Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[ngatimozart]

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.

The Kockums concept is good although I would wonder what it would be like in the Southern Ocean. I take there would be some flexibility with the hull design so ice strengthening it would be a wise move. The Meko 200 MRV is ok but IMHO a hangar would be need for embarked helo. I suppose a modular telescopic one could be built. But then there would be issues doing flight ops and working aft on the quarter deck at the same time. That is where the Kockums concept is much better. I had a partial read through the Irish navy thread about their MRV & OPV builds. Got to about page 4 to where Uncle helen was mentioned saying that the Absalom class be to violent for her. True too. Was quite interesting and you are right about them being tight arsed. Actually they make us look like big spenders. I also noted that the army reigns supreme in their defence structure. A bit of an aberation that.

 

[MrConservative]

The Kockums concept is good although I would wonder what it would be like in the Southern Ocean. I take there would be some flexibility with the hull design so ice strengthening it would be a wise move. The Meko 200 MRV is ok but IMHO a hangar would be need for embarked helo. I suppose a modular telescopic one could be built. But then there would be issues doing flight ops and working aft on the quarter deck at the same time. That is where the Kockums concept is much better. I had a partial read through the Irish navy thread about their MRV & OPV builds. Got to about page 4 to where Uncle helen was mentioned saying that the Absalom class be to violent for her. True too. Was quite interesting and you are right about them being tight arsed. Actually they make us look like big spenders. I also noted that the army reigns supreme in their defence structure. A bit of an aberation that.

At 47m the larger of the Kockums MCM designs are unsuitable for the rationale outlined in the article. A single Kockums would not suffice. Though the MCM toolkit approach is great thinking. The mothership / auxillary surface combatant concept stipulates that a 110m hull would be optimal and says that anything less than 90m is marginal in effectiveness. There is a hanger on the Meko 200 MRV but this was deleted for the design concept that the Irish wanted. For some reason they have a thing about helicopters on vessels. Nevertheless a hanger and a deployed rotary asset would be useful when such a ship is tasked doing non MCM or Survey roles such as outer Island supply or as a gap cover for EZZ patrol (just like the Manawanui was forced into in recent years) since we only have two OPV's. It can be used as storage, workshop or more importantly used for half court basketball.

 

[the road runner]

HMNZ Endeavour was in Sydney harbour today(14/02/2012).She was moored at Clifton Gardens,so i took a few pics.Hope its ok to post these pictures here.

 

[icelord]

We would have berthed Endeavour at FBE, but last week someone complained in the media about cruise ships not getting access to berthing on a navy base, so we gave preference to QM2...

 

[aussienscale]

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.

2 LPD's ? Guessing you mean the LHD's ? Or reffering to the Choules ?

Either or, Navantia does have smaller options for both. The Coules (Ex RN Bay Class) is just an up-sized version of the Spanish Galicia Class LPD built by Navantia

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galicia_class_landing_platform_dock"]Galicia class landing platform dock - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

They also have a design for a smaller version of the LHD's, IIRC it is around the
190m 17,500t ? and from memory does not have the ski ramp

 

[Sea Toby]

2 LPD's ? Guessing you mean the LHD's ? Or reffering to the Choules ?

Either or, Navantia does have smaller options for both. The Coules (Ex RN Bay Class) is just an up-sized version of the Spanish Galicia Class LPD built by Navantia

Galicia class landing platform dock - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They also have a design for a smaller version of the LHD's, IIRC it is around the
190m 17,500t ? and from memory does not have the ski ramp

Navantia in the past have also marketed the Damen Enforcer 8000, the other ship ADI offered for the MRV several years ago. New Zealand chose the Merwede/Tenix ferry design, the Canterbury instead.

 

[recce.k1]

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.

Agree, ditto HMNZS Canterbury*. The single LWSV and Sealift vessel capability are also integral for the Joint Amphibious Task Force which surely would be at risk of failure (as in both operationally and as in meeting NZG funded objectives and outputs, should said single vessel be unavailable eg in refit or on another deployment).

NZDF need to make the case for 2 modular LWSV's (it's not too late re next defence review 2015). Naturally the fiscally prudent NZDF would be requiring the second vessel on paper as a training asset i.e. fiscally prudent not to be asking for both doubling the LWSV fleet and doubling the crewing and support requirements aka costs (heh, heh)! NZDF would have just the one operational vessel with crew(s), the second vessel would allow for training (for deployment), stand-by vessel if first unavailable and more so what NZDF needs to emphasis to the bean counters is that the current (and usual) policy of having lesser assets and overusing them is resulting in unreliability in terms of wear and tear on the one-hand and reduced maintenance opportunities on the other hand as said vessel is expected to cover contingencies. Also provides for a surge requirement. And heaven help us if said vessel was sunk or suffered major damage. We'd end up losing the capability for lack of opportunity for the crew!

*Canterbury needs that Endeavour replacement to be funded for the extra strategic sealift capability. Mind you that's no use if the Endeavour/replacement is in SEA or MEO etc. The better idea has been floated (Mr C) of replacing her early at the MLU point (if funding injection found) and perhaps keeping Canterbury as a secondary sealift/training vessel. Makes some sense a la JATF capability support. It cannot be let down, by the very single thing the CDF wants to move away from - the single ship (single type) concept when he outlined the NZDF's new direction.

 

[recce.k1]

RNZN Future Frigate requirements

Just nicked this from the current RN thread (thanks chaps).

The type 26 Global Combat Ship aka multi-role warship.
Type 26 Frigate - Global Combat Ship datasheet pictures photos video specifications

Now I'm not wishing to get into a pointless GCS v ANZAC II whizzing contest but wish to comment on the user requirements the NZDF should be advocating for (and also gain public support along the way).

(Quick backgrounder, in recent years NZG's (of both hues) have accepted the changing world situation (less likely to be inter-state conflict but instead intra-state) coupled with both greater multi-lateral peace-keeping and enforcement requests, fragile post-colonial nations in parts of Asia/Pacific requiring stabilising but the world situation is still fragile, power balances/relationships changing and uncertainty, enough to still require, support and maintain some (niche) combat capabilities (although nich is a bit of a dirty word when it comes to niche decisions and specialisation as it impacts life and death for the NZDF). I'm saying this preamble to indicate NZG's of both hues should be taking the ANZAC Frigate replacement programme seriously in light of the world situation and NZ's interests and not repeat the ANZAC I procurement debarcle of changing the procurement on various occasions).

So using the CGS as an example (presumably the ANZAC II will be similar) there's very little in there I believe ought to ommited for the NZDF (and their requirements to support Govt policy and "outputs").

To win the debate the NZDF ought to put as much effort into explaining the capabilities to the public (this is a true multi-role frigate, not a single-use "gun boat" as the peaceniks try and portray).

Take the mission bay, the space that is "capable of carrying multiple boats for boarding and interception, sonars and unmanned vehicles" would be ideal for both miltary and civilian functions even in "benign" NZ & Pacific, let alone medium-higher threat taskings). The public would appreciate that option also allows better search and boarding options for the likes of anti-piracy, EEZ patrols to good old SAR. Options (modular equipment) could also allow for fast reaction environmental protection at sea eg helo'd in from the mainland or another vessel) in this area, neigbourhood or the wider region. Added flexibility for deplying manned and unmanned craft depending on the requirement.

Twin hangers : a must for helo and UAV's. The public can relate to deploying UAV's (multiple UAV's if required) for searching wide areas at sea. Could be anything from a military contact to searching for ships or shipwrecks/survivors at sea. Could use UAV's to map enviromental spills etc. So twin hanger capability is a go-er.

Armament: People realise the need for self-defence systems to protect from a range of high-tech to low-tech threats in this modern age. Offensive, well it is a warship so needs offensive weapons of some sort. Anyway not here to debate the weaponry that's a seperate issue depending on where the (worse case) the NZG's would see these vessels deployed to (more likely requirement is for local and regional defence and escorting functions etc).

Sensors: capabillty here to protect a JATF in low-medium-threat environments (thinking ASW due to subs ability to operate anywhere) and with international partners, which means interoperable. Ability to defend from missiles be they sea or air launched.

All I can say is NZDF need to talk about their requirements if they wish to gain greater public buy-in. The debates on the past (ANZAC) were in an era of controlled media access (including the right to reply, usually stiffled by a partisan media) which is no longer the case nowadays, nuclear aniliation (no longer the same situation) and an apathetic public not understanding the the NZDF's role in the Cold War (again no longer the case with the deployment tempos of recent decades). These Future Frigates are multi-role and better suited to the multi-faceted world NZ and NZ'ers see themselves in and looking forward. The public also have a greater understanding of the need to stabilise fragile states and the public also understand threats and problems can be food, water, climate, environmental, piracy, criminal related, not only military, but it is the military that has a role in assisting with these problems (and where needed, to be backed up with force) with their wide range of interoprable capabilities. Win-win surely nowadays!

 

[Lucasnz]

Navy Today is reporting two small vessels name "Takapu" and "Tarapunga" are being acquired for the Littoral Warfare Support Force. Capable of Transiting at upto 24knots to a min nautical mile range of 150nm. Does anyone have any further information on these. Haven't been able to find anything on the net.

 

[ngatimozart]

Navy Today is reporting two small vessels name "Takapu" and "Tarapunga" are being acquired for the Littoral Warfare Support Force. Capable of Transiting at upto 24knots to a min nautical mile range of 150nm. Does anyone have any further information on these. Haven't been able to find anything on the net.

Nice to know that they are bringing back two names from the past. Takapu and Tarapunga were the last two white boats that were IPC ships used by the drogy branch A07 & A08 were the pennant numbers.

 

[chis73]

Haven't had a chance to see the latest Navy Today, but perhaps the vessels are related to the picture on page 14 of this presentation (link) from last year's NZ Defence Industry Association forum. Anyone have details on the REA boat? Presumably that's it on the left. Looks very small.

The other presentations on the site are well worth a look. Probably more suitable for discussion in the NZDF General discussion thread though.

Chis73

 

[MrConservative]

Navy Today is reporting two small vessels name "Takapu" and "Tarapunga" are being acquired for the Littoral Warfare Support Force. Capable of Transiting at upto 24knots to a min nautical mile range of 150nm. Does anyone have any further information on these. Haven't been able to find anything on the net.

At a guess they will be replacements for the SMB Adventure and wont be commissioned as such. Still nice to see those old names being bought back. QWest from Wanganui do a nice line in small cat vessels as per the recent Police craft and the Tauranga Pilot vessel.

 

[ngatimozart]

Haven't had a chance to see the latest Navy Today, but perhaps the vessels are related to the picture on page 14 of this presentation (link) from last year's NZ Defence Industry Association forum. Anyone have details on the REA boat? Presumably that's it on the left. Looks very small.

The other presentations on the site are well worth a look. Probably more suitable for discussion in the NZDF General discussion thread though.

Chis73

Chis I copied & pasted this over to NZDF thread for discussion and for reasons you suggested.
NM

 

[RegR]

Navy Today is reporting two small vessels name "Takapu" and "Tarapunga" are being acquired for the Littoral Warfare Support Force. Capable of Transiting at upto 24knots to a min nautical mile range of 150nm. Does anyone have any further information on these. Haven't been able to find anything on the net.

Just read the latest Navy today online and could'nt find the reference you are talking about, could you maybe post the story?

Could the combineing of roles into a single Littoral hull mean they they will be re-instating the inshore survey craft portion for dedicated local stuff ala the old Takapu and Tarapunga. Also unsure what the REA vessel will be (dam acronyms), maybe a naval per could offer an explanation. If REA is an Adventure replacement Adventure is carried aboard Resolution but the 2 vessels have different intro into service timelines therefore suggest not 1 in the same. Could just be the 2 new names for any Reso/Adventure replacements, although how old is SMB Adventure? thought it would at least last until the littoral arrives.

Maybe the vessel damaged on Waitangi is the REA? Would have thought that would just be a plug, patch and paint job?

 

[recce.k1]

Reg, NT issue 165 (alas not online, the NT's online are so out of date it's not funny eg #161 June 2011. Might pay to nip down to the local library for a read of #165 or subscribe - when I did I got some nice Protector vessel key rings)!

In essence the two new boats (Takapu & Tarapunga) are, quote, "designed to support mine counter measures and REA operations (Rapid Environmental Assessment). These boats will be deployable by sea, air and land ..... providing LWSF (Littoral Warfare Support Force) with an organic over-the-horizon boat capability".

So yes, a small vessel then, capable of being air lifted (via C-130 presumably ... and/or NH90 via Canterbury I wonder?). And no doubt be carried on the future LWS replacement/vessel mothership.

NT reports the REA capability is a sub-unit of DHSU (Deployable Hydrographic Survey unit) which with the other sub-unit OSU (Operational Survey Unit) forms the MST (Maritime Survey Team). The MST Commanding Officer states "If we are part of an Amphibious Task Group the role of the MST is twofold. Ahead of any operation or exercise the team can conduct a detailed survey of wharves, beaches and other potential landing areas...... This data can be used for the initial planning stages of an operation or exercise".

"... The second role will be part of the ADVFOROP where in permissive conditions the team will conduct a REA of the landing area confirming that data held is correct as well as identifying obstacles for removal by the Operational Dive Team (ODT)".

The LWSF group comprises MCMT (Mine Countermeasures Team), MST, ODT and Command element.

LSWF are an important element for the proposed Joint Amphibious Task Group, hence the role/capability enhancements etc.

NT states LWSF will be going to RIMPAC 2012.

 

[Gibbo]

Reg, NT issue 165 (alas not online, the NT's online are so out of date it's not funny eg #161 June 2011. Might pay to nip down to the local library for a read of #165 or subscribe - when I did I got some nice Protector ship key rings)!

In essence the two new boats (Takapu & Tarapunga) are, quote, "designed to support mine counter measures and REA operations (Rapid Environmental Assessment). These boats will be deployable by sea, air and land ..... providing LWSF (Littoral Warfare Support Force) with an organic over-the-horizon boat capability".

So yes, a small vessel then, capable of being air lifted (via C-130 presumably ... and/or NH90 via Canterbury I wonder?). And no doubt be carried on the future LWS replacement/vessel mothership.

NT reports the REA capability is a sub-unit of DHSU (Deployable Hydrographic Survey unit) which with the other sub-unit OSU (Operational Survey Unit) forms the MST (Maritime Survey Team). The MST Commanding Officer states "If we are part of an Amphibious Task Group the role of the MST is twofold. Ahead of any operation or exercise the team can conduct a detailed survey of wharves, beaches and other potential landing areas...... This data can be used for the initial planning stages of an operation or exercise".

"... The second role will be part of the ADVFOROP where in permissive conditions the team will conduct a REA of the landing area confirming that data held is correct as well as identifying obstacles for removal by the Operational Dive Team".

The LWSF group comprises MCMT (Mine Countermeasures Team), MST, ODT and Command element.

LSWF are an important element for the proposed Joint Amphibious Task Group, hence the role/capability enhancements etc.

LWSF will be going to RIMPAC 2012.

Yeah quite an interesting article. Given they are likely to be shoved in a C-130 or slapped on the deck of a RNZN vessel I suspect the new boats will be a larger sized RHIB specifically configured for the task.

p.s. the boat that got hulled was the 'Admirals barge' - the green thing at the top in this link...(now with a blue hull)
RNZN - Philomel Boats

 

[RegR]

Reg, NT issue 165 (alas not online, the NT's online are so out of date it's not funny eg #161 June 2011. Might pay to nip down to the local library for a read of #165 or subscribe - when I did I got some nice Protector vessel key rings)!

In essence the two new boats (Takapu & Tarapunga) are, quote, "designed to support mine counter measures and REA operations (Rapid Environmental Assessment). These boats will be deployable by sea, air and land ..... providing LWSF (Littoral Warfare Support Force) with an organic over-the-horizon boat capability".

So yes, a small vessel then, capable of being air lifted (via C-130 presumably ... and/or NH90 via Canterbury I wonder?). And no doubt be carried on the future LWS replacement/vessel mothership.

NT reports the REA capability is a sub-unit of DHSU (Deployable Hydrographic Survey unit) which with the other sub-unit OSU (Operational Survey Unit) forms the MST (Maritime Survey Team). The MST Commanding Officer states "If we are part of an Amphibious Task Group the role of the MST is twofold. Ahead of any operation or exercise the team can conduct a detailed survey of wharves, beaches and other potential landing areas...... This data can be used for the initial planning stages of an operation or exercise".

"... The second role will be part of the ADVFOROP where in permissive conditions the team will conduct a REA of the landing area confirming that data held is correct as well as identifying obstacles for removal by the Operational Dive Team (ODT)".

The LWSF group comprises MCMT (Mine Countermeasures Team), MST, ODT and Command element.

LSWF are an important element for the proposed Joint Amphibious Task Group, hence the role/capability enhancements etc.

NT states LWSF will be going to RIMPAC 2012.

Cheers recce, rare to find a NT here at the moment but good info. So they are relatively small craft for more inshore type work tho not as large as their namesakes if they are air portable. Nice some added tools for the amphib task group with flow on civil/disaster applications.

REA also sounds like it could be a response to the Rena mess and would probably be navys rapid response to any future such event in peacetime

 

[MrConservative]

So they are relatively small craft for more inshore type work tho not as large as their namesakes if they are air portable. Nice some added tools for the amphib task group with flow on civil/disaster applications.

REA also sounds like it could be a response to the Rena mess and would probably be navys rapid response to any future such event in peacetime

Interesting that you pick up those points Reg. I notice that in the presentation the LWSV slide has a small picture of the Nowegian multipurpose vessels CGV Harstad with a couple of the older NoCG vessels as well. One of their roles is Environmental Protection and Towing (mmmm Rena) as well as offshore EZZ customs and fisheries patrols. Also Aker Yards (STX) are known quantities in the ROV side of things and the vessel are ICE Class 1B and have space for 4 TEU’s and sufficient cranage to lift an alloy SMB of the size of Adventure. The Bofors 40 can be mounted. Thus can see exactly where this is heading. CN Tony Parr has a thing about Scando ships and the images for the Endeavour replacement have that old Scando Aker Yards look about them.

 

[recce.k1]

Mr C, that vessel appears to be the Norwegian Coast Guard Icebreaker/OPV KV Svalbard W303 (as Chis73 mentions on NZDF thread today).
SVALBARD - Vessel's Details and Current Position - 8640387 - 259040000
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NoCGV_Svalbard"]NoCGV Svalbard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Presumably the vessels shown in the Slideshow are illustrative, but interesting this vessel was chosen, could there be something in that? She's large, but look at the price at the time, not too far off from the price of the Protector Class OPV & has small crewing requirements. (But could she keep up with the JATF vessels as she is even slightly slower than HMNZS Canterbury)?

It would certainly add to NZ's presence in the Antarctic (following on from the ice strengthened Protector OPV's) ... but realistically at the end of the day I guess it could be one of many concepts Defence has in mind.

 

[MrConservative]

Ah - I should double check with wiki shouldn't I. Me thought it was the Harstad - another Norwegian ship being close but no cigar. The Svalbard is nearly Absalon Class size wise - a biggie in weight though a bit short for the Southern Ocean - would stretch it by another 10-15m to be on the safe side - eh.

Edit: Zooming the photo to show the pennant number - yep its the Svalbard.

The Danes and the Norwegians really put into perspective how completely under equiped the RNZN is with respect to patrol vessels per actual size of EEZ. I am starting to think that 11 vesels is going to lead to policy failure - not that it is not policy failure already - just worst than the usual standard of NZDF policy failure.