Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[Todjaeger]

The most danger to HMNZS Te Mana off N. Korea is a replay of the Cheonan trap. Queued up by allied ASW assets an NZ Seasprite could potentially drop a depth charge on the midget sub or shoot Maverick/Penguin at the sub tender while the FFH remains at stand off range. Te Mana will be staying as far as possible out of the known range of N. Korea's acoustic homing CHT-02D torpedo, so it can't chase subs with its hull mounted sonar. The Anzac's really need fitting with something equivalent to Sea Sentor, sort of underwater chaff as fitted to the RN's bombers and T45's.

A system like Praire-Masker could also make it harder to target one of the FFH's as well. What I am not so certain of though is whether it is better to have advanced countermeasures for use vs. inbound torpedoes, or if it better to have more capable sonar systems to attempt to detect a sub prior to it firing torpedoes.

Particularly since the RNZN does not currently have much in the way of ASW assets (especially for an island/archipelago nation). At present the ASW sensors available to the NZDF amount to the hull-mounted sonars of the FFH's and the MAD and sonobuoys dropped from the P-3K Orions. AFAIK sonar systems which are hull-mounted on surface vessels are not as effective as a towed sonar array, at least not passively. Also, a friend of mine (ex-USN served on a Los Angeles-class SSN his entire tour) is rather dismissive of an Orion's ability to detect a sub...

That leaves me wondering if a Kiwi vessel might not know a hostile sub was present until moments before a torpedoe would impact. This also ties in with the Cheonan incident in that even if a vessel does have a torpedoe countermeasure, the vessel would still need sufficient time to deploy the countermeasure. From what I recall of what happened with the South Korean vessel, even the survivors could not tell for certain if she had been fired upon with a torpedoe, suggesting the time between torpedoe launch and impact was so short the torpedoe was not detected. This in turn suggests that unless a countermeasure was already deployed, one would have been of little use.

-Cheers

 

[Dewey]

What I am not so certain of though is whether it is better to have advanced countermeasures for use vs. inbound torpedoes, or if it better to have more capable sonar systems to attempt to detect a sub prior to it firing torpedoes

Given the speed with which the US Navy is equipping its high value surface assets with the rapid prototyped Torpedo Warning System/Countermeasure Anti-Torpedo (TWS/CAT), and the RN specified Sea Sentor for the T45 and CVF from the get go I would argue surface ship torpedo defence is considered the new theater entry standard, just as anything that flies into Afghanistan needs a DAS fitted. "Fitted for not with" emasculates many navies combat ships, but this is an area where the USN/RN have got it right.

I cannot say whether passive warning and mortar launched counter measures would have helped the Cheonan, she was moving far too slowly and in a known patrol pattern. The Norks midget subs are slow and likely do not have passive acoustic detection any more sophisticated than the sound detectors fitted to U-Boats in WWII, but in this case all they had to do was have the sub tender deposit the midget sub in the path of the patrol and bugger off while the midget sub sat like a mine waiting for the first enemy vessel to leisurely cruise by. Poor drills on the part of the ROKN. I'm sure their ops rooms are switched on now.

Something like Sea Sentor needs to be a priority for the RNZN if it's going to patrol off N. Korea, and correct me if I'm wrong but the ANZAC's do have the space for a winch at the stern? These systems have a limited area detection capability, I do not know the range of the passive acoustic sensors but one or two ships in a patrol equipped with the kit might provide some warning to others.

 

[Dewey]

Looks like the ANZACs will in due course get renewed underwater systems and a torpedo self defence system under the ANZAC Frigate Systems Upgrade - (RFT 1-326) documentation on the 'GETS' website - Government Electronic Tenders Service (reference #38405)

 

[ngatimozart]

Looks like the ANZACs will in due course get renewed underwater systems and a torpedo self defence system under the ANZAC Frigate Systems Upgrade - (RFT 1-326) documentation on the 'GETS' website - Government Electronic Tenders Service (reference #38405)

Since you now are required to register and be approved to have a loginfor GETS these are the details from the NZMoD site:

Request for Tender (RFT)
ANZAC Frigate Systems Upgrade - (RFT 1-326) GETS reference #38405

The Royal New Zealand Navy (RNZN) ANZAC class frigates (ANZACs) have performed to their original design specification in almost all areas since their inception. However, as with any long-term complex defence system, they must be maintained and upgraded through-life to preserve capabilities, address obsolescence, respond to emerging threats and react to changes in how and where the Ships are operated.

A critical component for the RNZN is the capability to conduct combat operations and to support them. The ANZACs are key to this and it has been determined that the ANZACs require upgrades to their Combat Systems. As such, Her Majesty the Queen in right of New Zealand (through the Ministry of Defence) (the Crown) has initiated the Frigate Systems Upgrade (FSU) project (the Project).

The Project will generate a reliable and supportable ANZAC Combat System with enhanced operational availability and capability that will have a minimal drawdown on the constrained personnel and training resources within the RNZN.

The FSU as a whole will consider the replacement/addition of the following combat subsystems:

Radar suite including Identification, Friend or Foe (IFF) system;
Infra-Red Search and Track / Optronics (IRST/O) system;
Electronic Support Measures (ESM) suite;
Communications Electronic Support Measures (CESM) system;
Underwater Systems (UWS);
Combat Management System (CMS);
Tactical Data Link (TDL) system;
Local Area Air Defence (LAAD) missile system;
ASMD Soft Kill (ASK) suite; and
Torpedo Self Defence (TSD) system.

The Crown seeks to contract the services of a CSI to procure combat subsystems and integrate all new (both Contractor Furnished Equipment (CFE) and Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) subsystems to the legacy combat subsystems onboard the ANZACs to provide the complete capability defined by the System Requirements.

To facilitate this, this RFT seeks tender responses from suitably qualified and experienced CSIs, which will then be evaluated. Shortlisted Tenderers may be invited to attend an individual workshop with the Crown, the purpose of which is for the Crown to seek any clarifications on the Tenderer’s tender and to gain a fuller understanding of the Tenderer’s proposed solution.

Lodgement of Tenders by 12.00 pm - midday (NZDT), Wednesday, 22 May 2013

Tenders must be submitted as an original (marked as such) plus one additional hard copy (loose for ease of copying) and one electronic copy in a sealed package delivered on or before 1200 hours New Zealand local time on Wednesday, 22 May 2013 (the Tender Closing Time)
RFT - ANZAC Frigate Systems Upgrade [Ministry of Defence NZ]

It appears that the NZG are taking ASW seriously because they had an RFI out for the ASW component of the P3K2 Orions.

Request for Information (RFI)
Underwater Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (UWISR) Project - (RFI 4107-02) GETS reference #38360

Defence is seeking information on potential solution options to restore the UWISR capabilities of its fleet of six P-3K2 Orion aircraft.

This RFI seeks responses from companies that have the requisite skills, knowledge and experience to provide either portions of or a complete airborne UWISR capability solution, including:

Aircraft systems:
a replacement for the existing acoustics system
an acoustic processor simulator
a Magnetic Anomaly Detection (MAD) system
a MAD simulator / stimulator
upgrade / modification of the air-dropped stores ejection system.
Ground based systems:
a post-mission acoustic analysis system
an acoustic data storage / archive system
an acoustic processor simulator
a MAD simulator / stimulator.
Installation and introduction into service:
integration and testing of the complete UWISR solution
NZDF operator and technician training on the operation and maintenance of both the airborne and ground systems
assistance with certification, testing, and Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E) of the new ground and airborne systems.
Provision of ongoing industry support to maintain the UWISR capability at a contemporary standard through-life.

Respondents may choose to provide information that covers all aspects of this RFI or provide information that focuses on defined topic areas only.

Respondent information will be used to assist Defence in the development of a project Business Case. The Business Case will detail potential solution options for New Zealand Government approval. Defence will assume that respondents who provide information in relation to this RFI are also interested in participating in a Request for Proposal (RFP) or a Request for Tender (RFT), should the Project progress and such a document be issued. For the avoidance of doubt, respondents acknowledge that providing information in relation to this RFI does not in any way constitute an offer by Defence to the respondent to participate in, or be involved in any subsequently issued RFP or RFT.
Request for information documentation available online

View the Request for Information documentation on the 'GETS' website - www.gets.govt.nz (reference #38360)

Submission of Responses by 4.00 pm (NZDT), Thursday, 4 April 2013
http://www.defence.govt.nz/acquisitions-tenders/rfi-uwisr-project.html

IIRC the P3 ASW capability was removed or downgraded by the Labour Govt of 1999 - 2008 and if they get in again they will do their best to neuter NZDF.

 

[STURM]

Something like Sea Sentor needs to be a priority for the RNZN if it's going to patrol off N. Korea, and correct me if I'm wrong but the ANZAC's do have the space for a winch at the stern?

If an ANZAC is off the North Korean coast when the balloon goes up, the main worry would probably be a shore launched ASM rather than a midget sub.

Due to costs, whilst most main line combatants - even in smaller bon-NATO navies - are equipped with chaff/flare launchers, not all are equpped with torpedo decoys.

 

[Todjaeger]

IIRC the P3 ASW capability was removed or downgraded by the Labour Govt of 1999 - 2008 and if they get in again they will do their best to neuter NZDF.

I do not recall Labour downgrading the Orions. Rather I think that some of the systems were approaching the end of their useful service lives and a decision was made not to replace them, or a programme which would have seen to the sustainment/replacement of ASW systems ended up getting cancelled.

In other words, not an active attempt to reduce the NZDF like disbanding the ACF, but more just allowing something to wither away due to apathy and neglect.

Given the potential for trouble in areas which can/will impact NZ's SLOC, I would hope that the ANZAC upgrade programme for the RNZN would get properly and fully funded but I honestly will not be holding my breathe.

-Cheers

 

[Lucasnz]

I do not recall Labour downgrading the Orions. Rather I think that some of the systems were approaching the end of their useful service lives and a decision was made not to replace them, or a programme which would have seen to the sustainment/replacement of ASW systems ended up getting cancelled.

In other words, not an active attempt to reduce the NZDF like disbanding the ACF, but more just allowing something to wither away due to apathy and neglect.

Given the potential for trouble in areas which can/will impact NZ's SLOC, I would hope that the ANZAC upgrade programme for the RNZN would get properly and fully funded but I honestly will not be holding my breathe.

-Cheers

I tend to agree the P3 ASW was never scrapped just not upgraded either in the 80's or the more recent P3 Upgrade. That was a reflection of Labour's defence policy that grew out of the Vietnam protest movement. Labour's approach (current and past) to ASW was not founded in the strategic realities of New Zealand status as a maritime trading nation, the operational experiences of East Timor etc.

It is interesting to note that there seems to be a trend, at least with Labour regarding Defence purchases. During the 1970's Muroroa protests NZ used an Australian Tanker to stay on station - when it next got into power in 1984 it purchased the the current tanker. During the 1987 Fiji the government found itself without an ability to conduct Amphib operations and when next in power acquired the Canterbury, despite not learning any lessons from the purchase of Charles Upham. Like wise National was the government during the early stages of the ET operation and so some of current thinking maybe influenced by the operational experience gained (i.e the detection of Type 209 subs). Its a trend I've noticed but not supported with substantive evidence.

That said an Amphib Task Force can't really achieve anything without effective all round capabilities.

 

[Cadredave]

I tend to agree the P3 ASW was never scrapped just not upgraded either in the 80's or the more recent P3 Upgrade. That was a reflection of Labour's defence policy that grew out of the Vietnam protest movement. Labour's approach (current and past) to ASW was not founded in the strategic realities of New Zealand status as a maritime trading nation, the operational experiences of East Timor etc.

Project Sirius was cancelled by Def Min Mark Burton as laid out here;
RNZAF cancels Sirius upgrade

the guts of the upgrade would of provided the following;

Sirius included the installation of a new airborne data management system, magnetic anomaly detector, acoustic data processor system, navigation system, and radar and electronic support measures as well as the introduction of an electro-optic sensor.

which now leads to what RNZAF is doing now upgrading piece by piece to slowly restore capability bit by bit.

 

[Dewey]

If an ANZAC is off the North Korean coast when the balloon goes up, the main worry would probably be a shore launched ASM rather than a midget sub.

I very much doubt China will permit its belligerent client state to launch WWIII, rather their past antics show they are keen on the spectacular demonstration. Mines are the IED's of the maritime world, and the sinking of the Cheonan shows N. Korea possesses a pretty advanced torpedo in the CHT-02D and the ruthlessness to use it. They likely have developed mines similar to the CAPTOR deepwater moored torpedo launcher, that can be winched/dropped off the stern of any fishing vessel. Budget battles are the bane of navies in today's economy but if the NZ Govt is sending an ANZAC to patrol off the Korean coast then it's reasonable to prioritize reactivating MAD/sonobuoy processors on the P-3K2 Orion's, passive/active Torpedo Defence for the Naval Combat Force. Building on the RNZN's REMUS remote minehunting capabilities and speccing a dipping sonar on the Seasprites would be nice-to-have.

Not sure what platforms REMUS can operate from, a low freeboard appears to be important for launch/recovery, the RN use the Sandown's/Hunt's. Currently RNZN is using 9.2 metre boats to operate REMUS as a Littoral Warfare Support Force. These small boats are able to fit in a C-130 and can be carried by the OPV's/MRV but would have to be sent ahead of a frigate patrol. REMUS putters about at a slow rate of knots so it can't clear an entire patrol box but could be useful clearing channels and harbour entrances. Makes sense the Navy is getting more Seasprite's to provide top cover. Looking forward to reading about future RNZAF Fincastle trophy winners

 

[ngatimozart]

Well there don't seem to be many options but Damen's Joint Support Ship seems to be the best bet.

Joint Support Ship -Damen Shipyards Group

It certainly ticks all the boxes.

Crew size could be problematic, however a break down of the crew may reduce it. If 70 is the targeted nominal company, in 150 if you remove the aviation detachment and probably medical complement from the final figure that should scale back those numbers to the goal.

$480 US million is a problem as well however it should be the easiest sell in terms of capability it is the ultimate in disaster relief, good will, tree hugging vessel.

I wonder if there is a cut down version available.

I just went through and added up the weights they wanted plus chucked in 500 tonnes for dry stores.

Item Tonnes
Diesel -------------------------------------------------8,000
Kerosene ---------------------------------------------1,700
12 x 20ft TEU @ 20 tonne / TEU -----------------2,400
26 x 10m vehicles @ 26 tonne / vehicle --------2,600
Landing Craft 2 x 65 tonne --------------------------130
Dry storage ---------------------------------------------500
Total --------------------------------------------------15,330 tonnes

So they must be looking at a 22 - 25,000 tonne fully laden ship at least, so it's going to be up near the Karl Doorman class anyway. Joint Logistic Support Ship - Damen Schelde Naval Shipbuilding Don't know about the crewing though. I suppose you could automate a lot of things to a certain degree, but you still need hands to do RAS etc. Another thing of interest about this is that the local media haven't picked up on it at all. There is nothing on the MOD site and the only thing is on the GETS site and that was on or about 29th March 2013 with the closing date in early May I think.

 

[t68]

I just went through and added up the weights they wanted plus chucked in 500 tonnes for dry stores.

Item Tonnes
Diesel -------------------------------------------------8,000
Kerosene ---------------------------------------------1,700
12 x 20ft TEU @ 20 tonne / TEU -----------------2,400
26 x 10m vehicles @ 26 tonne / vehicle --------2,600
Landing Craft 2 x 65 tonne --------------------------130
Dry storage ---------------------------------------------500
Total --------------------------------------------------15,330 tonnes

So they must be looking at a 22 - 25,000 tonne fully laden ship at least, so it's going to be up near the Karl Doorman class anyway. Joint Logistic Support Ship - Damen Schelde Naval Shipbuilding Don't know about the crewing though. I suppose you could automate a lot of things to a certain degree, but you still need hands to do RAS etc. Another thing of interest about this is that the local media haven't picked up on it apart from Scoop. There is nothing on the MOD site and the only thing is on the GETS site and that was on or about 29th March 2013 with the closing date in early May I think.

Any idea what the proposed budget is for the project?
Going by the wiki site it's 360 million Euro which translate to roughly 580 million NZD. The final price for SPS Cantabria was about 365million NZD, so pending on how much a new build Cantabria is you could in theory have an AOR plus an additional sealift ship. But that's not taking into account pers and additional running cost.

 

[ngatimozart]

Any idea what the proposed budget is for the project?
Going by the wiki site it's 360 million Euro which translate to roughly 580 million NZD. The final price for SPS Cantabria was about 365million NZD, so pending on how much a new build Cantabria is you could in theory have an AOR plus an additional sealift ship. But that's not taking into account pers and additional running cost.

With aircraft the total life costs is purchase cost plus 150% purchase cost so that would work out at NZ$1.6 billion for 40 years. That includes the purchase. Have no idea what the proposed budget is. The idea of the RFI seems to be costings so they have an idea. The other interesting thing is the separate costings for the chook. Are they thinking about hangaring a chook onboard? IIRC I think the Canterbury can handle a chook on its flight deck.

Converting the fuels into cubic metres with the Cantabria cubic metres in brackets: Diesel 8000 tonnes @ 850.8 density = 9402.91m3 (8,000); Kerosene 1700 tonnes @ 800.0 density = 2125m3 (2000). So they want something with larger fuel stowage than the Cantabria. The Cantabria has a displacement of 19,550 tonnes so adding the sealift component is surely taking the displacement up into the LHD arena. http://www.armada.mde.es/ArmadaPort...-02_buque-aprovisionamiento-combate-cantabria

 

[KH-12]

With aircraft the total life costs is purchase cost plus 150% purchase cost so that would work out at NZ$1.6 billion for 40 years. That includes the purchase. Have no idea what the proposed budget is. The idea of the RFI seems to be costings so they have an idea. The other interesting thing is the separate costings for the chook. Are they thinking about hangaring a chook onboard? IIRC I think the Canterbury can handle a chook on its flight deck.

Converting the fuels into cubic metres with the Cantabria cubic metres in wbrackets: Diesel 8000 tonnes @ 850.8 density = 9402.91m3 (8,000); Kerosene 1700 tonnes @ 800.0 density = 2125m3 (2000). So they want something with larger fuel stowage than the Cantabria. The Cantabria has a displacement of 19,550 tonnes so adding the sealift component is surely taking the displacement up into the LHD arena. http://www.armada.mde.es/ArmadaPort...-02_buque-aprovisionamiento-combate-cantabria

With a ship of that sort of capability would it make sense to dispose of Canterbury ?

Can't see a budget running to a pair of chooks you could probably get 3 NH90 on the deck instead

 

[ngatimozart]

With a ship of that sort of capability would it make sense to dispose of Canterbury ?

No because you wouldn't have a lot of the capability of Canterbury on it. I would think that Canterbury has far more lane metres. Plus you don't want a lot of your troops on a ship that's a floating bomb. Canterbury will eventually be replaced with hopefully a LPD along the similar lines to the Galicia class. Galicia Class Logistic Support Ships - Naval Technology

Can't see a budget running to a pair of chooks you could probably get 3 NH90 on the deck instead

No, as far as I am aware NZDF doesn't have an interest in operating chooks. It'd be ADF chooks. If they bite the bullet and go ahead with a vessel of this capability it'd slot on nicely with RAN / ADF capabilities. Be a win win for both sides of the ditch.

 

[ngatimozart]

I thought I should keep the important figures together

A RFI has been issued for the Endeavour replacement with entry into service by 2018. NZ Issues RFI for Naval Tanker Replacement | Defense News | defensenews.com
The intended vessel is a Maritime Projection and Sustainment Capability (MPSC). The RfI calls for:
- carrying a minimum of 8,000 tons of ship fuel and a minimum of 1,700 tons of aviation fuel,
- a requirement for operating medium-sized helicopters (such as New Zealand’s SH-2G Seasprites and recently introduced NH90) and a costed option for operating a CH-47 Chinook,
- the capability for lift on/lift off operations (up to and including 25 tons) to transfer embarked cargo and provision for upper deck stowage of embarked vehicles and a minimum of 12 shipping containers,
- a minimum of 260 lane meters for vehicles and the MPSC also is required to operate two 65-ton landing craft,
- a minimum 8,000 nautical mile-range at 16 knots, with a top speed of 18 knots,
- a nominal ship’s company of 70, plus up to 50 passengers,
- a minimum service life of 25 years,
- the maximum fully laden design draft is not to exceed 26.2 feet,
- it should be able to operate (from December to March) in Antarctic waters as far south as the McMurdo Sounds,
- armament includes “an appropriate number” of manually laid 0.5-inch machine guns and/or space and weight for a close in weapon system such as Phalanx.

I just went through and added up the weights they wanted plus chucked in 500 tonnes for dry stores.

Item Tonnes
Diesel -------------------------------------------------8,000
Kerosene ---------------------------------------------1,700
12 x 20ft TEU @ 20 tonne / TEU -----------------2,400
26 x 10m vehicles @ 26 tonne / vehicle --------2,600
Landing Craft 2 x 65 tonne --------------------------130
Dry storage ---------------------------------------------500
Total --------------------------------------------------15,330 tonnes

So they must be looking at a 22 - 25,000 tonne fully laden ship at least, so it's going to be up near the Karl Doorman class anyway. Joint Logistic Support Ship - Damen Schelde Naval Shipbuilding Don't know about the crewing though. I suppose you could automate a lot of things to a certain degree, but you still need hands to do RAS etc.

Converting the fuels into cubic metres with the Cantabria cubic metres in brackets: Diesel 8000 tonnes @ 850.8 density = 9402.91m3 (8,000); Kerosene 1700 tonnes @ 800.0 density = 2125m3 (2000). So they want something with larger fuel stowage than the Cantabria. The Cantabria has a displacement of 19,550 tonnes so adding the sealift component is surely taking the displacement up into the LHD arena. http://www.armada.mde.es/ArmadaPort...-02_buque-aprovisionamiento-combate-cantabria

So I have been thinking that NZG / NZDF must be looking seriously at doing the McMurdo fuel supply trips. That would be funded by Antarctic NZ and the US National Science Foundation. I have been having issues of visualising a Maritime Projection and Sustainment Capability (MPSC) as required by the RNZN so how I figure it is that you take a Cantabria chop it behind the funnel & keep the forrard section. Chop off the after section of a Galicia class from the funnel aft, scale it up and attach it to the forrard section the the Cantabria class. Chuck in the machinery from the LHDs and build a NH 90 & chook house aft of the container storage area.

 

[Lucasnz]

I just went through and added up the weights they wanted plus chucked in 500 tonnes for dry stores.

Item Tonnes
Diesel -------------------------------------------------8,000
Kerosene ---------------------------------------------1,700
12 x 20ft TEU @ 20 tonne / TEU -----------------2,400
26 x 10m vehicles @ 26 tonne / vehicle --------2,600
Landing Craft 2 x 65 tonne --------------------------130
Dry storage ---------------------------------------------500
Total --------------------------------------------------15,330 tonnes

So they must be looking at a 22 - 25,000 tonne fully laden ship at least, so it's going to be up near the Karl Doorman class anyway. Joint Logistic Support Ship - Damen Schelde Naval Shipbuilding Don't know about the crewing though. I suppose you could automate a lot of things to a certain degree, but you still need hands to do RAS etc. Another thing of interest about this is that the local media haven't picked up on it at all. There is nothing on the MOD site and the only thing is on the GETS site and that was on or about 29th March 2013 with the closing date in early May I think.

I can't see the Karl Doorman been the option to go by. The Navy will not wanting to be any additional pressure on manning and sea / shore time. It also has 2000 lane metres, way in excess of what the RNZN is after. Cost is going to be a driving factor based on the comments in defensenews. From what I can see were heading for a new custom design in order to meet the RNZN requirements. I'm wondering if we'd be better buying another Endeavour type tanker and an Endurance class LPD.

 

[ngatimozart]

I can't see the Karl Doorman been the option to go by. The Navy will not wanting to be any additional pressure on manning and sea / shore time. It also has 2000 lane metres, way in excess of what the RNZN is after. Cost is going to be a driving factor based on the comments in defensenews. From what I can see were heading for a new custom design in order to meet the RNZN requirements. I'm wondering if we'd be better buying another Endeavour type tanker and an Endurance class LPD.

No the Karl Doorman isn't for the reasons you mention and also that it's fuel stowage is way too small, but IIRC Navantia had a hand in that design and they seem to have a good handle upon these things. The Aussie Defence Materials Minister wants to invite designers like Navantia to South Australia so that could work for us. However it'd be cheaper if Navantia built it in Spain.

 

[CJohn]

Would BMT's Aegir series of fleet support ships be in contention. These designs are scalabe, the Aegir 18R with modifications comes to mind.

Considering the RN are building four scaled up adaptions of the Aegir 26 design at Daewoo shipbuilding and marine.
Here's a look at the overall design concept http://media.bmt.org/bmt_media/resources/38/AegirBrochure.pdf
The costs of these designs would have to be a major factor in the equation.

 

[ngatimozart]

Would BMT's Aegir series of fleet support ships be in contention. These designs are scalabe, the Aegir 18R with modifications comes to mind.

Considering the RN are building four scaled up adaptions of the Aegir 26 design at Daewoo shipbuilding and marine.
Here's a look at the overall design concept http://media.bmt.org/bmt_media/resources/38/AegirBrochure.pdf
The costs of these designs would have to be a major factor in the equation.

No particular reason why they shouldn't. The 18R appears to have the minimum cubic metres for the cargo fuel. Would be cheaper built in a Korean yard. I just used the Navantia vessels as an illustration.

 

[King Wally]

delete post... seams the press got it wrong and it was a civvy helo that went down today. Someone got their story mixed up.