Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[mug]

I certainly wasn't suggesting that the puss shouldn't go fishing ... just that it should be done somewhere a little more discreet than in the middle of the harbour off the VIP barge.

My query regarding an OOW, was simply due to there being an OOW on every RNZN vessel except the RHIBs and the barge. This may have the potential to change that, it may not, let's wait and see.

 

[ngatimozart]

I certainly wasn't suggesting that the puss shouldn't go fishing ... just that it should be done somewhere a little more discreet than in the middle of the harbour off the VIP barge.

My query regarding an OOW, was simply due to there being an OOW on every RNZN vessel except the RHIBs and the barge. This may have the potential to change that, it may not, let's wait and see.

Ok fair enouigh and apologies. It had been known for a spot of water skiing to occur behind the odd IPC. And boggy boarding. Used the wooden door off the greenies lockup.

 

[mug]

And the new craypot lifters on the IPVs (?) are/will be a stroke of genius.

 

[MrConservative]

Ok fair enouigh and apologies. It had been known for a spot of water skiing to occur behind the odd IPC. And boggy boarding. Used the wooden door off the greenies lockup.

Somebody in the 1980's pinched (or neglected to return to put it more kindly) a parachute from the RNZAF S & S boys and his IPC crew then proceeded to perform para-sailing experiments Club Med style.

One of the water-skiing incidents happened at Milford Sound. An ex crew member told me they got snapped because a very senior defence force person holidaying with his foreign guests saw it happen from a nearby tourist boat. Needless to say a very dim view was taken of it by COMAUCK.

 

[RegR]

Just my veiws on the recent subs, OPV, helo talk,

Subs- laughable actually: limited NZ useful options, expensive, technically intensive, crew intensive(training and retention wise), therefore would have been a waste of time, money and capability. Leave them to the big navies.

OPVs- We maintain the frigates to take care of the high end tasks, OPVs for the low end and anything in between shared dependant on which end of the scale it falls. Lets be honest NZ low end is anything from a disgruntled poacher to a drug smuggleing pirate so do we need up-gunned, sensored up, gucci OPVs that will spend most of their life re-supplying DOC islands, flying the flag in the islands and patrolling the southern ocean.
Equip the types properly for their relevant tasks and focus instead of trying to have everyship in the fleet at its 'max' potential. On the anti-piracy subject our govt has twice declined sending frigates so what would be the point of fitting out more ships to be able to do the job. Surely the 2 ANZACS are not just for excercises and NZ ops otherwise they are a waste and we would just get more numbers of a smaller class but the fact is frigates give us reach, options and punch therefore are IMHO needed (although I once thought that about ACF and look what happened).

helos- again the same, tailor to suit their respective tasks(or majority of) so no need for every one to be a overly expensive asset for no real need.

The RNZN of tommorow I would like to see and fitted out accordingly is therefore:

3 frigates (concentrate on these for mid-major combat,ie 99 ET, MEAO anti-piracy))
2 OPVs (for the low end/ minimum conflict patrolling, ie Bougainville, poachers)
1 MR tanker (secondary minor lift capability for small deployments/added capacity)
1 MRV (primary lift with added self-protection ie phalanx or similar CIWS)
1 Littoral (covers navy 'other' tasks through modularity ie divers/survey/civ tasks)
4 IPVs (local needs ie illegal fisheries/civ tasks/customs)

3 fully gucci naval 90s/60s (90s for commonality with RNZAF or 60s with RAN)
2 marinsed 90s/60s (basic less sensors, more for lift and supply)
2 marinised A109s (commonality with RNZAF, again basic)

-NFH90s would keep fleet types down but if not fully squared then romeo60s maybe turn out a better option in the long run. Also think Sweden has a naval version of A109 (with shorter tail and presumably folding rotors, strengthened landing gear) so marinised variants are out there and are surely cheaper to aqquire and operate then a 90/60 type.

No vastly drastic pipe dream numbers or classes but enough to do the job effectively.

The helos would cover the 3 frigates, 2 support vessels and 2 OPVs taking into account not every vessel will be at sea at any given time or that a ship will in fact require helo support on every deployment to cover maintanence, training and availability(maybe more efficient maint cycles would be required).
The slim numbers are for 1 for 1 seasprites and the 2 109s being freed up from when RNZAF gets the extra 3 frames. More numbers and fully specced would obviously make life easier but I am just accounting for our 'financial' constraints and govt way of thinking of make due, make it work. Somehow aircraft fleets are not like LAVIIIs and instead you get bare minimum.

The only other extra that has not already been mooted by govt shipwise (or at least was) was the 3rd frigate which I think is operationally required to maintain at least 1 always available for new/unexpected/urgent tasking. It is also a big ticket item so in these lean times a big ask when added to the list of other capabilities, if done properly anyway.

Just my thoughts anyway

 

[ngatimozart]

Somebody in the 1980's pinched (or neglected to return to put it more kindly) a parachute from the RNZAF S & S boys and his IPC crew then proceeded to perform para-sailing experiments Club Med style.

One of the water-skiing incidents happened at Milford Sound. An ex crew member told me they got snapped because a very senior defence force person holidaying with his foreign guests saw it happen from a nearby tourist boat. Needless to say a very dim view was taken of it by COMAUCK.

It wasn't us that liberated the chute. Probably the crew off the Moa. If we had acquired a chute you wouldn't have known who had taken it. I've got photos of us skiing in the Sounds. We used to pick are quiet location because a few Admirals had bachs around the Sounds. IPCs could only do 12 knots and that was down hill woth a tail wind. If riding the boogy board had to be on the ball or othewise joined the submarine service real quick because it would dive real quick.

 

[ngatimozart]

Just my veiws on the recent subs, OPV, helo talk,

Subs- laughable actually: limited NZ useful options, expensive, technically intensive, crew intensive(training and retention wise), therefore would have been a waste of time, money and capability. Leave them to the big navies.

OPVs- We maintain the frigates to take care of the high end tasks, OPVs for the low end and anything in between shared dependant on which end of the scale it falls. Lets be honest NZ low end is anything from a disgruntled poacher to a drug smuggleing pirate so do we need up-gunned, sensored up, gucci OPVs that will spend most of their life re-supplying DOC islands, flying the flag in the islands and patrolling the southern ocean.
Equip the types properly for their relevant tasks and focus instead of trying to have everyship in the fleet at its 'max' potential. On the anti-piracy subject our govt has twice declined sending frigates so what would be the point of fitting out more ships to be able to do the job. Surely the 2 ANZACS are not just for excercises and NZ ops otherwise they are a waste and we would just get more numbers of a smaller class but the fact is frigates give us reach, options and punch therefore are IMHO needed (although I once thought that about ACF and look what happened).

helos- again the same, tailor to suit their respective tasks(or majority of) so no need for every one to be a overly expensive asset for no real need.

The RNZN of tommorow I would like to see and fitted out accordingly is therefore:

3 frigates (concentrate on these for mid-major combat,ie 99 ET, MEAO anti-piracy))
2 OPVs (for the low end/ minimum conflict patrolling, ie Bougainville, poachers)
1 MR tanker (secondary minor lift capability for small deployments/added capacity)
1 MRV (primary lift with added self-protection ie phalanx or similar CIWS)
1 Littoral (covers navy 'other' tasks through modularity ie divers/survey/civ tasks)
4 IPVs (local needs ie illegal fisheries/civ tasks/customs)

3 fully gucci naval 90s/60s (90s for commonality with RNZAF or 60s with RAN)
2 marinsed 90s/60s (basic less sensors, more for lift and supply)
2 marinised A109s (commonality with RNZAF, again basic)

-NFH90s would keep fleet types down but if not fully squared then romeo60s maybe turn out a better option in the long run. Also think Sweden has a naval version of A109 (with shorter tail and presumably folding rotors, strengthened landing gear) so marinised variants are out there and are surely cheaper to aqquire and operate then a 90/60 type.

No vastly drastic pipe dream numbers or classes but enough to do the job effectively.

The helos would cover the 3 frigates, 2 support vessels and 2 OPVs taking into account not every vessel will be at sea at any given time or that a ship will in fact require helo support on every deployment to cover maintanence, training and availability(maybe more efficient maint cycles would be required).
The slim numbers are for 1 for 1 seasprites and the 2 109s being freed up from when RNZAF gets the extra 3 frames. More numbers and fully specced would obviously make life easier but I am just accounting for our 'financial' constraints and govt way of thinking of make due, make it work. Somehow aircraft fleets are not like LAVIIIs and instead you get bare minimum.

The only other extra that has not already been mooted by govt shipwise (or at least was) was the 3rd frigate which I think is operationally required to maintain at least 1 always available for new/unexpected/urgent tasking. It is also a big ticket item so in these lean times a big ask when added to the list of other capabilities, if done properly anyway.

Just my thoughts anyway

Agre on most except the OPVs. I reckon we ned another 2 max 3, with a 57mm or 76mm gun up for'ard. Yes the NZG declined twice to send frigate for the antipracy TF but I would surmise because we didn't have one available. The OPVs would be ideal for that role. Also the extra OPVs means we can have a greater presence in the SW Pacific and the Southern Ocean. A 3rd frigate is definitely needed. My reckonoing is that having 4 or 5 OPVs takes some of the pressure of the frigates and means that they get to have maintenace done when it is due and it's con been alwys put off because of operational requirements. Secondly reduces wera and tear on frigates, so they will last longer in a better condition. Also means more preventative maintenance, that does not need dockyard support, is done. In the long term this may be a very cost effective option.

 

[MrConservative]

It wasn't us that liberated the chute. Probably the crew off the Moa. If we had acquired a chute you wouldn't have known who had taken it. I've got photos of us skiing in the Sounds. We used to pick are quiet location because a few Admirals had bachs around the Sounds. IPCs could only do 12 knots and that was down hill woth a tail wind. If riding the boogy board had to be on the ball or othewise joined the submarine service real quick because it would dive real quick.

The waterskiing trick was done on the Taupo in the early to mid 80's. Those Lake class were a bit quicker than the Moa's - frankly what wasn't - though a lot wobblier when on the watery stuff of course. You are going to have to put the more amusing snaps up on the DT gallery Ngati.

 

[ngatimozart]

The waterskiing trick was done on the Taupo in the early to mid 80's. Those Lake class were a bit quicker than the Moa's - frankly what wasn't - though a lot wobblier when on the watery stuff of course. You are going to have to put the more amusing snaps up on the DT gallery Ngati.

Yes I will and I never said I was on the Moa, which I wasn't. I just blamed them for acquiring a certain item. They also got blame for the misappropriation of a brand new dunny that was sitting on the jetty at the Portage in the Sounds one FTP. It was another IPC that "borrowed" it because the crew were sick of a certain CPO whinging about not having a proper head to sit on. I wasn't on that trip so no photos. I have to dig some photos out. they are in a box somewhere.

 

[Lucasnz]

Probably the crew off the Moa.

We were always the best..

With regards to the Admirals barge I seem to recall that many years ago it was a CPO that was in charge.

 

[ngatimozart]

We were always the best..

With regards to the Admirals barge I seem to recall that many years ago it was a CPO that was in charge.

Well who was ever in charge yesterday is up a certain creek in a barbed wire waka without a paddle. If it was a CPO he mightn't remain one much longer, or he'' lose a lot of seniority. Then again it could've been a stoker or greeny to so you know the old story the fresh air is harmful to the likes of them :smilie

I though of going back in because age is no barrier now but what's the point being a reserve and no ship to go to sea in. That was why I went in in the first place. If I wanted to be a barrack stanchion I would've joined a girlie branch or the TF. I also thought of the droggy branch because I done a bit of shallow water surveying and it's one of my professional interests. However I have my prejudices having been on the lower deck and I've acquired some uni qualifications along the way. I don't really want to be dragged up through the hawse pipe ending up as a snotty, and I don't want to start as an OD again. I was a 2 badged ASEA when I left because I dragged across 8 years undetected crime in the RNZAF and if I stayed in a bit longer would have got my third badge. I do love the life but honestly I can make more money working for myself.

 

[RegR]

Agre on most except the OPVs. I reckon we ned another 2 max 3, with a 57mm or 76mm gun up for'ard. Yes the NZG declined twice to send frigate for the antipracy TF but I would surmise because we didn't have one available. The OPVs would be ideal for that role. Also the extra OPVs means we can have a greater presence in the SW Pacific and the Southern Ocean. A 3rd frigate is definitely needed. My reckonoing is that having 4 or 5 OPVs takes some of the pressure of the frigates and means that they get to have maintenace done when it is due and it's con been alwys put off because of operational requirements. Secondly reduces wera and tear on frigates, so they will last longer in a better condition. Also means more preventative maintenance, that does not need dockyard support, is done. In the long term this may be a very cost effective option.

Just going off what the Govt would do and they are the ones picking up the tab, If anything we are getting less ships and consolidating what we do have into single hulls (or maybe even cutting altogether) so I realistically do not see extra ships coming our way.

We have not got anything above and beyond or even 1 for 1 in decades and bar a major shift in our defence posture I do not see this trend changing anytime soon, some have plugged known deficiencies or created efficiencies whilst other areas have been left lacking eg.
Monowai and Tui turned into Resoloution
4 leander frigates turned into 2 frigates, 1 MRV and 2 OPVs(2 OPVs = 1 frigate)
5 IPCs now 4 IPVs
Manawanui and Reso will combine into new littoral
Endeavour replacement should have more options

So not looking good for more ships of any type no matter how much sense it makes, tasks it covers properly or even money it will eventually save. This trend is also evident in the other 2 services at the moment especially.

 

[MrConservative]

HMNZS Canterbury Woes in the NZ Media

The latest headlines regarding the HMNZS Canterbury

HMNZS Canterbury | Remedial Work For Navy's Problem... | Stuff.co.nz

Here are the issues listed in the article:

Canterbury's rigid-hulled inflatable boat alcoves were too close to the waterline.

The landing craft were badly designed, which led to cracking in the bow ramp doors.

The ship's propellers came out of the water in heavy seas, causing engine damage.

The ship handles poorly in rough weather. Improvements to ballast and the fuel-transfer system needed.

The anti-roll system does not work in heavy conditions.

An inability to track helicopters by radar at the required range and height.

Waves crashing over the front of the ship could wreck its gun.

Is this really the right ship for a post 2020 force? My view is that once this "thing" has done 15 years of service circa 2021 we must replace it with a proper milspec LPD. Maybe the 3rd time we try to acquire a decent amphibious ability we might get it right. Moral of the story is not to do cornerstone projects on the cheap or half-arsed.

 

[ngatimozart]

The latest headlines regarding the HMNZS Canterbury

HMNZS Canterbury | Remedial Work For Navy's Problem... | Stuff.co.nz

Here are the issues listed in the article:

Canterbury's rigid-hulled inflatable boat alcoves were too close to the waterline.

The landing craft were badly designed, which led to cracking in the bow ramp doors.

The ship's propellers came out of the water in heavy seas, causing engine damage.

The ship handles poorly in rough weather. Improvements to ballast and the fuel-transfer system needed.

The anti-roll system does not work in heavy conditions.

An inability to track helicopters by radar at the required range and height.

Waves crashing over the front of the ship could wreck its gun.

Is this really the right ship for a post 2020 force? My view is that once this "thing" has done 15 years of service circa 2021 we must replace it with a proper milspec LPD. Maybe the 3rd time we try to acquire a decent amphibious ability we might get it right. Moral of the story is not to do cornerstone projects on the cheap or half-arsed.

Yes, since replacing Endeavour what about 2 vessels same specs? With bunkering for fuel and ATK.? Or 2 LPDs with one having, storage bunkering and ATK storage capability for RAS, as well as retaining some of its LPD capability.? What about 2 vessels the same as the LPDs the RAN are getting? (Bean counters going into cariac arrest : ) Wonder if Navantia build smaller versions of those.

 

[Gibbo]

Just going off what the Govt would do and they are the ones picking up the tab, If anything we are getting less ships and consolidating what we do have into single hulls (or maybe even cutting altogether) so I realistically do not see extra ships coming our way.

We have not got anything above and beyond or even 1 for 1 in decades and bar a major shift in our defence posture I do not see this trend changing anytime soon, some have plugged known deficiencies or created efficiencies whilst other areas have been left lacking eg.
Monowai and Tui turned into Resoloution
4 leander frigates turned into 2 frigates, 1 MRV and 2 OPVs(2 OPVs = 1 frigate)
5 IPCs now 4 IPVs
Manawanui and Reso will combine into new littoral
Endeavour replacement should have more options

So not looking good for more ships of any type no matter how much sense it makes, tasks it covers properly or even money it will eventually save. This trend is also evident in the other 2 services at the moment especially.

Actually not that long ago there were 4 survey / research vessels - Tui, Monowai, and the Inshore survey craft Takapu & Tarapunga (both same design as the IPC's) - and now there's only one - Resolution.

But Resolution is to decomm this year apparently - no replacement. They have talked about combining Resolution & Manawanui into one LWSV - but obviously the budget is stretched & they've made a call to cut the fleet now.

Guess they must be ditching the LINZ contract which I believe is being reviewed and likely to go commercial anyway. That would leave the RNZN only interested in military survey in the littorals - hence the LWSV concept. And remember tools such as REMUS AUV now allow flexible, good-quality survey without being tied to a specific hull.

Actual equation is 4 x survey + 1 dive support vessel turns into 1 LWSV - 5 down to 1! Also don't forget they dumped Kahu only 18 months ago.

All the proof you need that regardless of what we'd like, NZDF will be lucky to get 1:1 replacements and I guarantee it will be lightly armed OTS rather than high-end Mil Spec hulls. hwell

 

[MrConservative]

Yes, since replacing Endeavour what about 2 vessels same specs? With bunkering for fuel and ATK.? Or 2 LPDs with one having, storage bunkering and ATK storage capability for RAS, as well as retaining some of its LPD capability.? What about 2 vessels the same as the LPDs the RAN are getting? (Bean counters going into cariac arrest : ) Wonder if Navantia build smaller versions of those.

Have a read of this from page 30. I posted it a couple of years back on this thread.

http://www.europeansecurityanddefen...Ball%E9/Bohlayer_Ball%E9_Kaeding_ESD_0308.pdf

It is the preferred concept I like. Doesn't have to be 'the' Meko MESHD but the designs philosophy.

Korean shipyard + OTS systems + size scaling of the design concept to suit NZDF requirements and build a class of two. First one to replace the Endeavour later this decade and then the second to thankfully replace the Canterbury early next decade.

The bean counters are why things are half arsed. Half arsed el cheapo approaches costs and that has been proven twice via sealift ships in just 15 years. With the future defence force philosophy centred around joint amphibious operations, the cornerstone capability in this Sealift/Seabasing orientation must be future proofed as well as being flexible to suit the modest force size.

 

[ngatimozart]

Have a read of this from page 30. I posted it a couple of years back on this thread.

http://www.europeansecurityanddefen...Ball%E9/Bohlayer_Ball%E9_Kaeding_ESD_0308.pdf

It is the preferred concept I like. Doesn't have to be 'the' Meko MESHD but the designs philosophy.

Korean shipyard + OTS systems + size scaling of the design concept to suit NZDF requirements and build a class of two. First one to replace the Endeavour later this decade and then the second to thankfully replace the Canterbury early next decade.

The bean counters are why things are half arsed. Half arsed el cheapo approaches costs and that has been proven twice via sealift ships in just 15 years. With the future defence force philosophy centred around joint amphibious operations, the cornerstone capability in this Sealift/Seabasing orientation must be future proofed as well as being flexible to suit the modest force size.

It's a really good concept and would be ideal for NZ. Being able to have modular
components as either 20ft TEUs of 40ft TEUs across two ships of the same class would give us a really high degree of flexibility. Even the bunkerage fuel and POL can be in 20ft and 40ft TEUs because a lot of liquids, including all sorts of hazchems, are transported in tank TEUs so there is no need to have to design a new system. I note the Meko concept has placement for 14 NH90s but I think that is in the AOR role. However, being kiwis I reckon we could definitely combine the Supply Ship and Sea Transport Sea Base on one hull and the Amphib on the other. Also being modular the hull doing the Amphib role may be able to carry more stores than usual. Secondly, having two of the class you would have 4 instead of two LCM 8s or equivalents and same with LCM 6s or equivalents. Thirdly, a lot of the TEU modules could be designed and manufactured locally. That would keep the polies happy.

 

[chis73]

Just to note, the list of problems with Canterbury in the article also fails to mention that she can only operate her NH90 helicopters and transfer cargo to the landing craft in Sea State 2 or less (from the Coles report). Which means she needs to find a sheltered harbour or has to wait (& hope) for a calm day if she can't tie up in a port to unload. I don't think this limitation is going to be rectified in the upcoming refit (I assume that will fix warranty issues only ie. - ballasting/stability issues, doors for the RHIB alcoves, maybe a 3D radar for air traffic control).

Is it worth mentioning that she is supposed to be able to do EEZ & Antarctic patrols as well?

Regarding the littoral warfare support vessel, I would urge the government to drop the single vessel idea post-haste. Two smaller vessels with modular containerised diving & side-scan sonar payloads would give year-round coverage, with the option of both ships being available for a surge capacity most of the time. Give the oceanographic surveying role to NIWA as it has no military value (I can't get my head around how two government funded vessels competing against each other for the same contract was ever going to work out cheaper!). Probably a bit out of date now, but the 2008 Navy strategic plan had $120mil set aside for the LWSV. If we go modular, then perhaps AUV/ROV, survey &/or diving modules could be fitted to the OPVs for the quick-response foreign harbour clearance role envisioned in the Defence Capability Plan (presuming that doesn't require mine clearance duties). Two vessels means twice the crew costs though I suppose, but the crew of these vessels aren't any bigger than an IPV or OPV. Send an IPV back to the reserves if that's a major problem.

I've banged on about this before, but as a cheap interim solution - knock on the door of the Canadians for their MCDVs. They don't rate them, but that's because they're trying to use them as OPVs, and they have exhausted their Reserves trying to man them. As a survey / diving vessel they would do quite nicely (might want to add the bow thruster the Canadians designed it for but never fitted though, for precision station-keeping). If the Australian OCV project works out, buy into that in 10-15 years time. If it doesn't, build some MCDV-type replacements in Whangarei (I would like to see how an MCDV-type made from non-magnetic steel would work as a lower cost mine countermeasures vessel - as the Germans / Turks have done).

Chis73

 

[ngatimozart]

Just to note, the list of problems with Canterbury in the article also fails to mention that she can only operate her NH90 helicopters and transfer cargo to the landing craft in Sea State 2 or less (from the Coles report). Which means she needs to find a sheltered harbour or has to wait (& hope) for a calm day if she can't tie up in a port to unload. I don't think this limitation is going to be rectified in the upcoming refit (I assume that will fix warranty issues only ie. - ballasting/stability issues, doors for the RHIB alcoves, maybe a 3D radar for air traffic control).

Is it worth mentioning that she is supposed to be able to do EEZ & Antarctic patrols as well?

Regarding the littoral warfare support vessel, I would urge the government to drop the single vessel idea post-haste. Two smaller vessels with modular containerised diving & side-scan sonar payloads would give year-round coverage, with the option of both ships being available for a surge capacity most of the time. Give the oceanographic surveying role to NIWA as it has no military value (I can't get my head around how two government funded vessels competing against each other for the same contract was ever going to work out cheaper!). Probably a bit out of date now, but the 2008 Navy strategic plan had $120mil set aside for the LWSV. If we go modular, then perhaps AUV/ROV, survey &/or diving modules could be fitted to the OPVs for the quick-response foreign harbour clearance role envisioned in the Defence Capability Plan (presuming that doesn't require mine clearance duties). Two vessels means twice the crew costs though I suppose, but the crew of these vessels aren't any bigger than an IPV or OPV. Send an IPV back to the reserves if that's a major problem.

I've banged on about this before, but as a cheap interim solution - knock on the door of the Canadians for their MCDVs. They don't rate them, but that's because they're trying to use them as OPVs, and they have exhausted their Reserves trying to man them. As a survey / diving vessel they would do quite nicely (might want to add the bow thruster the Canadians designed it for but never fitted though, for precision station-keeping). If the Australian OCV project works out, buy into that in 10-15 years time. If it doesn't, build some MCDV-type replacements in Whangarei (I would like to see how an MCDV-type made from non-magnetic steel would work as a lower cost mine countermeasures vessel - as the Germans / Turks have done).

Chis73

So the longest serving one is 1996 and the shortest 1999 and they are due for a MLU. Is it really worth our while buying one or two give them a MLU and then have to put a new class in the water in 10 years time. I suppose as a quick fix it may be ok. I agree with you about two vessels for hydro and littoral warfare although I would go modular and bosth hulls can do both jobs, as you say a surge capacity.

I don't know if NIWA is the other player in the LINZ chart contracts. They wouldn't want to tie up the Tangaroa doing surveying all the time. It is very time consuming expensive and data intensive. Although the hardware is getting cheaper each year. However under the keel quality hydrograhic survey has to be very precise and it's not just matter of going over the track once.IIRC whent the Oamaru harnour and approaches were surveyed about 10 years ago the droggies were there for about 6 months. there are a few commercial companies that are branching into it now and probably could do it cheaper than NIWA. If I was a certified hydrogarapher I'd be into it like flynn because it'd be good money, however I'm not. I just do the occasional bit of shallow water stuff doing profiles. If you want to know how to do it go to the US Army Corp of Engineering website ENGINEER MANUALS. They have most of their engineering manuals online freely available. It's a very good resource.

 

[MrConservative]

This is a good read for those interested in possibilities for the LWSV.

http://media.bmt.org/bmt_media/resources/33/Howtechnologyisleadingtoanewvesseltype.pdf

Kockums SAM 3.0, REMUS, Hyperbaric & Dive Support, Survey and Rapid Environmental Assessment (REA) containerised packages all can be part of this auxillary surface combatant concept. The role optimization becomes focused on the off-board systems and not the mother platform which does not necessarily need the traditional MCM vessel’s low signature characteristics and thus can be used in other roles such as Maritime Security Operations (MSO) including Counter Interdiction, persistent EEZ patrol surveillance and presence, as well as light/limited sealift.

TKMS were offering a sealift/patrol orientation of the Meko 200 MRV to the Irish as part of their Enhanced Patrol Vessel requirement for around Eur60m, which is not too bad (they are even more tightfisted than us). Reading the above report I thought that that particluar vessel would seem a better fit than a souped up Protector Class OPV as a LWSV mothership - sort of a cheapskates Absalon Class.