HMAS Choules is a very capable ship unfortunately she is not a fleet tanker that will replace HMNZS Endeavour once her end of service draws to a close. Hopefully Navy will find something that satisfies Cabinet and Treasury.
Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
The RFI requires1500 cubic metres more of fuel space and at least twice as much jet fuel capability than the Karel Doorman has. The NZDF doesn't have a requirement for the carrying of 5000 tonnes of heavy rolling armour that the Karel Doorman has. I agree with CD, the Choules doesn't meet the requirements of the RNZN Maritime Projection and Sustainment Capability vessel.
http://www.asc.com.au/Documents/News/ASCAegirBrochure_FINAL.pdf
I would like to see 2 Aegir for the RAN as per the brochure, 1 built in Sth Korea and the 2nd built in Melbourne, the Aegir offer is for 3, so a 3rd vessel more comparable to the Norweigan requirment could be built in Melbourne for RNZN requirements. It would allow cross training between RAN and RNZN and allow better interoperability.
Norway picks BMT design for its new logistics ship - News - Shephard
I would like to see 2 Aegir for the RAN as per the brochure, 1 built in Sth Korea and the 2nd built in Melbourne, the Aegir offer is for 3, so a 3rd vessel more comparable to the Norweigan requirment could be built in Melbourne for RNZN requirements. It would allow cross training between RAN and RNZN and allow better interoperability.
Norway picks BMT design for its new logistics ship - News - Shephard
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Frankly (and a bit tongue in cheek), I would like to see the RNZN put in a bid for the Karel Doorman. Granted, she is a bit more ship in some areas than the NZDF appears to have been looking for (cost, draught, lane-metres, crew) and not enough ship in others (some types of fuel bunkerage)...
I see two potentially positive outcomes from such a bid. The first is that the RNZN and NZDF as a whole get a very capable replacement for the HMNZS Endeavour. Or if that does not go through, then the secound outcome is likely, in which a number of the more tight-fisted, and/or anti-defence and defence spending bean counters in Treasury would likely have apoplexy and then replacements could be found who might realize that the NZDF provides an invaluable service to NZ which also requires funding at a reasonable level.
-Cheers
And the A109 fleet plus all of the Armys' 2 battalions most of their LAVs. However it's not ice strengthened to 1C and that's the part of the requirement I forgot to mention earlier.She'd be perfect if NZ ever needed to deploy her entire NH-90 fleet. At once...
I doubt whether that will happen. As it is the Dutch are hoping Canada will buy the ship. I suspect Portugal is the most likely European NATO country that might put in a bid, their sea lift amphibious ship is approaching her pay off date.
Did John Nott retire to the Netherlands by any chance? Or maybe he just mentored a new generation of blind idiots.
Unfortunately it is often the case that politicians often choose air capability over, often, far more flexible naval capability.
Confirmation that a similar vessel (I guess an adaptation of the Aegir 18R) has been proposed by BMT for the RNZN MPSC project within this RINA article on the Norwegian vessel.
Aegir family evolves to meet replenishment and logistics applications
It will be interesting if the LWSC project specs end up being similar to the BMT Venator 110.
I do like the look of Aegir18R and it appears to be reasonably adaptable. BMT seem to be quite happy building offshore and a South Korean build and fitout would to be our advantage cost wise. IMHO the Canadian path of adaption of the Berlin Class is going to be expensive and given recent Canadian history with defence procurement more expensive. The Canadians are doing the builds in Canada plus any other offsets they can manage. I believe that in NZ defence procurement we appear have some offsets which have to include our original TPP partners. However regardless of all that it comes down to cost and how much our Minister can prise out of treasury.
The Norwegian vessel is envisaged to cost 1.3b Kr or roughly 260m in NZD. Which in my view is a reasonable price and fair enough guideline.
It is more how much Jono can prize out of the double dipper from Dipton than Treasury - they would have read the AG report on Project Protector and will understand the principal of marginal utility and its relationship to cost.
Offsets I assume you are meaning more on the trade and diplomatic front as with respect to defence Industrial tech there is not a lot we could offer them.
The 18R impresses me. It would a great asset for the post 2020 defence force. The Norwegians do their homework well and it is an endorsement of the vessel that they are going with it.
I agree the 18R is impressive, but I suspect the NZ government will choose a less expensive option, the 10R instead.
Nope, the 10R is far too small for the requirements they listed in the RFI. It has a cargo fuel capacity approx 8,000 m3. The RFI calls for cargo fuel capacity 11,500m3 - actual figures minimum Diesel 8,000 tonnes and minimum Turbine Kerosene 1,700 tonnes. The 18R AOR has a cargo fuel capacity of 12,000m3 and 1350m3 dry stores cargo capacity, so it meets the cargo fuel capacity requirements.
If they do go for a less expensive option it will not be the Aegir 10 and the project cost will not be substantially less than 200m. The Aegir 10 does not fit what we are asking for if you go back and look at the RFI and what the NZDF requires and has been spoken of on public record for around 5 years. However, the shadow of all that was wrong with Protector project - the low ball option acquired - is very much in the minds of the government and officials. Another ship may be able to undercut an 18R derivative in acquisition and life-time operating costs, so be it, if it meets requirements and specifications sought.
I would also like to point out that the Aegir 18 sits right in the middle of the funding pathways that the government has developed for Defence. Post white paper cabinet doxs were released a couple of years back and revealed funding options that ranged from 120m through to over 400m at the high end. Low - Medium - High pathways. Jono Coleman has indicated recently in major speeches that they are not going down the low pathway, careful reasoned spending yes, but they are not degrading core capabilities and realise that with the F35 strategic plan and the gateway for the post 2020 joint task force to be meet - this project will be a cornerstone component of that post 2020 NZDF doctrine and regional asset to boot. Also unlike so many countries the state of the nations public finances are not dire, in fact pretty good - likely to be in surplus by FY 2015 with GDP debt in the low 20's. Thus I suspect differently.
NG - has also commented above while I went a took a phone call. Has the numbers for the RFI.
Last edited:
John Newman
The Bunker Group
I keep wondering if the NZ and Australian Governments can or will get their heads together on our respective replenishment ship projects.
Obviously there will be RNZN and RAN specific requirements, but if the 'core' of the Aegir 18 design can be a solid foundation to meet both those requirements, it would seem silly to me not seriously look at how a predominately common design could be of benefit for both navies.
Things like a common pool of spares, support, systems, etc, common training and interoperability of those ships and systems between our two navies.
Could it go as far as a joint order? Even there wasn't a joint order, surely there would still be benefits of selecting ships that come from a common design, benefits such as I mentioned above.
It's quiet interesting looking at the article in the link above at the costs quoted for these ships. The four UK Tankers are costing US$687.5m, the Norwegian ship (which appears to be what the RNZN and RAN versions would be based on) is costing US$215.8m.
Looking at some cost figure on other ships (yes I know these are Wiki figures, but it's all I can find).
Canada has a budget of $2.6b for its two Berlin class ships (with an option of a third).
Spain paid E238m for Cantabria in 2010, which equates to A$343m (or NZ$385m) at today's exchange rates, and would probably be more expensive to build today.
In the Australian 2012 DCP, the budget allocation for SEA 1654 is in the range of A$1b - A$2b, suggesting the cost will be in the middle of the band, eg, A$1.5b.
And as Mr C said in the last post that NZ was talking in the range of NZ$120m - 400m.
I'm no rocket scientist, but I can certainly see that a NZ version of the Aegir 18 would fall within that range and if the Australian Government went with the ASC / BMT offer of three ships it would also fall well inside the budget allowance, even if the 3rd ship proposed to be built in Adelaide was double the cost of it's Korean built sisters!!
Anyway, as I said, I hope our two respective Governments can at least investigate any possible benefits of going down the same or similar path.
There would be a lot of advantages for both countries in what you suggest John and maybe a further possible advantage if they looked a common spares agreement with the UK. The NZ RFI states that the ship is to enter service in 2018. The main difference I would see between the RNZN ship and the RAN ships would be the ice strenghtened hull on the RNZN vessel. I noticed the Norwegian ship has hangarage for two NH90s, so I hope that they do the same for the RNZN ship. I think that any flys in the ointment of a joint NZ-Au project would be the new political masters in Canberra and their intended DWP which will take time. Having said that, there is an election here next year too so our lot had better have the deal signed, sealed, delivered, monies paid and lots of steel cut before the next election.
Firstly, John I endorse what you say regarding the need for NZ and Aust to sing from the same sheet over the AOR purchase.
NG, I am going to throw a curve ball with respect to the 1C Ice requirement with my following comments, but before I get to the punch line I will provide context for my thoughts.
Over the next decade a considerable amount of oil and gas exploration is to be undertaken within the NZEEZ. The New Zealand government is seeking an opportunity to create economic wealth from its O&G reserves as well as other mineral resources. It is also looking to increase coastal and harbour acquaculture opportunities as well as discrete and low impact seabed mining.
Post the Rena grounding on Astrolab Reef in October 2011 the publics view was that though we just coped with the emergency response. Comments were made that it could have been better if we had the domestic capability to respond faster. However, New Zealand does not possess the same capabilities to respond to maritime environment events and disasters in comparison with Norway or Denmark, two countries our political and media class have always used as a comparative benchmark.
Moreover, NZ does not possess a vessel with ETV capability. We as a trade orientated nation, with a GDP per Capita in excess of US$30000, a country which markets itself to the world as clean and green, with the 5th largest maritime EEZ, a country with 170 years of commercial maritime history, 2500km from our nearest sovereign neighbour, still does not possess or in fact has never possessed anything more than an adhoc ability to tow distressed vessels.
Trade through NZ sealanes and NZ ports is set to continually rise in the years ahead. Further Rena type scenarios or maritime environmental pollution incidents will happen. There is a discernable mentally in the public and political psyche that bad things will not happen to us, because we are rather nice and inoffensive folk. It seems to be some sort of cross between a new age karma trip, cognitive dissonance and the invincibility steeming from the tyranny of distance. Rena, Christchurch Quakes, Pike River are proof that terrible events of the expected and unexpected, the luck and unlucky, natural and manmade can, will, do happen right on our doorstep.
Lines in statutes such as the Resource Management Act related to maritime environmental protection are meaningless without the ability to police, enforce, respond and clean-up. With further development of the Oil and Gas resource within our EEZ there has to be some resposibility to respond and mitigate. The public are highly conscious and now Post Rena are attuned to any maritime pollution risk, mostly as a result of the BP debacle off the Gulf. This is a political risk that in itself needs mitigation. The government could find itself at variance with the public mood if the voter accepts and trusts the Green movements rhetoric more than the governments energy and economic ambitions.
Political risk mitigation would be very desirable, in fact it is necessary to do so. Inept and reckless not to. Sensible political management would suggest that a proactive response would be to add the capability to patrol, respond, enforce and clean up. Have that front and centre as a political concept to symbolise intent - to take the issue seriously. Give peace of mind to a concerned public and obviously walk the talk. Proactive works more than reactive. To use a rugby analogy - to anticipate and intercept against the run of play is more likely to score than waiting for the ball to come to you. Especially when there are holes in the oppositions defence.
New Zealand has two areas of weakness with respect to its fisheries protection. The sub antarctic and the EEZ of our dependencies and South Pacific states. These areas are more likely to be exploited by international commercial fisher interests due to our weakness and inability to patrol, respond and enforce. This has both economic and environmental costs. It also has costs with respect to New Zealand's international perceptions. Even with the Protector Project vessels we have still been limited in our ability to patrol the southern ocean. The design flaws in the Protector OPV's are fundamental for this Area of Interest. They are vessel more suited to Pacific patrols than to the more demanding Southern Ocean work. There is a real need for a RNZN presence in the Pacific since we are only a Navy which can deploy a single frigate that more often than not is operationally far further afield than Rarotonga, Nuie or Apia. Obviously with the OPV's redeployed to where they are more useful a solution is required in the Southern Ocean.
The New Zealand Government has had a long established stake in Antarctica, the Ross Sea, the Southern Ocean, and the Sub Antarctic Islands. New Zealand is seeking to add further sealift capability with the forth coming Endeavour replacement. The proposed vessel design has a requirement to be Class 1C Ice capable so as to supply the NZ Antarctic Programme. A vessel of this type is indeed important for us to carry out current and future defence requirements. We do need further Sealift capability and AOR. However, with the gap in southern oceans patrol, the ability to conduct ETV and have an environmental response capability, I argue that a 1C Ice capbility to provide logistical support to Antarctic NZ would be more effective on a specialist vessel that can conduct Southern Ocean Offshore and ETV/ER, as well as Antarctic and Sub Antarctic island support.
The Endeavour replacement and the LWSV are on the drawing board, they have been so since before the DWP. The LWSV is to replace 2 hulls, therefore we are a hull less. Effectively we are losing the utility of the HMNZS Resolution. There is a scarcity of hulls in the NZ Navy. There are major capability gaps as I have outlined above and this is exacerbated with the loss of that vessel. Since the DWP events have changed, even within these last 3 years. Known limitations of the OPV's, Rena and other disasters, the search for Oil & Gas has increased, the Pacific region is becoming more intensive geopolitically from a resource perspective. The DWP has not effectively addressed or even at worst case considered these issues.
Effectively, I am advocating for the next HMNZS Resolution in the roles I have outlined. The Endeavour replacement need not have 1C Ice.
Cheers MrC
NG, I am going to throw a curve ball with respect to the 1C Ice requirement with my following comments, but before I get to the punch line I will provide context for my thoughts.
Over the next decade a considerable amount of oil and gas exploration is to be undertaken within the NZEEZ. The New Zealand government is seeking an opportunity to create economic wealth from its O&G reserves as well as other mineral resources. It is also looking to increase coastal and harbour acquaculture opportunities as well as discrete and low impact seabed mining.
Post the Rena grounding on Astrolab Reef in October 2011 the publics view was that though we just coped with the emergency response. Comments were made that it could have been better if we had the domestic capability to respond faster. However, New Zealand does not possess the same capabilities to respond to maritime environment events and disasters in comparison with Norway or Denmark, two countries our political and media class have always used as a comparative benchmark.
Moreover, NZ does not possess a vessel with ETV capability. We as a trade orientated nation, with a GDP per Capita in excess of US$30000, a country which markets itself to the world as clean and green, with the 5th largest maritime EEZ, a country with 170 years of commercial maritime history, 2500km from our nearest sovereign neighbour, still does not possess or in fact has never possessed anything more than an adhoc ability to tow distressed vessels.
Trade through NZ sealanes and NZ ports is set to continually rise in the years ahead. Further Rena type scenarios or maritime environmental pollution incidents will happen. There is a discernable mentally in the public and political psyche that bad things will not happen to us, because we are rather nice and inoffensive folk. It seems to be some sort of cross between a new age karma trip, cognitive dissonance and the invincibility steeming from the tyranny of distance. Rena, Christchurch Quakes, Pike River are proof that terrible events of the expected and unexpected, the luck and unlucky, natural and manmade can, will, do happen right on our doorstep.
Lines in statutes such as the Resource Management Act related to maritime environmental protection are meaningless without the ability to police, enforce, respond and clean-up. With further development of the Oil and Gas resource within our EEZ there has to be some resposibility to respond and mitigate. The public are highly conscious and now Post Rena are attuned to any maritime pollution risk, mostly as a result of the BP debacle off the Gulf. This is a political risk that in itself needs mitigation. The government could find itself at variance with the public mood if the voter accepts and trusts the Green movements rhetoric more than the governments energy and economic ambitions.
Political risk mitigation would be very desirable, in fact it is necessary to do so. Inept and reckless not to. Sensible political management would suggest that a proactive response would be to add the capability to patrol, respond, enforce and clean up. Have that front and centre as a political concept to symbolise intent - to take the issue seriously. Give peace of mind to a concerned public and obviously walk the talk. Proactive works more than reactive. To use a rugby analogy - to anticipate and intercept against the run of play is more likely to score than waiting for the ball to come to you. Especially when there are holes in the oppositions defence.
New Zealand has two areas of weakness with respect to its fisheries protection. The sub antarctic and the EEZ of our dependencies and South Pacific states. These areas are more likely to be exploited by international commercial fisher interests due to our weakness and inability to patrol, respond and enforce. This has both economic and environmental costs. It also has costs with respect to New Zealand's international perceptions. Even with the Protector Project vessels we have still been limited in our ability to patrol the southern ocean. The design flaws in the Protector OPV's are fundamental for this Area of Interest. They are vessel more suited to Pacific patrols than to the more demanding Southern Ocean work. There is a real need for a RNZN presence in the Pacific since we are only a Navy which can deploy a single frigate that more often than not is operationally far further afield than Rarotonga, Nuie or Apia. Obviously with the OPV's redeployed to where they are more useful a solution is required in the Southern Ocean.
The New Zealand Government has had a long established stake in Antarctica, the Ross Sea, the Southern Ocean, and the Sub Antarctic Islands. New Zealand is seeking to add further sealift capability with the forth coming Endeavour replacement. The proposed vessel design has a requirement to be Class 1C Ice capable so as to supply the NZ Antarctic Programme. A vessel of this type is indeed important for us to carry out current and future defence requirements. We do need further Sealift capability and AOR. However, with the gap in southern oceans patrol, the ability to conduct ETV and have an environmental response capability, I argue that a 1C Ice capbility to provide logistical support to Antarctic NZ would be more effective on a specialist vessel that can conduct Southern Ocean Offshore and ETV/ER, as well as Antarctic and Sub Antarctic island support.
The Endeavour replacement and the LWSV are on the drawing board, they have been so since before the DWP. The LWSV is to replace 2 hulls, therefore we are a hull less. Effectively we are losing the utility of the HMNZS Resolution. There is a scarcity of hulls in the NZ Navy. There are major capability gaps as I have outlined above and this is exacerbated with the loss of that vessel. Since the DWP events have changed, even within these last 3 years. Known limitations of the OPV's, Rena and other disasters, the search for Oil & Gas has increased, the Pacific region is becoming more intensive geopolitically from a resource perspective. The DWP has not effectively addressed or even at worst case considered these issues.
Effectively, I am advocating for the next HMNZS Resolution in the roles I have outlined. The Endeavour replacement need not have 1C Ice.
Cheers MrC
I agree with your summary MrC, Resolution could be replaced with an ADF Ocean Shield type vessel for about the same cost penalty as customising the Support ship for Ice and you would end up with the 2 hulls so badly needed. May as well use commercial advantage when available. Assuming that it would meet your requirements of course.
As to your Rugby analogy, I've never met an All Black that is "inoffensive and nice" on a Rugby field :smash
Cheers
Chris
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Mr C, thanks for the comment regarding my suggestion on the AOR's, appreciated.
It's an interesting suggestion you are making, if I understand you correctly (please correct me if I'm wrong) you are suggesting, replace Endeavour with a new AOR and don't complicate it's design and construction by spending extra money on making it ice capable, but instead have another ship that was ice capable that could also take on the roles of Resolution too, true?
It's funny you say that, if you go back a few pages on this thread and have at look at my comments to Ng (#2966) where I said:
Would the replacement for Resolution be a dedicated Ice Breaker or are you suggesting the ship be Ice Strengthened only instead??
I suppose the next issue of course is money, is there enough in the 'pot' for two dedicated ships to fill those two distinct roles?