Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[recce.k1]

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

[Now call me crazy - but if this does happen I'd like Canterbury to stay!

Interesting news indeed, but the qualifier would have to be what Aus Defence Minister Stephen Smith is quoted as saying at the end of the article: "We are looking at other options including the possibility, for example, for shared or cooperative service with close countries and allies.''

So it's an option, one of many, and the opportunity is (or may be) presented to the NZGov to consider. Personally I hope the NZGov seriously consider it, for so far NZDF personnel have been posted to the RAN LPA's to gain experience (and vice-versa for RAN trainees) so why not continue the good work of RNZN gaining valuable experience on a more capable ship (Bay Class)?

I hazard a guess the NZ Gov may be tempted, because apparently NZG wants additional sea-lift to backup Canterbury, possibly in the form of a JSS type Endeavour replacement, and under the savings the NZDF have to make, perhaps it may be desirable (to NZG) to replace the Endeavour with another cheaper AOR rather than a JSS (and put the money saved towards this jointly operated and more capable "amphibious landing ship" and any remaining funds towards other NZ defence projects).

If this happens I don't see why the Canterbury would need to be sold (because of the requirement for additional sea-lift, plus also means one vessel should be available if the other is in maint etc). The clincher may be the operating costs - if it is significantly more than Canterbury (plus the initial JSS as originally proposed, together), then maybe the bean counters could suggest Canterbury be sold (but like VfM recommending the 757's be sold, I doubt the NZG would sell the Canterbury because it opens up the likelyhood of more "risk" or policy failure, just like selling the 757's would so I suspect even those 757's are safe! Unless the NZG instead looks at joint airlift buy-in with the RAAF C17's and the 757's are sold to free up the budget)! With Australia sharing/contributing (presumably more than 50%) of the operating costs for this "amphibious landing ship", I can't see the bean counters getting concerned about NZDF also operating Canterbury.

 

[RegR]

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.

No worries, maybe seems abit fired up reading but I assure I am not and am not implying any digs are being taken at my homelands expense, trust me you would def know then, my sarcasm sometimes gets the better of me. Just trying to put my veiw across as I think we were missing each others points and not getting anywhere, not discussing relationships just whether NZ is or is not, well I am anyway.

 

[recce.k1]

Re: "is an explanation for how the various relationships work".

GF's posts are deleted (presumably the PM explained everything), is it possible for us "others" to maybe get an "unclassified" explanation on the forum at some point, as it's quite an interesting area, that of the intricacies of how these relationships work etc! Otherwise as Reg suggests, all we see here in NZ is that NZ has an ABCA connection (even NZ Defence mentions it periodically in their monthly publications)!

 

[jeffb]

The way I read it the RAN sharing a ship with someone is only going to be considered if they can't lease or buy the RN's Bay class, which makes alot of sense considering that the crew from Manoora will easily cover the requirements for the Bay.

Who knows what ships would be available in the required timeframe if they can't get the Bay, perhaps the RAN would look to fund whatever is being considered for the RNZN additional sealift requirement with the RNZN buying it out fully once the RAN can get the LHDs into service.

 

[recce.k1]

Oh, I didn't read it well then originally, I thought Aus Gov was talking about the Bay Class being shared, not a second new vessel being shared. :dunce

(I'm reading Robsta's comment 4792 and SASWanabe has posted the other link in post 4793 in the RAN thread, this makes some better sense).

Well that makes it even more interesting because the RNZN's apparent earlier desire was to replace Endeavour with a JSS type vessel without any earlier mention of it needing "amphibious landing ship" capabilities (just simply portside unloading etc). (And yes, there does seem to be some ambiguity if the sharing is meant to be a new vessel or Canterbury. Any additional confusion may be due to semantics - in NZ Canterbury is referred to as a "Sealift" vessel not "amphibious landing" ship). So in that case we'll have to see what pans out with these new developments ...

 

[RubiconNZ]

Oh, I didn't read it well then originally, I thought Aus Gov was talking about the Bay Class being shared, not a second new vessel being shared. :dunce

(I'm reading Robsta's comment 4792 and SASWanabe has posted the other link in post 4793 in the RAN thread, this makes some better sense).

Well that makes it even more interesting because the RNZN's apparent earlier desire was to replace Endeavour with a JSS type vessel without any earlier mention of it needing "amphibious landing ship" capabilities (just simply portside unloading etc). (And yes, there does seem to be some ambiguity if the sharing is meant to be a new vessel or Canterbury. Any additional confusion may be due to semantics - in NZ Canterbury is referred to as a "Sealift" vessel not "amphibious landing" ship). So in that case we'll have to see what pans out with these new developments ...

I believe there were some updates to the articles originally read, there were some mentions of two additional ships before the Canberra's were delivered however that may of been confusion as the original ABC article I based this on was reworded in update. The ninemsn article has some mention of the joint operation still.

Defence Minister Stephen Smith said he would discuss with his NZ counterpart the option of both nations jointly operating a new vessel.

ABC article
Ninemsn Article

 

[gf0012-aust]

Re: "is an explanation for how the various relationships work".

GF's posts are deleted (presumably the PM explained everything), is it possible for us "others" to maybe get an "unclassified" explanation on the forum at some point, as it's quite an interesting area, that of the intricacies of how these relationships work etc! Otherwise as Reg suggests, all we see here in NZ is that NZ has an ABCA connection (even NZ Defence mentions it periodically in their monthly publications)!

I'm seeking further advice on what can be displayed.

The issue of NZ no longer having observer status in ABCA is not the issue here. ABCA was an INT construct. That INT construct changed with NZ Nuke declaration policy decision and hence the generation of the separate INT definitions. It's technically redundant to say that a country is in ABCA when the basic principles governing its purpose have changed from within to deal with the resultant changed paradigm

NZ is in ABCA but does not have the same INT access rights post the govts decision re US warships carriage of nukes. Hence 4I, 5I's.

The ABCA that is being referred to by RegR would appear to be the army construct. I am referring to the INT model which is the basis for it and what led to the spawning of ASIC and TTCP (both of which only allow validated military addresses for logon and which NZ is not on the council(s).

This section of the post is under discussion by the Mods, so I am not going to add to this in further detail until we get other advice. Its apparent that there is a fundamental misunderstanding here about terms, definitions and actual history, so I am not prepared for this to blow out further until we sort out how, what and where it can be clarified.

 

[recce.k1]

Cheers GF, I'm actually satisfied with your explanation as it clears up that you were referring to intelligence (and that there are "layers" so-to-speak etc).

Frankly the peacenik "researchers" out there (anti-echelon etc) that might be reading this would rub their hands in glee to know more about the level of NZ involvement with the 4I's to "attack" NZ's relationships and cause the govt discomfort, so I'm happy to let it not go any further (unless you deem any further clarifications appropriate)!

 

[Lucasnz]

RNZN Personnel Strength 1970-1999

Hi,

Attached is a PDF showing RNZN Personnel strength from 1970-1999 and ship numbers from 1970 to 2010 for members to use.

 

[recce.k1]

Endeavour replacement

According to this DomPost report yesterday, NZDF are talking to shipbuilders with a JSS concept in mind for the Endeavour replacement, to carry 10000 tonnes of fuel (1500 tonnes more), have space for vehicles, accomodation for an Army platoon, helicopter and landing craft.
Let's hope the bean counters don't interfere, hopefully they have learned the lesson from Project Protector not to under-fund projects!

Navy sounds out shipyards for tanker Endeavour replacement
By Hank Schouten

The Defence Force is looking to replace its old tanker Endeavour with a new multi-purpose ship that can also be used to carry cargo, troops and be used to operate a helicopter.

Navy engineering chief Commander Tony Hayes, who is leading the project, said it was seeking information from shipbuilders to get an idea of what was available and the likely cost before asking Government approval to call tenders.

Indications are that a ship capable of doing everything required of it could cost more than the trouble-plagued multi-role ship Canterbury, which cost $130 million.

Commander hayes said a navy tanker, capable of carrying 10,000 tonnes of fuel, could cost as much as the Canterbury. The additional capabilities required for a well-equipped joint support ship would add to the cost.

Defence needed a tanker with some verstility, meaning that it could also be used to take trucks and armoured vehicles, cargo, a fully equipped army platoon, a helicopter and even landing craft.

Shipbuilders have until March 25 to respond. Defence expects to seek Government approval to proceed with the project in about three months

it would take another year to work out details and call tenders, Commander Hayes said. It could take two years to get the ship built.

The Endeavour, which was built in South Korea, and commissioned in 1998, is expected to be taken out of service in 2015.

Good to see Navy ask for a more versatile vessel by having come of the Canterbury's capabilities. I would think it would be straight-foward enough to present the facts as to why this extra capability is required in light of the various reports on Canterbury etc. I don't mean this in a negative way for Canterbury is also a very capable vessel. Hmm defence better get their comm strategies right as this near contradiction could be exploited by some with malicious intent. How about this, in terms of backup to Canterbury (as in when Canty is in dock, or on an ANZAC operation thousands of miles from NZ or even in the Southern Ocean working for govt agencies etc, it will be critical to have this backup available for reasons 1-5 etc). Yeah, basic stuff but the message needs to get out there in the media (plus they basically do it for free anyway).

2015 will be interesting times for the ANZAC naval support fleet!

 

[SASWanabe]

maybe the NZG would hop into bed with the Canadians... sounds like what they want matches perfectly.

 

[Sea Toby]

According to this DomPost report yesterday, NZDF are talking to shipbuilders with a JSS concept in mind for the Endeavour replacement, to carry 10000 tonnes of fuel (1500 tonnes more), have space for vehicles, accomodation for an Army platoon, helicopter and landing craft.
Let's hope the bean counters don't interfere, hopefully they have learned the lesson from Project Protector not to under-fund projects!

A platoon of troops and their equipment, that isn't an addition of much more than thirty troops and a five Pingauzers... This is another replenishment oiler with maybe 50 lane meters of vehicle space, a landing craft, a crane, and accommodations for thirty troops... This is not a JSS in the terms Canada is thinking of... Its by no means another Canterbury...

 

[MrConservative]

A platoon of troops and their equipment, that isn't an addition of much more than thirty troops and a five Pingauzers... This is another replenishment oiler with maybe 50 lane meters of vehicle space, a landing craft, a crane, and accommodations for thirty troops... This is not a JSS in the terms Canada is thinking of... Its by no means another Canterbury...

I wonder if it is simply poor reporting on the part of the Journalist. A platoon is all of a sudden the word for a Company. The new Canterbury has been described on TV in the past as a Frigate. I have seen journalists call a Colonel a Corporal so it would not suprise me.

What it does say is that a JSS type vessel is where we are heading.

PS: Sorry Toby I accidently hit edit and it has come up as editing your post at the bottom. My apologies.

 

[aussienscale]

I wonder if it is simply poor reporting on the part of the Journalist. A platoon is all of a sudden the word for a Company. The new Canterbury has been described on TV in the past as a Frigate. I have seen journalists call a Colonel a Corporal so it would not suprise me.

What it does say is that a JSS type vessel is where we are heading.

Will be interesting to see the actual requirements for such a ship, time will tell ?
It does sound like a rather large ship if the expectation is for 10,000 t of fuel along with (you would assume) a reasonable amount of avgas, stores, ships hospital, helos, vehicle storage etc, and expensive with ships like the Dutch JSS touted to be around the $366 million euro mark

 

[MrConservative]

Will be interesting to see the actual requirements for such a ship, time will tell ?
It does sound like a rather large ship if the expectation is for 10,000 t of fuel along with (you would assume) a reasonable amount of avgas, stores, ships hospital, helos, vehicle storage etc, and expensive with ships like the Dutch JSS touted to be around the $366 million euro mark

A straight tanker replacement for the Endeavour according to the DWP supporting documents was in around NZ$160m. A more multi-role version was given a funding band of NZ$278 to NZ$416m.

This will be an interesting project to follow. I wonder what the Korean shipbuilders could do with NZ$400m?

 

[SASWanabe]

A straight tanker replacement for the Endeavour according to the DWP supporting documents was in around NZ$160m. A more multi-role version was given a funding band of NZ$278 to NZ$416m.

This will be an interesting project to follow. I wonder what the Korean shipbuilders could do with NZ$400m?

they managed to build Dokdo for about that much... good indication of what their capable of

 

[MrConservative]

they managed to build Dokdo for about that much... good indication of what their capable of

Dokdo came in around US$650m which is nearly twice as much. That said it is far more sophisticated in its sensors and processing systems.

Yes they are very capable shipbuilders who give a thorough quality product.

 

[aussienscale]

A straight tanker replacement for the Endeavour according to the DWP supporting documents was in around NZ$160m. A more multi-role version was given a funding band of NZ$278 to NZ$416m.

This will be an interesting project to follow. I wonder what the Korean shipbuilders could do with NZ$400m?

For 400 the mind boggles if the money and political will are there she should be a very capable ship, and I think a very smart way of NZ going about it rather than just another oiler.

Here is a link for the proposed Dutch JSS, she would be a big ship at over 200m and 27,000t and costing approx $366m Euro, maybe a bit big for NZ but a good indicator of what is possible
Damen Schelde Naval Shipbuilding

 

[CJohn]

The Defence Force is looking to replace its old tanker Endeavour with a new multi-purpose ship that can also be used to carry cargo, troops and be used to operate a helicopter.

That's good news, I hope the Navy puts a super effort into selling the concept to the pollies and the public.
It will be interesting to see what the South Korean yards can offer, they have come a long way in this field from the Makassa class LPD's to the Dokdo amphibious assault ship.

 

[RegR]

I wonder if it is simply poor reporting on the part of the Journalist. A platoon is all of a sudden the word for a Company. The new Canterbury has been described on TV in the past as a Frigate. I have seen journalists call a Colonel a Corporal so it would not suprise me.

What it does say is that a JSS type vessel is where we are heading.

PS: Sorry Toby I accidently hit edit and it has come up as editing your post at the bottom. My apologies.

It kind of makes sense as Cant can take an expanded coy group and for a vessel that will back up and assist it when not performing its primary role of replenishment, a platoon gp seems right. If the new ship could take a coy gp or larger itself then along with its other capabilities would relegate Cant to the supplemental role not to mention greatly increase the cost.

I think it will be tanker first, support second and cover the smaller deployments leaving Cant ready for the big(for NZ) pushes or as plan B if Canterburys offline for any reason. A platoon does seem small but could be more for a offshore supply base rather than a bus of the seas so pax not its priority.

Will definately be alot more versatile then the current tanker and seeing as though it represents 1/3 of the south pacific fleet replenishment force, along with its regained helo capacity, will be a very good ANZAC contributor and provide a useful strategic asset. Hopefully crown does'nt cheap out and take the easy option of 1 for 1 straight tanker and ticks the capabilities option box.

Be good if NFH gets sorted by then and we aquire a few to support and maybe even work off our future 3+ frigates(maybe too much wishful thinking?), if your gonna run a expensive helo like the seasprite anyway might as well upsize especially if you have the oppoutunity to plan for enlarged hangers and facilities.