Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[aussienscale]

We'd get one past the public but possibly not two and I don't think we could crew two plus the rest of the Navy. Be nice though. We'd probably get the the pollies to accept the concept have some difficulty getting them to accept the dollar cost and only way to get treasury to accept it without a fight would be to hold a 9mm Sig-Sauers to their heads, unfortunately. I am sure a 9mm close to ones head would show them the error of their ways.

The interesting thing is that the Endeavour will be replaced before Canterbury and the story is that an AOR with an MRV capability is favoured,so I would presume be larger than Endeavour. I was wondering if the Spanish Armada vessel, Cantabria, that will be operating with RAN from Feb to November next year would be a suitable vessel apart from its lack multirole capability although it does have a good sized flight deck. Surely the RNZN will send some people to give it a good once over whilst it is in this part of the world.


you've left out most of Western Australia

Or maybe something along the lines of the Mars/BMT AEGIR Tanker or JSS style ship in combination with a Athlas 13000 LHD would be acceptable, and offer a lot to the table for NZ, I am sure though that if the RAN were to go a Cantabria that it would make sense for NZ to go the same, I have no doubt that the RNZN will be having a close look at her while she is here. Would be interesting who offers the better deal, Daewoo of South Korea with the Mars or Navantia in Spain with the Cantabria ?

W who ? yes it does, was the best example I could find as an afterthought attachment, I have seen better

Cheers

BMT Defence Services - Aegir - a family of naval fleet support ship designs

South Korean firm Daewoo wins Royal Navy tanker deal | The Economic Voice

 

[Cadredave]

Cadredave,
Yes I was aware the main thrust of your post was for 1805 consumption and that you are a current serving member of the NZDF.

NH90 will bring a huge increase in lift for defence over Super Seasprite, with Canterbury being CH47 rated would have thought the capability should be used to the fullest extent leading into a more versatile defence force in the future.

Mate,

We cant afford pipe dreams, and its no use wishing or dreaming about purchasing equipment we dont need when your ADF or the USMC has those heavy lift capabilities, medium lift is where we are at and as Mr C has rightfully identified that we need to replace our UH1H with aircraft of similar ability as the LUH is to few and too small.

 

[1805]

1850 - Your profile says 'Reading' - as in UK I guess. You've fallen for the classic european error of underestimating the size of the pacific.

There are only 3 issue with the above suggestion:

Range. Payload. Cost (both upfront and per flight hour).

I'm from the UK not from Belgium, I understand the impact of fighting over distances. Just as I first started work I recall the UK fought a war with it's nearest airbase was 3,800 miles from the fighting and 4,200 miles from the UK.

I live in London now but heres a nice picture of Reading.


It's a memorial to the 329 officers and men of the 66th/Berkshire Regt, kill at Maiwand in 1880, which is c3500 miles from the UK, amazing how things can remain current. Sadly I hear today the UK MOD has reported a Grenadier Guard killed by an IED yesterday in Afghanstan.

The changed attitude to casualties, the political impact and greater duty of care to military personnel, has seen a rapid growth in AFV size (this was happening anyway if you look where the Israelis & Germans were heading). How realistic is it for a country like NZ to replace it's C130 with A400m or C17 (yes get access via Allies). I was suggesting better to return to a focus on seaborne vehicle transport and use cheaper commerical options for long distance logistics/personnel movement (converted or hired). The money saved could be then used on procuring top tier tactical logistic capability (V22) operated from ships providing greater flexibility than a C130.

This link is quite good:

The Future of the RAF 15

 

[1805]

No it would not meet the requirements especially as its aluminium and would not handle the Southern Ocean. The OPCvessels that the RNZN need have to handle the waters from the Equator to Antarctica so they have to be ice strengthened for a start. Then they have to be able to handle the seas between NZ and Antarctica. The RAN sent an ANZAC Frigate down south once and never again because of damage to the vessel. My opinion is that the ANZAC replacement may be based around the AWD hull but scaled down to maybe around 5000 tonnes. We would need three of those at a minimum. The OCV needs to be steel and around 2000 tonnes and the RNZN would need four or five. That way we can have one chasing pirates in the IO or elswhere, a couple doing the current Protector class OPV duties and one for littoral warfare. Of course modular built so that it's relatively easy to swap roles between hulls. They need a better armament than the current Protector class OPV (1 x 25mm Bushmaster and 2 x .50 cal) with a something like a Bushmaster 40mm gun up forrard ( http://www.atk.com/capabilities_defense/cs_as_gs_mk44_30-40mm_c.asp ), two 25mm Bushmasters aft say on top hangar, mountings for 4 x .50 cal and MAG 58 7.62mm. You don't need to have the .50 cal and 7.62mm mounted all the time and all at once, just the mountings for them with a bit of versatility. No missile armament.

This is the Protector OPV data from Protector Class Offshore Patrol Vessels - Naval Technology
The OPV has an overall length of 85m, a waterline length of 77.6m and a moulded breadth of 14m. Depth to main deck is 6.8m and design draft is 3.6m. Displacement of the boat is 1,900t. The vessel has a maximum ranger of 6,000nm at 15kt speed and an endurance of 21 days. It can complement over 80 people including core ship's company, flight personnel, agency officials and additional members. So the new OPC has to have the same range and duration, as well as accomodations.

My comments on liking the look of the Austral MRV80 were general comments in response to a post, not in anyway suggesting they would be appropriate or not for NZ. I should have prehaps emailed him direct and not posted a response in this thread. Personally I think a cheap/robust built OPV makes sense (much as you has already).

 

[RegR]

Cadredave,
Yes I was aware the main thrust of your post was for 1805 consumption and that you are a current serving member of the NZDF.

NH90 will bring a huge increase in lift for defence over Super Seasprite, with Canterbury being CH47 rated would have thought the capability should be used to the fullest extent leading into a more versatile defence force in the future.

The Cant is CH47 rated as in it has the space and deck strength for a (single) chinook to operate off it, as in land, take fuel, offload, load etc not for it to be organic to the ship.

I also think we get alittle carried away with this talk of interaoperability with RAN in terms of actual platforms as a ship is a completely different beast to something like a weapon, vehicle and to a degree aircraft. We do not need the exact same ships as Aus as we do not use each others ships as we would say borrow a truck or a steyr so there is no need. It is advantageous in terms of knowing strengths and weaknesses intimitely but the main things we co-op on are operating procedures and tactics not the actual ships per se. We crew and maintain our own ships and do not swap vessels therefore the main benefits of same type is supporting each others industry(ANZACs), knowledge base, minimised cross training and common upgrades(although even that tends to differ).

We tend to have differing priorities for eventual fitout, employment and operation anyway and when we do conduct TODs to each others units/ships there is still usually some form of training required to be signed off anyway as there are generally differing ways of doing things albeit slight in some cases, it is just the generic naval SOPs that are the same.

I still think it a good idea to combine ship procurements for ease of operation, commonality, cost, ideas, transfers etc but not at the expense of either countries operational requirements. Our needs may not nesscessarily suit Australias Ideas and their goals may not always match our direction therefore we both need to go with what works. It is pointless us buying borderline destroyers or mini carriers just because our mates got them if we cannot fit them out accordingly, maintain, operate, crew, upgrade etc especially if there is something else more cost effective that would better suit us. The sensor, support and weapon systems are good to be interlinked but this does not require the platforms to be the same.

On saying that types we could collaberate on could be the frigates(although Aus seems to want to go large), littorals and tankers to complement each other and bring down costs. We should go with min 3 frigates and be able to provide 1 for escort duties for Aus new LHDs when needed and even tanker support and be ANZAC interaoperable as in fit in to any possible task group protection systems wise not nescessarily ship wise.

 

[1805]

The two big players in the Pacific are the RAN & USN, Australia is our biggest trading partner, our two Defence Forces share common Doctrine, history and in battle. LA is 12 hours by Boeing in one direction, Singapore is 8 hours, and South America is the same distance as LA whereas Sydney is a two & a half plane trip.


[/url]

I agree on working with RAN & USN on standards/communications, and it make sense to work with Australia if you can buy better together. However when requirements do not match i.e. budgets, there might be other partners or groups that make an alternative to going it alone. (Canada, Denmark, Singapore etc.).

However I think there has to be a recognition of the relative positions and likely approaches of RAN & RNZN. The RAN can: affort, wants and really needs top tier.

 

[ngatimozart]

I'm from the UK not from Belgium, I understand the impact of fighting over distances. Just as I first started work I recall the UK fought a war with it's nearest airbase was 3,800 miles from the fighting and 4,200 miles from the UK.

Yes, well you only got through by the skin of your teeth, had help from the US and us (we took over a RN frigate patrol in the IO which freed up a frigate for the RN) and probably the Aussies and Canadians in some form or another. If the same was to happen again now the UK couldn't retake the Falklands because you have no carriers, no naval aviation strike force, no long range heavy bombers and no MPA in case the Argentinians put a sub to sea.

The changed attitude to casualties, the political impact and greater duty of care to military personnel, has seen a rapid growth in AFV size (this was happening anyway if you look where the Israelis & Germans were heading). How realistic is it for a country like NZ to replace it's C130 with A400m or C17 (yes get access via Allies). I was suggesting better to return to a focus on seaborne vehicle transport and use cheaper commerical options for long distance logistics/personnel movement (converted or hired). The money saved could be then used on procuring top tier tactical logistic capability (V22) operated from ships providing greater flexibility than a C130.[/url]

The discussion about the C130 replacements is here http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/royal-new-zealand-air-force-6601-113/ It also includes discussions on transport aircraft mixes such as A400 & C27J / C295, quite a bit on the UH1H replacement by the NH90 & A109E and the MPA involving P3K2, P8, C295MPA and Hawker Beechcraft B350 i ER. I would suggest having a good read through. You'll find a couple of common themes through the RNZN, RNZAF & NZDF threads.

But to reiterate, the V22 is not an option and never will be. The ADF are staying away from it because like us it doesn't meet their needs. They use the chooks (CH47) and the chooks will fit on Canterbury one at a time. The NZDF doesn't need chooks as is already been stated the NH90 meets our vertrep needs. If we are in need of a chook and are close to them, we can access use of the Australian Army or USMC ones, and for that matter USMC V22s.

 

[1805]

Yes, well you only got through by the skin of your teeth, had help from the US and us (we took over a RN frigate patrol in the IO which freed up a frigate for the RN) and probably the Aussies and Canadians in some form or another. If the same was to happen again now the UK couldn't retake the Falklands because you have no carriers, no naval aviation strike force, no long range heavy bombers and no MPA in case the Argentinians put a sub to sea.

The discussion about the C130 replacements is here http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/royal-new-zealand-air-force-6601-113/ It also includes discussions on transport aircraft mixes such as A400 & C27J / C295, quite a bit on the UH1H replacement by the NH90 & A109E and the MPA involving P3K2, P8, C295MPA and Hawker Beechcraft B350 i ER. I would suggest having a good read through. You'll find a couple of common themes through the RNZN, RNZAF & NZDF threads.

But to reiterate, the V22 is not an option and never will be. The ADF are staying away from it because like us it doesn't meet their needs. They use the chooks (CH47) and the chooks will fit on Canterbury one at a time. The NZDF doesn't need chooks as is already been stated the NH90 meets our vertrep needs. If we are in need of a chook and are close to them, we can access use of the Australian Army or USMC ones, and for that matter USMC V22s.

I do also look at that forum, but I was proposing the activity be split between: shipborne, ship based aircraft and commercial conversions/hire. The Osprey having potential for other capabilities.

 

[ngatimozart]

I do also look at that forum, but I was proposing the activity be split between: shipborne, ship based aircraft and commercial conversions/hire. The Osprey having potential for other capabilities.

The RNZAF fly two converted (at great expense) B757s and they cannot replace the dedicated military transport aircraft such as the C130, which are more important to NZDF needs and operations. As we have been continously repeating to you there is no way at all the the V22 Osprey will fly in NZDF service. Like we keep repeating it is of no use to us and to expensive to purchase, operate and sustain. All our ship based aircraft are rotary wing: SH2G(NZ) Seapsrite and when they fully come online the NH90 as required, plus the A109E occasionally. End of story as far as RNZN Naval Aviation goes.

 

[ADMk2]

Yes, well you only got through by the skin of your teeth, had help from the US and us (we took over a RN frigate patrol in the IO which freed up a frigate for the RN) and probably the Aussies and Canadians in some form or another. If the same was to happen again now the UK couldn't retake the Falklands because you have no carriers, no naval aviation strike force, no long range heavy bombers and no MPA in case the Argentinians put a sub to sea.

The UK's ability to retake the islands is less, but the Argentinians ability to invade is much less than it was in 1982 and the force present on the islands including 1435 flight, much superior to that available in 1982.

UK doesn't have a dedicated fixed wing maritime patrol capability, but C-130's can do the role at a pinch and between her frigate / destroyers, Merlin ASW helicopters and RN submarines any submarine capability the Argentinians could generate would be decisively outmatched.

The UK's C-17 fleet also means they could rapidly reinforce the extant infantry company as well as the FIDF and air defence facilities. Overall the idea the Argies could take them back, is pretty far-fetched.

And now back to the RNZN...

 

[deepsixteen]

Yes, well you only got through by the skin of your teeth, had help from the US and us (we took over a RN frigate patrol in the IO which freed up a frigate for the RN) and probably the Aussies and Canadians in some form or another. If the same was to happen again now the UK couldn't retake the Falklands because you have no carriers, no naval aviation strike force, no long range heavy bombers and no MPA in case the Argentinians put a sub to sea.

Hi

Thanks for the loan frigate, more of a political statement of support really; if we had needed the frigate it would have been withdrawn from the IO task and deployed (regardless of any gap) to the active conflict.

Deepsixteen

 

[Cadredave]

Hi

Thanks for the loan frigate, more of a political statement of support really; if we had needed the frigate it would have been withdrawn from the IO task and deployed (regardless of any gap) to the active conflict.

Deepsixteen

And its time to get back to RNZN needs and future capability

 

[1805]

The RNZAF fly two converted (at great expense) B757s and they cannot replace the dedicated military transport aircraft such as the C130, which are more important to NZDF needs and operations. As we have been continously repeating to you there is no way at all the the V22 Osprey will fly in NZDF service. Like we keep repeating it is of no use to us and to expensive to purchase, operate and sustain. All our ship based aircraft are rotary wing: SH2G(NZ) Seapsrite and when they fully come online the NH90 as required, plus the A109E occasionally. End of story as far as RNZN Naval Aviation goes.

I am not saying this is the answer but put it forward for consideration, but nothing said against have been particularly convincing, other than it would be a bit radical.

People are confusing long distance heavy logistics movement (which the C130 is not really a player) and tactical logistic. For the first, I think NZ can afford to rely on full runways, particularly if by doing so, they get a significant increase in range/payload. Ok B757 might not be great value, personally I think there is an agrument for the solution to be commercially based oncall solution, that is part/self funding. This is really RNZAF thread stuff.

For tactical remote locations, an Osprey is going to go where C130 can't, and as shipborne greater distances. But operating Osprey would have a significant impact on ANZAC/MRV replacement, but inline with how warship design is going, i.e. it makes sense for anyship to be able to land an Allied Chinook. The direction USV are likely to go better lauch/dock facilities may even end up on frigates. Merging the 2 classes into one would improve availablity/flexibility.

Osprey is a very new aircraft but by 2017 will have been in service 10 years, and cheaper than A400m.

NH90 is a great helicopter but for anyone to just look at the personnel capability and say little different to a V22 is silly....it's payload is greater the the MTOW!

 

[KiwiRob]

Osprey is a very new aircraft but by 2017 will have been in service 10 years, and cheaper than A400m.

You can't transport an NZLAV in an Osprey, you can in a A400, one makes sense for NZ the other doesn't, plus with the engine problems the Osprey has we couldn't afford to run it.

 

[Bonza]

The RNZAF fly two converted (at great expense) B757s and they cannot replace the dedicated military transport aircraft such as the C130, which are more important to NZDF needs and operations. As we have been continously repeating to you there is no way at all the the V22 Osprey will fly in NZDF service. Like we keep repeating it is of no use to us and to expensive to purchase, operate and sustain. All our ship based aircraft are rotary wing: SH2G(NZ) Seapsrite and when they fully come online the NH90 as required, plus the A109E occasionally. End of story as far as RNZN Naval Aviation goes.

I want to re-iterate this post as a moderator because this V-22 discussion is utter nonsense and I don't want to see the same dead horse getting beaten for page after page, as has happened in the past, and I'm sure the same is true of my Kiwi cousins in this thread.

It's not an option, it makes no sense for consideration as an option, done, finished.

 

[Sea Toby]

Some folks are confusing New Zealand with a larger nation, New Zealand's population is only 4 million or so, not 20 or 30 million. Implying New Zealand could afford a baby LHD is way off the mark, New Zealand couldn't even afford a proper LSD, settling for a militarized civilian ferry. Now folks are suggesting New Zealand buy a new replenishment ship nations of 50 million are buying. Again, way off the mark. This is what New Zealand can afford, a slightly larger and more capable cheap replenishment oiler similar to the Endeavour.

 

[Todjaeger]

Some folks are confusing New Zealand with a larger nation, New Zealand's population is only 4 million or so, not 20 or 30 million. Implying New Zealand could afford a baby LHD is way off the mark, New Zealand couldn't even afford a proper LSD, settling for a militarized civilian ferry. Now folks are suggesting New Zealand buy a new replenishment ship nations of 50 million are buying. Again, way off the mark. This is what New Zealand can afford, a slightly larger and more capable cheap replenishment oiler similar to the Endeavour.

If the NZDF operating & acquisition budget in real terms was higher than ~0.7% GDP, then a baby LHD and many other things would be possible. When looking at what the published NZDF budget is, one must remember that a little over 30% of the goes to the Capital Charge (essentially just moving figures around on a ledger) and does not actually represent funding that is available for the NZDF to use to pay personnel, maintain, operate, or acquire equipment.

What that works out to, is that of an annual NZDF budget of ~NZ$2.9 bil. roughly NZ$900 mil. goes to capital charge. IIRC there is a somewhat separate account for NZDF capital acquisitions, but the NZDF could certainly afford more personnel (and better paid too) and kit with an extra NZ$900 mil. p.a. in the kitty.

-Cheers

 

[1805]

If the NZDF operating & acquisition budget in real terms was higher than ~0.7% GDP, then a baby LHD and many other things would be possible. When looking at what the published NZDF budget is, one must remember that a little over 30% of the goes to the Capital Charge (essentially just moving figures around on a ledger) and does not actually represent funding that is available for the NZDF to use to pay personnel, maintain, operate, or acquire equipment.

What that works out to, is that of an annual NZDF budget of ~NZ$2.9 bil. roughly NZ$900 mil. goes to capital charge. IIRC there is a somewhat separate account for NZDF capital acquisitions, but the NZDF could certainly afford more personnel (and better paid too) and kit with an extra NZ$900 mil. p.a. in the kitty.

-Cheers

But the point is it doesn't and is not likely to make more funds available. Merge the the MRV and frigate capability, into a larger more capable Absalon type class. Ideally with a small dock, it would provide a much more flexible and cost effective solution.

The clever thing to do would be to align with other countries with similar requirements. Maybe even the Danes when they replace of the Absalons

 

[ngatimozart]

Abe put this up on the RAN thread as a possible SEA 1180 OPV Offshore Patrol Cutters - Vigor Industrial It's one that is being presented as the new cutter for the USCG if it is accepted.

But the point is it doesn't and is not likely to make more funds available. Merge the the MRV and frigate capability, into a larger more capable Absalon type class. Ideally with a small dock, it would provide a much more flexible and cost effective solution.

The clever thing to do would be to align with other countries with similar requirements. Maybe even the Danes when they replace of the Absalons

If you work back through this thread you'll see that the Absalon has already been discussed and general opinion appeasr to be that it doesn't suit NZ conditions and needs. As we have been trying to tell you that a MRV frigate combo is not really an option because it doesn't meet RNZN requirements. You don't seem to understand the dynamics involved. The RNZN is not a green water nor a continental navy. It is a blue water navy covering vast areas of the Pacific, Indian and Southern oceans. We also need something that is bigger than the Canterbury, after all the Canterbury is a stepping stone in the amphibious learning curve. The frigates are need for other things besides amphib support. We have to work in with the RAN and the USN, especially the RAN. Aligning with countries that don't operate in this part of the world is not a good idea because they are too far away for spares, logistics support and sustainment. Working alongside and with the USN and RAN gives us the that logistics, sustainment and support.

 

[dave_kiwi]

Seems that the RNZN is to be allowed back into USN Ports:

US lifts ban on NZ navy vessels entering ports - National - NZ Herald News

heh, USA must "want" something from the RNZN .

On a more serious note - 'tis good to see, avoids more "embarrassments" ala RIMPAC 2012.