Could be some of the planned offshore combatant vessels for the RAN. (Basically corvettes)
Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
t68
Well-Known Member
New Zealand already has the Protector class OPV, what they do need is a replacement for the ANZAC class frigate, corvettes with their armament and combat systems can cost just as much as a frigate but without the operating range and systems growth capacity in the platform, in other words it has the combat systems but not the range, its fine if all they want is for local area defence for NZ and close islands not if they want to contribute to coalition events.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/navy-maritime/corvettes-australian-navy-5077/
Multi-Role Vessel - Austal
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protector_class_OPV"]Protector class offshore patrol vessel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:HMNZS_Wellington.JPG" class="image" title="HMNZS Wellington in September 2010"><img alt="HMNZS Wellington in September 2010" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/ff/HMNZS_Wellington.JPG/300px-HMNZS_Wellington.JPG"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/f/ff/HMNZS_Wellington.JPG/300px-HMNZS_Wellington.JPG[/ame]
Actually SAS is correct, NZ had observer status from 1965 sponsored by Australia and was granted full membership in 2006. They just did not change the name guess it has a ring to it. Its actually pretty easy to find on the net so not sure why you are saying he is wrong.
cheers
Agreed. Not only for coalition events but to support UN operations such as the recent request for anti-piracy patrol duties off Somalia.
Unless there is a drastic change in NZ's circumstances over the next 20 years, I can't see the current frigates being replaced with something with less range and flexibility.
What is ridiculous is when a government chooses a freight vessel to move troops without tweaking the ship's ballast to optimize for personnel... Fortunately for New Zealand the Canterbury's ballast didn't require as much attention and changes as the Charles Upham... Might be because the Canterbury was designed as a passenger ferry as well as a vehicle ferry... Notice Sweden has decided to go the same route with a passenger vehicle ferry design too...
Heads did roll for this series of mistakes.
Also, were you aware that the protector project was actually paid in full, proir to the delivery of most of the ships. This means that is the RNZN that had to chase the manufacturers for everything, including tweeks and failures to deliver.
What a lot of mistakes.
Also, were you aware that the protector project was actually paid in full, proir to the delivery of most of the ships. This means that is the RNZN that had to chase the manufacturers for everything, including tweeks and failures to deliver.
What a lot of mistakes.
http://www.defence.govt.nz/pdfs/archive-publications/land-force.pdf
Land Forces Review 2000 outlines the requirements.
A good summary by Peter Greener on the Charles Upham.
http://epress.anu.edu.au/sdsc/timing/pdf/ch03.pdf
Essential background reading when discussing the Canterbury and the Upham.
Hopefully in the future we can get this right on the 3rd attempt.
Land Forces Review 2000 outlines the requirements.
A good summary by Peter Greener on the Charles Upham.
http://epress.anu.edu.au/sdsc/timing/pdf/ch03.pdf
Essential background reading when discussing the Canterbury and the Upham.
Hopefully in the future we can get this right on the 3rd attempt.
Hey MattyEm - have you been able to determine if CY has the 2 x stands for .5 cal HMG on top of bridge wings liked originally spec'd?
As far as her having an unprotected stern I'd reckon the rear alcoves each side of the rear ramp would be an effective place for a watch-team to sit with small-arms (even better an HMG!) and send a message to anyone straying too close in their go-fasts (pirates & low level terrorists only!).
Is there any SOP for use of weapons in these alcoves if the situation dictates it? I realise they're provided largely for rope work but with kiwi ingenuity!
I read this (and Greener's analysis), interestingly it seems to equivocate on some of the requirements for a dedicated sealift. It makes the distinction between strategic sealift and tactical sealift, and states that it should be able to "support a battalion-sized force"; but also mentions that in strategic mode the majority of personnel would be airlifted. The ship would be used for vehicles and stores, with only around 100 troops onboard (Canty has room for 250). It didn't seem all that clear however whether the sealift requirement would include the insertion of a battalion group (ie. 600-800 troops) in a tactical mode - presumably this would be relevant in terms of the configuration of an ideal sealift ship.
Also curious is the large disparity between the stated requirement for 1000 lane metres, compared to the Canty's 403 lane metres. Was that a funding decision I wonder?
I hadn't noticed that. Could you point me to somewhere I can find more details, please?
Thanks.
From Janes, but there are other sources... Sweden will build two multi- role vessels to replace their two smaller tenders along with sea lift capacity. While not necessarily a Merwede design, they are of a similarly sized ro-ro ferry design... Sweden is in the process of increasing their marine forces to 800 for expeditionary tasks... Recently the Swedes have participated in exercises with the Baltic states ahd have had to lease ferries to move their army's equipment and supplies for those exercises... Even the Swedes see a need for two sea lift ships, and their tenders will need replacing soon... Why not build larger multi-role tenders capable of sea lift and troop lift?
Sweden set to sail ahead with multirole support ship
The MOD asked the Army how many lane meters for the vehicle deck were required for an enlarged company group. The Army Chief at the time, now Chief of Defence Staff, measured what they took to Bosnia... The Canterbury's 403 lane meters is actually above the 390 lane meters measured as I recall, or was it 370 lane meters...
I believe the key words are "were required for an enlarged company group..." Canterbury was designed with an enlarged company group in mind...
The Defence and Foreign Affairs Select Committee asked that question not the Ministry of Defence whose only role was in verifying the correct answer to be given by the CDF to the SC. It was a precise question from a Government member on the SC and under the standing rules of the select committee the CDF was required to answer the question precisely and did answer precisely as you would expect. I suspect that the question was a "primer" dreamt up by either the DPMC or possibly Treasury/FinMin so as to curcuitbreak the MOD/NZDF requirements. A properly funded Protector was going to to mean an increase above the almost "sacred" 1%GDP spend that Cullen as the FinMin allocated. That is why today there is sealift gap in the NZDF as indicated in the DWP/10. Canterbury did a good job dealing with Samoa BUT it revealed the constraints in Sealift capability. As is explicitly stated in the Sealift Review the Singaporean vessel or one with its capabilities was the one MOD and NZDF wanted. They laid it on pretty thick in the SL Review that it was what they wanted. The SL Review also notes the fact that a RoRo Ferry design would not be suitable for Patrol Tasks.
Last edited:
Frankly, neither of the other vessels under consideration were suitable for EEZ fishery patrol tasks. I believe all the MOD and government really wanted was a ship suitable for training pier side or when the Canterbury was at sea... They bought six other ships to do the EEZ fishery patrol tasks with Project Protector... I don't think anyone ever thought seriously the Canterbury would be a great EEZ fishery patrol ship, although they foolishly committed her to 100 days annually for patrol... I guess the NZDF and the politicians figured if she was at sea 100 days annually she will be patrolling as well... Yes, a very big net...
RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
And the speculation begins:
The Aus Defmin has stated he is to begin talks with the NZ Gov for a jointly operated sealift vessel that will compliment the Canberra's, in addition to a potential Bay Class acquisition, this will I assume be discussed in the RAN thread but I thought it was worth a mention over here to
The Aus Defmin has stated he is to begin talks with the NZ Gov for a jointly operated sealift vessel that will compliment the Canberra's, in addition to a potential Bay Class acquisition, this will I assume be discussed in the RAN thread but I thought it was worth a mention over here to
Last edited:
Government pulls plug on $40m landing craft project | The AustralianAnd the speculation begins:
The Aus Defmin has stated he is to begin talks with the NZ Gov for a jointly operated sealift vessel that will compliment the Canberra's, in addition to a potential Bay Class acquisition, this will I assume be discussed in the RAN thread but I thought it was worth a mention over here to
Yeah talk about out of the blue - I get the feeling it might simply be no more than a concept for now - but it has merit.
Now call me crazy - but if this does happen I'd like Canterbury to stay!
Reason being I feel the ADF would end up the pre-dominant 'owner' of any such Bay class and as such would get the lion's share of it's use (which seems fair enough given it's basically their initiative).
NZDF is getting a lot of work out of Canterbury & needs the capability she can provide 24x7x365 (minus maintenance time of course!) and if we end up with just a shared Bay class that isn't available when the NZDF needs it - we're back to pre-MRV days (worse actually - as we're also minus a 3rd frigate!).
Of course I can see the tight-arse NZ Govt seeing no further than the 'cost-cutting' & 'leveraging of partners' (ie: bludge!) and jumping to flick off Canterbury ASAP.
Last edited:
Ok now 4Is, 5Is is all very fancy but I still have no idea what you are on about all I am talking about ABCA(The America, Britian, Canada, Australia ABCA by the way), if NZ is NOT a part of it then why even in ABCAs homepage does it actually quote NZ as being so, if we are NOT why even state it? who does this benefit? or is this a ploy to throw any would be enemy(not too sure where its throwing them though) and to deepen the conspiracy we even sent a company on ABCA ex Cooperative spirit 08 or was that also a figment of my imagination, the pics all over the net are pretty well done if so.
We mite not be 'allowed' to attend every cocktail party (since we decided to have an opinion on our own country) but to say we have no involvement at all is alittle rough as I am sure we have worked with our allies somewhere? sometime? Interaoperably even(ABCAs catch phrase not mine by the way)
As for caveats on NZDEF??? email, hell we even have restrictions on what Australians can see,do, operate, touch etc (and vice versa) and we are pretty cosy, so what does that mean? NZ is not in ANZAC? What else has been a lie, UN, five powers, AUSCANNZUKUS?? I hate to think.
All well and good if Aus is more in the club then us and share more toys and jokes with America but we do at least get to look in the window and I feel we do our bit. I will be sure to ask the next American, British, Canadian or Australian service per if we work together with similar standards, tactics and codifications on ops and ex's as apparently it is well known we do not.
Last edited by a moderator:
deleted
dealt with in PM's
dealt with in PM's
Mate, calm down a bit. I think you've misunderstood what GF was saying and you seem to be taking it very personally. Check the PM that's been sent to you by GF and try to understand that what he's saying isn't a slur against NZ by any means but is an explanation for how the various relationships work.
I don't know if my word means anything to you but I can tell you that there's no agenda here to take free shots at NZ for anything they have or haven't done.