Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[recce.k1]

Combined Maritime Force (CMF) contributions

RNZN Frigate Te Mana is to assist with anti-piracy patrols in the Gulf of Aden, Indian Ocean and Gulf of Oman later this year & an upgraded P-3K2 will deploy in 2014. Personnel also to join the taskforce command and some to deploy with HMAS Melbourne.

If memory serves correct an upgraded Orion is yet to deploy overseas (presumably one will go to Rimpac later this year though)?

Good to see the Defmin's release talk about the economic (trade) value to NZ's economy in keeping these sea lanes safe in relation to NZ's military contribution, facts and figures that should help the kiwi public (as well as MSM & peacenik naysayers) better understand why NZ plays its part as a "good international citizen".

beehive.govt.nz - New Zealand to continue supporting anti-piracy patrols

 

[Cadredave]

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

A navy RHIB took 15mins to save them from the crash site

 

[tatra]

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.

Galicia/Rotterdam is a joint Spanish Dutch design, following a joint AOR design.

Since 2002, the Damen-Schelde ships including Johan de Witt (LPD) and Karel Doorman (JSS) have their hulls built in the Damen yard in Galati, Romania. They are then finished and fitted out in Flushing, the Netherlands. This reduces costs.

Damen Shipyards Galati - Damen Schelde Naval Shipbuilding

Don't know about Romania specifically, but labor cost there would be similar (if not lower) than other ex-WP Eastern European countries

Hourly compensation costs in manufacturing, U.S. dollars
in U.S. dollars U.S.=100
1997 (1) 2011 1997 (1) 2011
Australia 18.93 46.29 82 130
Netherlands 22.45 42.26 97 119
Spain 13.95 28.44 61 80
Czech Republic 3.25 13.13 14 37
Slovakia 2.84 11.77 12 33
Hungary 3.05 9.17 13 26
Poland 3.15 8.83 14 25
Table 1. Hourly compensation costs, U.S. dollars and U.S. = 100
International Labor Comparisons (ILC)

Karel Doorman tanker capacity is at least 7.700 m3 (possibly 8.000m3) F76 diesel fuel oil for ships and at least 1.000 m3 F44 helicopter fuel. In addition, approx 450 m3 of potable water and approx 400 tonnes of ammunition and other supplies. It has 2000 lane meters for transport of material such as vehicles or containers. For sea-basing operations, it will have large helicopter deck with landing spots for operating two Chinooks simultaneously, and a hangar with a storage capacity of up to 6 helicopters (NH-90 with rotors folded) or 2 Chinook (rotors not folded). It has 2 NL-LCVP’s on davits and a rear "Landing beach", for NL-LCU. All weapon systems of the JLSS are remote-controlled from the operations and command room.

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/JLOS_Karel_Doorman_(A833)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karel_Doorman-class_support_ship

 

[ngatimozart]

Galicia/Rotterdam is a joint Spanish Dutch design, following a joint AOR design.

Since 2002, the Damen-Schelde ships including Johan de Witt (LPD) and Karel Doorman (JSS) have their hulls built in the Damen yard in Galati, Romania. They are then finished and fitted out in Flushing, the Netherlands. This reduces costs.

Damen Shipyards Galati - Damen Schelde Naval Shipbuilding

Don't know about Romania specifically, but labor cost there would be similar (if not lower) than other ex-WP Eastern European countries

Hourly compensation costs in manufacturing, U.S. dollars
in U.S. dollars U.S.=100
1997 (1) 2011 1997 (1) 2011
Australia 18.93 46.29 82 130
Netherlands 22.45 42.26 97 119
Spain 13.95 28.44 61 80
Czech Republic 3.25 13.13 14 37
Slovakia 2.84 11.77 12 33
Hungary 3.05 9.17 13 26
Poland 3.15 8.83 14 25
Table 1. Hourly compensation costs, U.S. dollars and U.S. = 100
International Labor Comparisons (ILC)

I think it would be cheaper if we build in Korea. But am unsure. It's not just the pay rates but infrastructure costs, business costs, materials, taxes, etc., that imput a build price. A very large factor is the company that does the design and whether or not they agree to a third party build. Impossible to really say anything at the moment because only a RFI being issued and a long way until final design approval.

 

[MrConservative]

I think it would be cheaper if we build in Korea. But am unsure. It's not just the pay rates but infrastructure costs, business costs, materials, taxes, etc., that imput a build price. A very large factor is the company that does the design and whether or not they agree to a third party build. Impossible to really say anything at the moment because only a RFI being issued and a long way until final design approval.

It is geo-politically more favourable as well being an Asia Pacific country. Korea is a growing trading partner and the NZ govt would sense a bi-lateral opportunity. The current Korean built Endevour was a solid ship for its first 20 years until age and MARPOL caught up with it. They are a hugely efficent and innovative shipbuilder and a known quantity. Developing the export capability of their Defence sector is a national strategy of the Korean government.

 

[40 deg south]

It is geo-politically more favourable as well being an Asia Pacific country. Korea is a growing trading partner and the NZ govt would sense a bi-lateral opportunity. The current Korean built Endevour was a solid ship for its first 20 years until age and MARPOL caught up with it. They are a hugely efficent and innovative shipbuilder and a known quantity. Developing the export capability of their Defence sector is a national strategy of the Korean government.

Amen to that.
LIke it or not, a lot more of our military equipment will come from Asia in future.

Given the sheer scale of the Korean shipbuilding industry, I'd be very surprised if the Dutch and Roumanians could match them on price. And as Mr C notes, it is Korean government policy to encourage more military construction in their predominantly civilian yards. The four MARS tankers for the UK are just the latest example.

It's interesting to wonder how Canterbury would have turned out if Hyundai had won the tender!

 

[KiwiRob]

Given the sheer scale of the Korean shipbuilding industry, I'd be very surprised if the Dutch and Roumanians could match them on price. And as Mr C notes, it is Korean government policy to encourage more military construction in their predominantly civilian yards. The four MARS tankers for the UK are just the latest example.

Most of the platform supply vessels built in Norway use hulls manufactured in Romania, and some in Russia. The Romanian yards are very cheap and build efficiently, in fact Samsung now have some components made in Romania and shipped to Korea for instillation.

 

[40 deg south]

Most of the platform supply vessels built in Norway use hulls manufactured in Romania, and some in Russia. The Romanian yards are very cheap and build efficiently, in fact Samsung now have some components made in Romania and shipped to Korea for instillation.

Interesting. Thanks for that, kiwirob. I was aware of cases where a hull was bult in eastern Europe then towed to the west for fit-out, but hadn't realised it had become standard practice.

I still think Korea would be difficult to beat on price, just because of the sheer scale of their industry. Korea launches a hgher tonnage of new ships each month that any European country manages in a year, if my memory is correct.

That said, I suspect the ANZAC replacements will come from Australia, costs be damned, in the interests of the trans-Tasman relationship. The Aussies have decided they want a defence industry, and successive governments have been willing to pay for one.

 

[t68]

That said, I suspect the ANZAC replacements will come from Australia, costs be damned, in the interests of the trans-Tasman relationship. The Aussies have decided they want a defence industry, and successive governments have been willing to pay for one.

Not entirely true if past governments held this view we would have a defence industry modeled on the Japanese, by not having the levels of expenditure into R&D and our overall size we are condemned to boom bust cycle of procurement which we currently have

As stated by Abraham Gubler some time ago we have the capacity to have a single navy shipyard with continuous work and that’s where the problem lies, do we have one yard or share it around until the next bust. Until the government makes a decision that it wants a long term defence industry and is willing to make the sacrifice in expenditure to accommodate this like the Japanese and Americans we will continue the boom bust cycle.

 

[t68]

The MRV helicopter capability, Embark 1 Seasprite and operate 2 utility helicopters or 1 heavy helicopter up to SS5 (sea state 5). now the hanger is from my understanding capable of storing 4 NH-90 pending on the dimensions the hanger wonder if that could fit 1x CH-47 and 1x Seasprite.

As part of the inquiry for strategic/tactical sealift they looked at HMS Ocean and RSS Endurance it was deemed that Ocean was just too much ship for NZ needs and that Endurance was a good tactical platform but left a little to be desired in the strategic needs compared to HMNZS Charles Upham but it was tabled that RSS Endurance would cost NZD $440 million. I don’t know the exchange rate at the time but it seems excessive

http://www.defence.govt.nz/pdfs/archive-publications/mfr1.pdf

NZDF Capability Review Sealift [Ministry of Defence NZ]

Chapter*3.*Oranges and Lemons—HMNZS Charles Upham

 

[Lucasnz]

Project protector remediation

The MOD has the 2012 Major Projects Document online now from that I've gleaned the following information in relation to Canterbury, OPV and IPV.

Gun System - A contract for the provision of a replacement Naval Gun System, TOPLITE Typhoon, has been awarded to remediate the weapon performance of Canterbury, Wellington and Otago. Studies have also identified obsolescence and safety issues with the optics sub-systems installed on the Inshore Patrol Vessels. As a result the Capability Steering Group has endorsed the replacement of the existing electro optical systems with TOPLITE.

OPV - In the case of the OPVs and IPVs, sea-keeping was not a mediation issue, but Defence has identified solutions that would provide the ships with additional safety and capability. Defence will carry out stability work on the OPVs, which will improve their stability in the icy conditions in which they may operate. Modelling has been used to support OPV Service Life Margins and is being used as the baseline for the design efforts in support of cross connecting ballast tanks to improve damage stability.

Canterbury Radar - Detailed studies have identified a number of radars suitable for this task. Final selection of the radar system has been deferred to allow for efficient integration and production with the Mission System work stream.
- A ship to shore transfer study has been completed and has identified a stream of work to optimise the ability of Canterbury and the embarked LCM. A significant outcome of the study is that a combination of remediation of the LCMs and the ship to shore transfer system indicates that the LCMs will not need to be replaced.
- Sea Boat Relocation Automated gangways and shell doors are in production. Lloyd’s Register approval for structural design has been granted and the prefabrication of components is underway. A production contract with Babcocks Ltd is to be signed with ship work scheduled to start on 20 August 2012 and be completed by February 2013.
-Engine Lubrication System : Modifications to the engine control system and the addition of 200 tons additional ballast have effectively remediated concerns with respect to Canterbury’s engine lubrication system.
- Conversion of current void spaces to ballast tanks will allow Canterbury to be loaded to the “load line” irrespective of cargo state.

Another interesting aspect is that sole source approval has been granted for the acquisition of a Rapid Environmental Assessment Capability through the installation of a dismountable Wide-Area Sub-Surface Profile System.

Good to see work be done and progress made on capability. I would think that the Typhoon mounts would have to be relocated away from the focsle. The advantage of Typhoon is that they maybe able to integrate mistral in the Typhoon mount, but still a 40mm would have been good.

 

[ADMk2]

The MOD has the 2012 Major Projects Document online now from that I've gleaned the following information in relation to Canterbury, OPV and IPV.



Good to see work be done and progress made on capability. I would think that the Typhoon mounts would have to be relocated away from the focsle. The advantage of Typhoon is that they maybe able to integrate mistral in the Typhoon mount, but still a 40mm would have been good.

So is it the case that NZDF opted for the cheap option initially and then realised how under-performing it actually was and have now opted for the Typhoon / TopLite combo?

Yikes, I thought our procurement was bad. That was just STUPID, if it worked out that way...

 

[Cadredave]

So is it the case that NZDF opted for the cheap option initially and then realised how under-performing it actually was and have now opted for the Typhoon / TopLite combo?

Yikes, I thought our procurement was bad. That was just STUPID, if it worked out that way...

I think it was more of a case that NZDF produced plans A,B,C, and D and being told by treasury/PM department no you can have plan E for now and we will see if you can afford it in the future, when will they ever learn!!!!

 

[ngatimozart]

RFI for Maritime Projection and Sustainment Capability (MPSC) to replace Endeavour.

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

Item Tonnes
Diesel -------------------------------------------------8,000 (9402.91m3)
Kerosene ---------------------------------------------1,700 (2125m3)
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.

Canada plans to build at least two JSS using TKMSC's design, ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems reveals Royal Canadian Navy Joint Support Ship Design
which is based on Germany's Berlin-class Type 702 task group supply vessel Berlin Class Fleet Auxiliary Vessels - Naval Technology. I am wondering if this maybe a starting point i.e., the Berlin class. If TKMS are agreeing to the ships being built in Canada, then they should agree to one being built in Korea. Just a thought. Question is would it be to our advantage to follow a similar path to Canada and modify a Berlin Class to include what we would require? Secondly would it be as the Canadians claim15% cheaper than a new design?

 

[Volkodav]

RFI for Maritime Projection and Sustainment Capability (MPSC) to replace Endeavour.

Canada plans to build at least two JSS using TKMSC's design, ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems reveals Royal Canadian Navy Joint Support Ship Design
which is based on Germany's Berlin-class Type 702 task group supply vessel Berlin Class Fleet Auxiliary Vessels - Naval Technology. I am wondering if this maybe a starting point i.e., the Berlin class. If TKMS are agreeing to the ships being built in Canada, then they should agree to one being built in Korea. Just a thought. Question is would it be to our advantage to follow a similar path to Canada and modify a Berlin Class to include what we would require? Secondly would it be as the Canadians claim15% cheaper than a new design?

Interesting that Canada rate the Berlin as the cheaper option as from what I have heard in reference to the Australian requirement it is the most expensive out of it, Cantabria and the AEGIR. Perhaps this cost is based purely on Canadian production vs an OS build.

 

[John Newman]

RFI for Maritime Projection and Sustainment Capability (MPSC) to replace Endeavour.

Canada plans to build at least two JSS using TKMSC's design, ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems reveals Royal Canadian Navy Joint Support Ship Design
which is based on Germany's Berlin-class Type 702 task group supply vessel Berlin Class Fleet Auxiliary Vessels - Naval Technology. I am wondering if this maybe a starting point i.e., the Berlin class. If TKMS are agreeing to the ships being built in Canada, then they should agree to one being built in Korea. Just a thought. Question is would it be to our advantage to follow a similar path to Canada and modify a Berlin Class to include what we would require? Secondly would it be as the Canadians claim15% cheaper than a new design?

Interesting looking at the artists impressions of the Canadian 'modified' Berlin Class compared to the standard German Navy Berlin's.

On the Canadian version, visually at least, it appears that the deck crane between the bridge structure and the RAS rigs has been removed, which seems to delete the capability to store and move shipping containers (as the standard Berlin is capable of in photo's that I've seen) and on the deck between the RAS rigs and the bow the deck crane is still there, but it appears to have two small landing craft either side.

So whilst there is addition of two small landing craft forward of RAS on the Canadian version, overall it appears that the ability to carry container cargo has been reduced.

If I remember correctly Cantabria was also put forward as a contender to Canada as well, I wonder if it was a modification, eg, with small landing craft added, etc, or in a standard configuration?

Anyway, regardless of that, I wonder if there is any value in both the RAN and the RNZN selecting the same design, be it a Berlin or Cantabria Class ship?

Would there be an initial cost saving benefits in ordering 3 across the two navies and also the benefit of ongoing support costs shared between our two navies?

 

[Volkodav]

Interesting looking at the artists impressions of the Canadian 'modified' Berlin Class compared to the standard German Navy Berlin's.

On the Canadian version, visually at least, it appears that the deck crane between the bridge structure and the RAS rigs has been removed, which seems to delete the capability to store and move shipping containers (as the standard Berlin is capable of in photo's that I've seen) and on the deck between the RAS rigs and the bow the deck crane is still there, but it appears to have two small landing craft either side.

So whilst there is addition of two small landing craft forward of RAS on the Canadian version, overall it appears that the ability to carry container cargo has been reduced.

If I remember correctly Cantabria was also put forward as a contender to Canada as well, I wonder if it was a modification, eg, with small landing craft added, etc, or in a standard configuration?

Anyway, regardless of that, I wonder if there is any value in both the RAN and the RNZN selecting the same design, be it a Berlin or Cantabria Class ship?

Would there be an initial cost saving benefits in ordering 3 across the two navies and also the benefit of ongoing support costs shared between our two navies?

ASC has proposed a variant of the AEGIR, with two constructed in South Korea and outfitted in Australia, then a third built in Australia. If this option is selected for the RAN it would make it even easier for NZ, just order a third hull from South Korea and outfit in NZ.

 

[ngatimozart]

ASC has proposed a variant of the AEGIR, with two constructed in South Korea and outfitted in Australia, then a third built in Australia. If this option is selected for the RAN it would make it even easier for NZ, just order a third hull from South Korea and outfit in NZ.

This is the ASC brochure http://www.asc.com.au/cms_resources/documents/ASCAegirBrochure_FINAL.pdf and going by that it won't meet the NZ RFI. For example the RFI is after 1700 tonnes of JP5 whereas the ASC AEGIR 18A offers 420 tonnes. However it is close to meeting the requirement for ships fuel 7650 tonnes against a requirement of 8000 tonnes. Another requirement is to operate into McMurdo Sound, Antarctica, during the summer. Also they want space for 12 x 20ft TEUs (shipping containers) and upper deck stowage 260 lane metres, but that's what you have naval architechs and AutoCAD for.

 

[Volkodav]

This is the ASC brochure http://www.asc.com.au/cms_resources/documents/ASCAegirBrochure_FINAL.pdf and going by that it won't meet the NZ RFI. For example the RFI is after 1700 tonnes of JP5 whereas the ASC AEGIR 18A offers 420 tonnes. However it is close to meeting the requirement for ships fuel 7650 tonnes against a requirement of 8000 tonnes. Another requirement is to operate into McMurdo Sound, Antarctica, during the summer. Also they want space for 12 x 20ft TEUs (shipping containers) and upper deck stowage 260 lane metres, but that's what you have naval architechs and AutoCAD for.

Run it past BMT, I am sure they will be able to spec something to fit the RNZN requirements. ASC is looking to use as many systems as possible that share commonality with the AWD and LHD to aid in reducing training / manning and logistics overheads.

 

[ngatimozart]

Run it past BMT, I am sure they will be able to spec something to fit the RNZN requirements. ASC is looking to use as many systems as possible that share commonality with the AWD and LHD to aid in reducing training / manning and logistics overheads.

Yep and I wouldn't be surprised if they replied to the RFI. The replies had to be in by May 2013 so I would be interested in what they received. However I am not cleared for that unfortunately. Bugger.