a matrix of all ships activities and its actually quite busy, remember its not multi-crewed, the crew have families they would like to see like the rest of us, and would be hard to find a vessel with multiple operating systems that does'nt require repairs now and again. The more added extras you have on a ship the more you have to look after and maintain
People need to remember we are not in the game of keeping up with the jones's, there is always going to be something better out there so just get something that will do the specified job, no need to gold plate a coke can just to drink out of it, and either way Cant is a vast improvement on what we had. And all this talk of the ship being parked up alongside more often than not well if you go back through the navy magazines it has a matrix of all ships activities and its actually quite busy, remember its not multi-crewed, the crew have families they would like to see like the rest of us, and would be hard to find a vessel with multiple operating systems that does'nt require repairs now and again. The more added extras you have on a ship the more you have to look after and maintain
Didnt you find that it rolled and pitched a wee bit too much?
We used to call it the chunder express.
It was based on a RORO ferry.
And the biggest drawback.......it took the place of a frigate! fer gawds sake, and we only have two.
Haere ra
Id just assume the rolling and pitching came with the territory, its an ocean going vessel and there are some big waves out there, its not all deck hockey and tea parties. You can limit the effects but your always gonna get them.
We used to have 4 frigates and to be honest with you in terms of practicality and options that this platform affords us I would still trade off, a frigate is limited in its use compared to MRV, Im not saying frigates do not have their purpose and would love to see at least another in our fleet however not at the expense of a ship like Canterbury nowadays.
We used to have 4 frigates and to be honest with you in terms of practicality and options that this platform affords us I would still trade off, a frigate is limited in its use compared to MRV, Im not saying frigates do not have their purpose and would love to see at least another in our fleet however not at the expense of a ship like Canterbury nowadays.
only reason CY rolled too much is because we were operating it empty not fully laden like it was designed too. once we had a full compliment of vehicles/crew/cargo she was fine.
She has also had substantial modification too counter the roll so we can operate her at a less loaded weight and have less roll whilst at sea.
CY in her current state is a great platform that provides multiple tasking options, and is more useful in terms of operational output than the two frigates- note the the taskings in the pacific instead of playing war games in the south china sea
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Mattyem: Are you still serving on Canterbury? How full does she get when embarking the Army (eg Ex Hamel - 56 vehicles inc. 18 LAV's) i.e. is there much room for more vehicles or is that maximum?
http://navy.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/navy-today/nt158-web.pdf (page 26).
Edit: Found some answers:
EX-Hamel embarkment:
*18 LAV
* 20 LOV variants
* 10 U1700 Unimogs
* With 8 trailers
That's 56 vehicles and according to this report: "The load filled CANTERBURY’s vehicle carrying capacity to 105% (six vehicles were stored in the Helicopter Storage Hanger)".
(As a comparison the new RAN LHD's can carry 150 vehicles (including tanks).
Canterbury's vehicle lane length is 403m.
http://navy.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/navy-today/nt158-web.pdf (page 26).
Edit: Found some answers:
EX-Hamel embarkment:
*18 LAV
* 20 LOV variants
* 10 U1700 Unimogs
* With 8 trailers
That's 56 vehicles and according to this report: "The load filled CANTERBURY’s vehicle carrying capacity to 105% (six vehicles were stored in the Helicopter Storage Hanger)".
(As a comparison the new RAN LHD's can carry 150 vehicles (including tanks).
Canterbury's vehicle lane length is 403m.
Last edited:
I have to agree here - all one needs to do is read through any of the three armed services monthly mags to see the effect the Canterbury is having (as well as the IPVs).
Prime example: NZ's participation in Exercise Hammel -- doubt that in the past NZ could have shipped 18xLAV IIIs, a company of grunts, some Pinzers (actually 56 vehicles in total) as easily it was done late last year. (It also picked up some RAN Officer cadets etc for some sea experience as well.).
http://www.navy.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/navy-today/nt158-web.pdf
(see pages 26,27 & 37)
It's scheduled to take part in the USN's medical orientated visit (Operation Mercy ??) to the Pacific islands some time in the first part of this year --- the first time that the RNZN & USN have exercised "officially" in something like 25 plus years.
Not to bad for something that supposedly spends most of it's time at dock and is something of a "lemon".
It may not be the most ideal of platform's, but it's a capacity NZ hasn't really had before, and it's giving the RNZN good basic experience in all things amphibious.
I dont think anyones bagging the Canterbury as a military ferry, I certainly am not. I respect the fact that theres alot of passionate serving members on board.
But New Zealand needs a 3rd frigate to participate in international teambuilding "wargames" as its being phrased. A tiny nation needs to build relationships. Im sure australia has made this clear to us.
:hitwall
But New Zealand needs a 3rd frigate to participate in international teambuilding "wargames" as its being phrased. A tiny nation needs to build relationships. Im sure australia has made this clear to us.
:hitwall
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't say anyone's bagging Canterbury either and that most likely all of us here are happy to see her doing great work and into the future.
It's more, speculating on a potential Endeavour replacement and whether there are merits in operating a type of vessel that could also fulfil the eventual Canterbury replacement. A key factor may be operating costs and savings eg reduced training and logisitics as stated by Lucas (assuming that can be achieved in comparison with two seperate types of vessel, although that additional flexibility factor of a common type would need to be quantified too). Bear in mind VfM exercises will no doubt be a permanent, regular fixture, accompanying these proposed 5 yearly Defence Reviews (2015, 2020 etc).
Eg if Canterbury entered service in 2009 (initially to be 2007) and is meant to have a 30 year life(?), then in simple terms the mid-life point may be 15 years on from 2009 i.e. 2024.
As the DWP is planning out until 2035, it could very well be that 2024 date (or thereabouts - even if it were 2029 or 20 years of life) is being factored in by the planners as being a point to weigh up whether to undertake a MLU or early replacement.
If by chance this happens to be so, and if it happens that Defence planners wish to weigh up whether an Endeavour replacement design could be something like the type of vessel Mr C has been suggesting (mini-MESHD or even a JSS etc), then there's no harm is us here undertaking this type of discussion, which isn't bagging Canterbury, the Navy, Defence or the personnel who make Canterbury sail.
On the page before I've found some answers as to how much Canterbury can carry the typical "2011 NZArmy" and looked at the breakdown of the Op Hamel embarkment (it was at 105% capacity). It will be interesting to see whether these are typical numbers for typical CATG - Cav and CATG - Light Infantry embarkments.
Incidentally at 105% capacity it means possibly no (or not many) Huey helos could be carried in this instance (or if they were to be carried next time, then less additional Army vehicles can be carried etc) and would there have been room for a Seasprite, integral to Canterbury's ship-operations (i.e. as opposed to simply transporting Huey's/NH90's to accompany the Army, which don't always need to be carried and their place taken by vehicles depending on the make-up of the deployment)?
That may or may not (as in Army will no doubt have other configurations depending on the type of deployment) have some bearing on additional vehicle lane lengths for the proposed Endeavour replacement, assuming it may be a JSS of sorts, to back up Canterbury.
And also, seeing that it appears the Govt sees value in ensuring reliable sealift can always be available (I believe this has been suggested by the defmin or govt recently?), if so and they fund a Endeavour replacement, would it also need be capable of carrying the above typical compliment (as was Ex-Hamel's embarkment) if Canterbury was not available (eg in dry dock or on deployment elsewhere etc)?
Alternatively would the Army need to deploy a battalion or at least the vehicles (not necessarily the personnel), as inferred in the original sealift reviews of around 2000? If so, would a larger, JSS / mini-MESHD Endeavour replacement be worth investigating? Incidentally I don't believe the Endeavour replacement is meant to necessarily carry the troops (or am I wrong) just vehicles (and maybe a few helos), using port facilities (i.e. no Landing Craft). Obviously some big cranes would be handy, as there should also be space for containers, and should speed up off-loading (and then getting the ship the hell outta there again)!
One headache may be though, these JSS / mini-MESHD types appear to be in their infancy in terms of concept design (something that Swerve mentioned a year or so to be aware of), so timing may become an issue for defence planners.
It's more, speculating on a potential Endeavour replacement and whether there are merits in operating a type of vessel that could also fulfil the eventual Canterbury replacement. A key factor may be operating costs and savings eg reduced training and logisitics as stated by Lucas (assuming that can be achieved in comparison with two seperate types of vessel, although that additional flexibility factor of a common type would need to be quantified too). Bear in mind VfM exercises will no doubt be a permanent, regular fixture, accompanying these proposed 5 yearly Defence Reviews (2015, 2020 etc).
Eg if Canterbury entered service in 2009 (initially to be 2007) and is meant to have a 30 year life(?), then in simple terms the mid-life point may be 15 years on from 2009 i.e. 2024.
As the DWP is planning out until 2035, it could very well be that 2024 date (or thereabouts - even if it were 2029 or 20 years of life) is being factored in by the planners as being a point to weigh up whether to undertake a MLU or early replacement.
If by chance this happens to be so, and if it happens that Defence planners wish to weigh up whether an Endeavour replacement design could be something like the type of vessel Mr C has been suggesting (mini-MESHD or even a JSS etc), then there's no harm is us here undertaking this type of discussion, which isn't bagging Canterbury, the Navy, Defence or the personnel who make Canterbury sail.
On the page before I've found some answers as to how much Canterbury can carry the typical "2011 NZArmy" and looked at the breakdown of the Op Hamel embarkment (it was at 105% capacity). It will be interesting to see whether these are typical numbers for typical CATG - Cav and CATG - Light Infantry embarkments.
Incidentally at 105% capacity it means possibly no (or not many) Huey helos could be carried in this instance (or if they were to be carried next time, then less additional Army vehicles can be carried etc) and would there have been room for a Seasprite, integral to Canterbury's ship-operations (i.e. as opposed to simply transporting Huey's/NH90's to accompany the Army, which don't always need to be carried and their place taken by vehicles depending on the make-up of the deployment)?
That may or may not (as in Army will no doubt have other configurations depending on the type of deployment) have some bearing on additional vehicle lane lengths for the proposed Endeavour replacement, assuming it may be a JSS of sorts, to back up Canterbury.
And also, seeing that it appears the Govt sees value in ensuring reliable sealift can always be available (I believe this has been suggested by the defmin or govt recently?), if so and they fund a Endeavour replacement, would it also need be capable of carrying the above typical compliment (as was Ex-Hamel's embarkment) if Canterbury was not available (eg in dry dock or on deployment elsewhere etc)?
Alternatively would the Army need to deploy a battalion or at least the vehicles (not necessarily the personnel), as inferred in the original sealift reviews of around 2000? If so, would a larger, JSS / mini-MESHD Endeavour replacement be worth investigating? Incidentally I don't believe the Endeavour replacement is meant to necessarily carry the troops (or am I wrong) just vehicles (and maybe a few helos), using port facilities (i.e. no Landing Craft). Obviously some big cranes would be handy, as there should also be space for containers, and should speed up off-loading (and then getting the ship the hell outta there again)!
One headache may be though, these JSS / mini-MESHD types appear to be in their infancy in terms of concept design (something that Swerve mentioned a year or so to be aware of), so timing may become an issue for defence planners.
Last edited:
Is there any possibility of New Zealand purchasing one or two Hobart Class Destroyers? (Probably 1 from the budget, but the argument for a second would be that there should always be at least one up and running at sea)
t68
Well-Known Member
I think New Zealand will be flat out getting ANZAC MKII based on an F100 hull(Australia might not either but more than likely) , not to say that NZ does not require them just the bean counter's will probably knock it back .
New Zealand might go with the UK on its next frigate; I cannot see NZ going with the future type 26 frigates as there is talk it may be based on the type 45 hull. There is scope in the future surface combatant of a 4/5000t vessel C2 which New Zealand may be interested in.
Type 26:Britain’s New Frigate « New Wars
Future Surface Combatant (FSC)
Basically the Canterbury replaced the Monowai as a sealift troopship, her role as a hydropgraphic ship was replaced with the Resolution...
The Canterbury is considerably better than the Monowai as a sealift troopship. This is an image of the former Monowai... Not much more than a RMS...
Australia appears on the verge of spending up to A$500 million or more on the Lars Bay, whereas New Zealand spent less than A$200 for the Canterbury...
While the Lars Bay is designed to lift a battalion of troops and equipment, the Canterbury is designed to lift an enlarged company group, exactly what New Zealand wanted... There is no need to lift a division of troops as New Zealand doesn't have a division to lift...
While its great to have a sharper edge on the front lines, if you don't have the logistics to back that sharp edge, there is no sharp edge... The truth of the matter is that no nation smaller than New Zealand has a better sea lift ship, in fact many larger nations don't have a better sea lift ship...
The Canterbury is considerably better than the Monowai as a sealift troopship. This is an image of the former Monowai... Not much more than a RMS...
Australia appears on the verge of spending up to A$500 million or more on the Lars Bay, whereas New Zealand spent less than A$200 for the Canterbury...
While the Lars Bay is designed to lift a battalion of troops and equipment, the Canterbury is designed to lift an enlarged company group, exactly what New Zealand wanted... There is no need to lift a division of troops as New Zealand doesn't have a division to lift...
While its great to have a sharper edge on the front lines, if you don't have the logistics to back that sharp edge, there is no sharp edge... The truth of the matter is that no nation smaller than New Zealand has a better sea lift ship, in fact many larger nations don't have a better sea lift ship...
I'm with you mate, I think ANZAC II would be a really hard sell considering NZ's political environment with regard to defence - public information available on SEA 5000 indicates the ship will be larger than the current ANZACs, designed "with a strong emphasis on anti-submarine warfare" and that "incorporation of a land attack cruise missile capability will be integral to the design and construction of the Future Frigate". Also mentioned is the capacity to embark and operate a combination of naval helicopters and UAVs.
(info from: Defence Capability Plan 2009 - Public Version - December 2010 Update)
I'm guessing (from what little I know, please tell me if I'm mistaken) that in the current political climate in New Zealand, it would be essentially impossible for the RNZN to make a case for such capabilities. If I could ask a question of the New Zealanders in here, do you think this climate will change much by the time ANZAC II is a reality? How much do you reckon would have to change in order to reinvigorate NZ's defence priorities?
I'm curious because while I've read a few bits and pieces on NZ's political and military history, it still confuses me how "defence" came to be such a dirty word in the NZ media and political lexicon.
Personally I don't know what the RNZN's future requirements will look like, but I imagine that procuring a more sustainable number of surface combatants will be a priority (from what I recall, the current NZ ANZACs are wearing out more quickly than anticipated due to the cut in numbers, please correct me if I'm wrong). If this is the case then I'm even more doubtful of ANZAC II being in the running. I assume that advanced ASW, land attack, and combined heli/drone capabilities will hardly make for a cheap ship, and should be RNZN look to boosting hull numbers in the future then they'd surely be looking for something affordable and more in-line with their requirements? I mean it's not as though they're likely to have much use for a land attack cruise missile capability, is it...
Speaking as a New Zealander who has had a chance to see a few elections now, I think the main issue in selling the ANZAC II to the NZ public will be the cost. When the original ANZAC frigate proposal was debated in NZ in the late 80s, there were 2-3 central objections:
1) NZ was suffering after the October crash and at $500m apiece, there was a concern that NZ was being pressured by AusGov as a proxy for the Australian shipbuilding industry when there might be cheaper more suitable options available elsewhere.
2) The perception that it was a Cold War device without a Cold War; NZ needed EEZ/Fisheries protection most of all and the way our resources were being utilised, we lacked that capability (this was long before Project Protector of course). Up to that time our earlier Leander- and Rothesay-class Frigates spent much of their time participating in overseas deployments/exercises and did comparatively little fishery patrol.
3) There was/is a significant peace movement in NZ which tends to resist large defence purchases of a pure combat nature on principle.
I'm neither a political scientist nor defence analyst, but I think we've come some way since the last ANZAC purchase. As I said, I think the main objection will be cost. From what I heard the ANZAC II will be more than double the original cost of the ANZAC, and it while it might be possible to argue for a 1-for-1 replacement of Te Kaha and Te Mana, I'm picking it will be a struggle to sell the (more ideal) 3rd frigate. It will also depend on how well NZ has fared after the effects of the GFC.
I don't see the ASW or UAV capability as a problem - ANZACs are already ASW and the NZ Army already operates a mini-UAV; the cruise missile option might be a problem but not if it is "designed for but not fitted" to the NZ version, as is the case with some features in the existing frigates.
Just my 2c
RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
Technically the Canterbury replaced the Charles Upham I only mention it because the the Charles Upham was another commercial grade sea lift ship which had serious stability issues when unladen, ridiculousness to see that some lessons learned were ignored when the Cant bury was bought commercial ship with stability issues when unladen.
It's been discussed before, but I though it warranted mention, given the current debate.
I really hope NZ goes with the Australian Anzac replacement. I have this feeling that if they drop out, they will choose something far less capable and able, that may not be suitable for possible threats or be upgradable to threats or that doesn't have a high level of compatability with the RAN. If not the AnzacII then the T26.
As its been pointed out the risk is NZ won't go with either, and choose some sort of corvette or corvette level armed frigrate and only buy two of those.
Not buying T26 or AnzacII because "its based off a big hull" is not a valid reason. They arent even much bigger than the Anzac class in length. Sure expense, value for money, risk, capability sure..
But there is a reason why Aus/Uk/Germany/Spain/etc are all ending up with larger units, I don't see why NZ should go the reverse.
As its been pointed out the risk is NZ won't go with either, and choose some sort of corvette or corvette level armed frigrate and only buy two of those.
Not buying T26 or AnzacII because "its based off a big hull" is not a valid reason. They arent even much bigger than the Anzac class in length. Sure expense, value for money, risk, capability sure..
But there is a reason why Aus/Uk/Germany/Spain/etc are all ending up with larger units, I don't see why NZ should go the reverse.