Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[ngatimozart]

NG. To defend my beloved 160. (just Joking)

With regards to the merits of the 160 over the 140 the compromises that the Sengan Diri Blog suugested, which you have developed your opinions of the E160 viz the 140, in my view are orientated to an operational configuration more relevant to Singapore context with respect to lift capability. personnel and number of rotary assets. In the context of the post 2020 NZDF joint amphibious force and a smaller LTG/ CTAG lift and support requirement compared to the Singapore focus, I would argue when looked at from our future needs and perspective, and with our doctrinal transformation and the role rotary plays within that - I actually think the real compromise weakness is with the lack of flexibility of the 140 over the 160. The 160 has it all over the 140 in aviation capability and the flexibility it delivers. I would want that flexibility of not just using the landing craft, but also to operate without constraint 2 NH-90's and a Sea Sprite simultaneously. The 140 cannot. That capability is not just a factor in in the high end of a ChpVII ops, but time critical tempos are a huge advantage in humanitarian and disaster support scenarios, even SASO stuff. Lastly the blog referenced and gave a critique of an early design of the 160. Over the last 4 years the design concept has developed somewhat further.

I'm sorry to rain on your parade Mr C but IMHO the Endurance 160 is an attempt at a thru deck mini cruiser and I don't like where the elevators are, plus what looks like a vehicle ramp access in the middle of the flight deck. That positioning in elevators went out after WWII. It is a paper design at the moment, being designed by a group who have no previous design history or experience with CVs or LHDs. On that basis alone, it is most definitely a huge risk for NZDF. From what I have been able to find out about the Endurance 160, it appears, at present, to be a bit of a crowded ship design wise.

I firmly believe that we would be far better to go with a proven design, be it a LPD or a LHD and Navantia do both. The Galacia class LPD 8,000 or 13,000 tonne variants (I think the 13,000 tonne variant would be ideal for NZ) and it can take four Sea King or six Bell AB212; read 4 x NH90 and 6 x SH2G(I) or A109 in an NZ context. However, it only has two spots on the deck, but in a new build that could be altered. An alternative is the 13,000 tonne variant of the Juan Carlos 1 / Canberra LHD.

 

[t68]

I firmly believe that we would be far better to go with a proven design, be it a LPD or a LHD and Navantia do both. The Galacia class LPD 8,000 or 13,000 tonne variants (I think the 13,000 tonne variant would be ideal for NZ) and it can take four Sea King or six Bell AB212; read 4 x NH90 and 6 x SH2G(I) or A109 in an NZ context. However, it only has two spots on the deck, but in a new build that could be altered. An alternative is the 13,000 tonne variant of the Juan Carlos 1 / Canberra LHD.

DNCS has plans for a series of smaller versions of the Mistral-class amphibious assault ship which were referred to as,
BIP-13 (13,000 ton, 151 meters (495 ft)
BIP-10 (10,000 ton, 125 meters (410 ft)
BIP-8 (8,000 ton, 102 meters (335 ft)

The BIP-13 sounds like the right size for the NZDF, I would imagine that they would have 4 landing spots with the BIP-8 is similar to the Italian San Giorgio-class amphibious transports, but also included a helicopter hangar.

 

[ngatimozart]

Shane I think you need to read this http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/air-power-101-new-members-12457/. Whilst it is not about things naval, it is a good backgrounder. I also think you need to read back through this thread to gain an understanding of the NZ context.

That is golden!!. No truer words have been spoken.
Getting back a few posts to you mentioning over role-ing (thats a horrible mash up of english) yeah absolutely. Covering frigate, helicopter carrier and amphib, (shall I persevere with AOR, fisheries protection and does the dishes too?Nah too much) is probably too extreme. But we are small nation (like Denmark) who makes defence purchases not often enough so we have to look at the trends and look to be ahead of the curve.
Really a frigate doesn't seem to be really dependent on shape to perform its function (I'm assuming).

The hull shape is extremely important. The max velocity of the hull through the water is a function of the length and width of the hull at the water line. It’s a matter of wave theory. This also means that the larger and the heavier the hull the greater the energy required to move it through the water.

As long as it is mobile and agile enough, has effective sensory awareness and processing with minimal observable emmissions, effective and relevant weapons delivery and can absorb damage and effect damage control. But I suppose its acoustic signature is a function of hull form which may dictate a certain shape of vessel? I am not sure there. If you can get by with a heli carrying frigate with good acoustics I think it is worth looking at. All that hangar volume with a 5 inch, VLS and CIWS with 4 embarked heli's that would be a worry for any opponent above or below the surface.

Why would a frigate want four helos? They take up weight and space. Too much weight above the waterline makes a ship top heavy and prone to capsizing, which is very deleterious to a COs promotion chances. Space is at an absolute premium on a warship especially a frigate-sized one. Then you have to take into account the extra crews, maintenance crew, four times the required fuel storage and magazine storage, for no significant gain.

In terms of displacement and wetted area that is a good point. It all costs money to run. But the Type 26 seems to be 6,000 tonnes or greater and with the desire to see more powerful sensor systems being placed higher (type 45, Type 54 something and possible Type56 ) we are seeing wider beam aswell. 8,000 tonnes loaded might be the practical target to aim for this thought excercise as it seems thats where it is trending overseas. And over-committing a crew to varied roles is a good point.

The Type 26 is going to be too expensive for NZ and may not necessarily meet NZs requirements, nor Australias’ for that matter. The ANZAC FFH replacement that the RAN does build may, for all intents and purposes, not be suited to NZs requirements because the RAN will have a very high tech and expensive requirement, including such things as VLS Tomahawk Cruise Missile capability, ESSM and or RAM, and possibly close to AEGIS capability. Whereas the NZ requirement will be more for a GP Patrol Frigate with good ASW some AA capability and hopefully good ASuW capability that more than likely will not include Tomahawk. We do need to have a good ASuW weapon which we don’t at the moment on our frigates and I think this
Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace NSM Naval Strike Missile - JSM Joint Strike Missile would be truly ideal. We have just acquired their AGM 119 Penguin with the ex-RAN Seasprites. However we’d be dreaming just to get Harpoons. I think at the moment the Absalon class is more suited to our needs. The UK Type 45 Daring Class are destroyers and very expensive, plus we don’t have any requirement for them.

I still think having a production run of four or five vessels (three to four) that can cover all bases (fighting, transporting, carrying) will be worth alot soon and work out maybe cheaper. But maybe designate primary roles to certain vessels and then familiarity training for other roles not designated. Fitted for but not with for the ship dedicated to troop transport maybe?
The BAE CVX (again cruiser in size) is the sort of trend I think will eventuate and with our fleet so small I think having vessels (2-3 year construction time/optimistic work up time and 10-15 year project time) that can have the flexibility to switch roles gives us a reserve capacity to absorb a loss or two (in the event of major hostilities) but still secure our national material interests.

A fighting ship is different to an amphibious ops vessel in many ways. The LPD/LPA/LHD/LSD etc., by their nature are not fighting ships. Weapons and sensors take up room so what do you drop in capability so you can include those weapons in such a vessel? Do you carry less troops, avfuel, IFVs, landing craft, ammo, water etc., instead? You can’t keep increasing the size of the ship because it becomes plainly uneconomic and just creates another easier skimmer target.

First shots fired of the falklands was from Antrim's Wessex, the frigate was largely expressed through actions carried out by its helicopter. Most of the Antipiracy work on the Horn is carried out by helicopter, Sub drivers seem more concerned with Helo's above them than the warship, seems to me I would prioritise the enabling our fleet to maximise the number of (very expensive) effective helicopters on board and a this type of concept is geared towards it. And then the bonus is one of these hulls can replace Canterbury.
And Tod that Stanflex is really where I hope we head. Some Harpoons would be lovely.
God sorry that is another lengthy one. I'll try to knock it on the head.

The BAE CV is the RN QE carriers. Overall your idea won’t work because it is an unworkable concept at sea especially for a small navy like the RNZN. Big ships like that are not agile and make nice fat skimmer targets for fullas who wear dolphins or wings and for smart missiles. Why do you think that large ships, even in the USN, have escorts and that if what you propose was a viable concept then navies like the USN or RN would have tried it.

Another two important concepts you must understand are the political and economic aspects of NZ defence policy and how this policy is arrived at. The reality in NZ is that defence is not a priority and hasn’t been for two generations. Defence spending of 1%GDP is not enough and it has been two generation since defence spending was at 2% GDP.

 

[ngatimozart]

DNCS has plans for a series of smaller versions of the Mistral-class amphibious assault ship which were referred to as,
BIP-13 (13,000 ton, 151 meters (495 ft)
BIP-10 (10,000 ton, 125 meters (410 ft)
BIP-8 (8,000 ton, 102 meters (335 ft)

The BIP-13 sounds like the right size for the NZDF, I would imagine that they would have 4 landing spots with the BIP-8 is similar to the Italian San Giorgio-class amphibious transports, but also included a helicopter hangar.

Looks interesting. Thanks for that. I was unaware that DNCS had plans for smaller variants. some may say that a 13,000 tonne LHD/LPD is to large for the RNZN, that a 8,000 or 10,000 tonne variant is more realistic, I feel that the 13,000 tonne variant future proofs the RNZN.

 

[Shanesworld]

Shane I think you need to read this.
Whilst it is not about things naval, it is a good backgrounder. I also think you need to read back through this thread to gain an understanding of the NZ context.

The hull shape is extremely important. The max velocity of the hull through the water is a function of the length and width of the hull at the water line. It’s a matter of wave theory. This also means that the larger and the heavier the hull the greater the energy required to move it through the water.

Why would a frigate want four helos? They take up weight and space. Too much weight above the waterline makes a ship top heavy and prone to capsizing, which is very deleterious to a COs promotion chances. Space is at an absolute premium on a warship especially a frigate-sized one. Then you have to take into account the extra crews, maintenance crew, four times the required fuel storage and magazine storage, for no significant gain.

The Type 26 is going to be too expensive for NZ and may not necessarily meet NZs requirements, nor Australias’ for that matter. The ANZAC FFH replacement that the RAN does build may, for all intents and purposes, not be suited to NZs requirements because the RAN will have a very high tech and expensive requirement, including such things as VLS Tomahawk Cruise Missile capability, ESSM and or RAM, and possibly close to AEGIS capability. Whereas the NZ requirement will be more for a GP Patrol Frigate with good ASW some AA capability and hopefully good ASuW capability that more than likely will not include Tomahawk. We do need to have a good ASuW weapon which we don’t at the moment on our frigates and I think this

Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace NSM Naval Strike Missile - JSM Joint Strike Missile would be truly ideal. We have just acquired their AGM 119 Penguin with the ex-RAN Seasprites. However we’d be dreaming just to get Harpoons. I think at the moment the Absalon class is more suited to our needs. The UK Type 45 Daring Class are destroyers and very expensive, plus we don’t have any requirement for them.

A fighting ship is different to an amphibious ops vessel in many ways. The LPD/LPA/LHD/LSD etc., by their nature are not fighting ships. Weapons and sensors take up room so what do you drop in capability so you can include those weapons in such a vessel? Do you carry less troops, avfuel, IFVs, landing craft, ammo, water etc., instead? You can’t keep increasing the size of the ship because it becomes plainly uneconomic and just creates another easier skimmer target.

The BAE CV is the RN QE carriers. Overall your idea won’t work because it is an unworkable concept at sea especially for a small navy like the RNZN. Big ships like that are not agile and make nice fat skimmer targets for fullas who wear dolphins or wings and for smart missiles. Why do you think that large ships, even in the USN, have escorts and that if what you propose was a viable concept then navies like the USN or RN would have tried it.

Another two important concepts you must understand are the political and economic aspects of NZ defence policy and how this policy is arrived at. The reality in NZ is that defence is not a priority and hasn’t been for two generations. Defence spending of 1%GDP is not enough and it has been two generation since defence spending was at 2% GDP.

Hi Ngati,

In terms of the thread and also the RN, RAN, USN and the anglophile and Russian threads generally they consume more of my time than the missus thinks healthy (accuse her of the same on Pinterest and its mighty response back and ice cold looks for an hour). With OPSSG's Air power 101, had read that previously but will read it again shortly. As with all his pieces its well put together and informative (as with pretty much everybodies work here frankly). I'm yet to verify it with GF and Feanor I am with the Army reserve and ex regular and have a number of friends who are current and ex navy so I have a little (no expert though) exposure to navy. We use their facilities in Town for our company lines now.

My work history is pretty varied but for a brief period I worked for a firm that made hull forms for racing rowers and Kayaks, wing forms and some flow analysis type work . I am far from an expert. Really far.But have a good appreciated for hydrodynamics and understand that finding a good wetted hull shape would require some talent but not impossible.

Also for my sins I worked in a govt ministry under labour and national in a policy role. I haven't paid fully my debt to society for that one yet but became pretty aware of the fickle nature of the politcal system we live under and worked with treasury abit when whole of government was still really popular (I am told its not so much now, too expensive apparently). So I was bitten by their involvement a couple of times. Having said that I came to respect them for the skills they bring to the table.
So yeah on those two points alone this concept is a non-starter and I acknowledge that.

And also the physical performance of such a ship with the weight distribution and Centre of balance and gravity issues would mean it would not (I would think) handle like a more typical frigate so you definitely have me on that one I think. It could be doable might you'd need a better engineer than me.

In terms of energy generation and propulsion to move an 8,000 tonne vessel at combat speeds I think we are going to have to pay that price soon anyway to stay inter-operable. Everybody else is going larger seemingly. To go smaller (which could happen) might relegate us further down the table of relevance.

Regarding four helo's I would have thought having to risk say one or two helos at say 100 mil a pop is better than risking a 1 billion warship and the strategic balance for our small navy that goes with it.
Additional helo's give you additional area coverage, time on station and concurrency.
Additional sensor coverage and convergence in the immediate action, over the horizon coverage, personal and material movement just a greater degree of flexibility.
IF you could make more helicopters operate of a platform without compromising the vessel I don't see why you wouldn't. I think any surface captain would love to have a greater extension of influence if his government saw fit to equip him so (which won't happen). But I concede making it fit is the issue and I think you are right.

I did mock up something on a CAD programme awhile back ( I can send you stills if you wanted but its pretty amateurish and not pretty) and the volume seemed to be there. But that is done with my ignorance of these things and with cutaways of say mk45 and turret, VLS images and pretty roughly scaled.

Regarding the RN's CVF no I wasn't referencing those. I was referencing a concept put forward by BAE that I believe amounted to nothing more than a paper tiger (probably for good reason which probably relate to this concept of my own). If you are not familiar with it google BAE CVX and there should appear an image of a ship with two decks angled 15-25 degrees of centreline with a conventional bow and VLS arrangment forward. That is more what I am thinking of. But kept with a through deck cruiser or sea control ship kind of arrangement.

The Type 45 reference in my post wasn't to highlight an option for us to purchase but to highlight the design trend in modern warships with a high mounted sensory emplacement and correspondingly wider margin in beam to length to bear them.
High mounted AESA's for example in the ANZAC CEA refit and the F-100 AEGIS panels (correct me there though if I am wrong on any of that). I wouldn't advocate a British purchase just yet till their defence project management shows signs of systemic improvement.

But I'll concede (if that is even necessary) that I think you are right. The top weight and distribution imbalances probably make this a physical non starter and politically we will be lucky to get replacements given the performance from a screaming minority over the last two vessels we'll be lucky to have a service with which to commission them into.

We really are in danger though of like the skyhawks and centurions of having a fit for purpose and capable defence force after we needed it ( no combat air and no armour). Like 1945, when we needed it in 1941. That little concept of mine was an thought of desparation to fit everything into a budget of as you say 1% (notional) when we have the commitments of 1.5% or more. It is rather ominous I think given how the last decade has changed things so greatly so quickly. And I would agree with you completely regarding two generations if not more.

If I sought to be realistic (a dangerous thing to do) and looked for something off the shelf from a reputable supplier I agree the Absalon would be a good fit and could be made to fit the electorates expectations if presented correctly. And the Seasprite purchase could be a real decider in our nations history to come.

A fighting ship is different to an amphibious ops vessel in many ways. The LPD/LPA/LHD/LSD etc., by their nature are not fighting ships. Weapons and sensors take up room so what do you drop in capability so you can include those weapons in such a vessel? Do you carry less troops, avfuel, IFVs, landing craft, ammo, water etc., instead? You can’t keep increasing the size of the ship because it becomes plainly uneconomic and just creates another easier skimmer target.

Absolutely. My current career is all about finding the optimal mix of customer directed compromises. This for someone alot better than me would have to be found at some intersection point aswell with quality customer input to determine where that would be. But yes on the face of it, it is asking alot from one design.

Actually just looking back. The Absalon could as a design suffer the same issues really as my little thought excercise. Absalon's are 6,600 tonnes, armed similar to a fighting vessel, 6 m draught, 20 beam 140 ish long and take two AW101's so its not too dissimilar in those basics except for shape and the consequences that come with it I guess (as addressed above).
I wonder what damage control the Absalon is designed around compared to Iver Huitfeldt's?

Anyway hope all is good

Cheers

Shane

 

[MrConservative]

I'm sorry to rain on your parade Mr C but IMHO the Endurance 160 is an attempt at a thru deck mini cruiser and I don't like where the elevators are, plus what looks like a vehicle ramp access in the middle of the flight deck. That positioning in elevators went out after WWII. It is a paper design at the moment, being designed by a group who have no previous design history or experience with CVs or LHDs. On that basis alone, it is most definitely a huge risk for NZDF. From what I have been able to find out about the Endurance 160, it appears, at present, to be a bit of a crowded ship design wise.

I firmly believe that we would be far better to go with a proven design, be it a LPD or a LHD and Navantia do both. The Galacia class LPD 8,000 or 13,000 tonne variants (I think the 13,000 tonne variant would be ideal for NZ) and it can take four Sea King or six Bell AB212; read 4 x NH90 and 6 x SH2G(I) or A109 in an NZ context. However, it only has two spots on the deck, but in a new build that could be altered. An alternative is the 13,000 tonne variant of the Juan Carlos 1 / Canberra LHD.

Your not raining on my parade Ngati. Your just disagreeing with me and that is fine and we all disagree about something from time to time. For example the 1984-1997 era Auckland rugby team were far better than Canterbury who were a decent and plucky number 2 (which was good because it meant another team other than Auckland could thrash Wellington) , which you will no doubt completely rebuke. I have my own dislikes about the Galacia. It can certainly lift a lot of stuff BUT I think that its primary role balance and design is far more orientated for Spains sealift needs than what NZ requires post the 2020 joint amphibious taskforce centred around a CATG, improved strategic projection capability, improved strategic and tactical airlift, an Aegir 18R type vessel / JSS, greater emphasis on rotary assets than ever before. The Galacia would have been a great solution 15 years ago when they were mulling over the Sealift Review - that is lift a Battalion with supporting assets, which the Galacia and other similar sized traditional LPD/Amphibious Sealift Vessel can do. That is not the full context or solution we require post 2020-2035. Therefore my return argument is for you is to look at the wider ''package" of component platforms that we will have and what we will require and how they will integrated together (both of us will be grumpy old buggers by then no doubt). That is why I look for a component vessel (within the mission spectrum of that JATF concept) which has a role balance more towards a LHD than a LPD like the Galacia and its peers. It can do the sealift but can more efficiently offer greater flexibility in the aviation role. That is why I shy away now from LPDs these days (with the caveat) in the NZDF and geo-strategic context. The Endurance 160 over the Endurance 140. It is just an example of the real debate here. LHD over LPD. I think my quote was on the other page "MrCs line of thinking" with respect to LHDs derivatives and actually used the 160 as a familiar example. Yes the 160 is in design development, like a number of similar designs that have emerged over the last decade. Crowded? I remember reading that criticism on a blog post somewhere else but however said it never explained why - will it be that bad with only a CTAG lift - somewhat less than a Battalion Group, with the likelihood of great support capability from other NZDF assets (18R, A400M maybe). Risky - crikey - project protector was not exactly gold standard. To suit the unique needs of the NZDF their are always going to be compromises and when it comes to something like a vessel that can do amphibious support and sealift in the Asia-Pacific AOI to lift a CATG - nothing really completely off the shelf actually exists - there will be a degree of 'orphaness'. Nevertheless, I should add ST Marine are not bunny's and have successfully built affordable naval vessels with design flair, reliability and solid capability for a number of years. The wider ST group are one of the more sophisticated defence sector players out there. I look at their 160 and it is the potential in the vessel type and proof of concept that is impressive. I think that the analogy that they ST Marine have no experience building LHD's and those who have prior experience are only capable of it is not quite ringing true - both Japan and Koreas have done pretty well with the Dokto and the Osumi. The Singapore Defence/Tech capability and track record are very well respected by those two other Asian countries. The BPC140, the "Mini" Mistrals, the E160, the MRH-150 do offer more than logistic projection - strategic projection something that the NZDF / NZ Govt considers as very desirable post DWP10 . That said none of them are in reality anything near the thru-deck cruiser design concepts that have floated around for years. Lastly, the CY will be with us for at least another decade or so at the very earliest so we are really talking about a replacement concept quite someway off by which time a more mature NZ specific design variation of an appropriate sized LHD (Which is sort of becoming redundant term) E160 or BPC or Mistral et al will be out there. Frankly, I dont really care who builds the thing, ST, TKMS, BMT, whoever, as long it is something that is the cornerstone enabling component of post 2020 JAFT orientated NZDF and is future proofed as a concept beyond 2035-2040. The late 1990s was the right time to order a LPD like the Galacia, not in 2024 which I argue that should be LHD time. 12000-14000 tonnes LPD or 12000-14000 LHD as the centrepiece post 2025 through to 2050? I know what I think is the most relevant solution.

http://www.defenseinnovationmarketplace.mil/resources/MC Amphibious Capabilites.pdf

The above is worth a read.

 

[chis73]

Mr C, I think I'll have to support Ngati on this one (ie a future LPD vs a LHD). My reasoning is as follows:

The main requirement for this vessel is to transport the army's equipment, which (due to increased need for additional armour / IED protection) keeps getting heavier - increasingly outstripping the abilities of aircraft to lift it, as well our ability to afford to buy & operate possible heavier aircraft. I don't see that trend changing any time soon.

Therefore, increasing the number of helicopters (by selecting a LHD vs a LPD) doesn't help solve the fundamental problem much at all, as the equipment we have to shift is too heavy for just about any helicopter to lift. A LPD the size of Rotterdam/Galicia can carry just about as many helicopters as we could support anyway (6 Lynx or NH90 sized, or 4 Merlin/Super Puma size). I don't think we have any pretensions of conducting amphibious assaults, which might be a stronger justification for a LHD.

That said, I agree with you that, as-is, the Rotterdam/Galicia is not perfect for us. A modified version, trading well-dock length for increased general cargo space, & fuel bunkerage, might suit better. A Harper's Ferry version if you will. Range for Rotterdam/Galicia is listed as around 6000nm, but only at 12kts (compare the old HMS Fearless LPD (similar displacement): 5000nm at 20kts).

Personally I feel the NZDF's case for a dedicated amphibious ship is still marginal (which is probably why the Canterbury is described as a multi-role vessel, even though it isn't). Sure, if the Army took the plunge and formally became Marines (I think they would have some trouble swallowing that dead rat) - then fine, make an amphibious ship the centrepiece of our force. But at the moment, the requirement for tactical sealift, as opposed to strategic, is in the very-small percentages.

We're stuck with Canterbury for the foreseeable future (so we might as well make the most of it), but there is also a need for a simple cheap logistics ship that is more pressing. I'm thinking some kind of smallish RO-RO / container vessel, preferably run on STUFT principles on the trans-Tasman route (so that it could be made available at much shorter notice than chartering a vessel from, say, Europe). If it were ice-strengthened & modified for some aviation fuel carriage it might be a ship more suitable for the Antarctic resupply mission that seems to have specified in the last MPSC RFI. The annual Scott Base fuel requirement is only 400m3 (approx 330t) - not including our share of aircraft fuel - and it seems only a small amount of that 400m3 can be stored at Scott Base. So specifying a large tanker to deliver it seems wasteful.

Chis73

 

[swerve]

...
That said, I agree with you that, as-is, the Rotterdam/Galicia is not perfect for us. A modified version, trading well-dock length for increased general cargo space, & fuel bunkerage, might suit better. A Harper's Ferry version if you will. Range for Rotterdam/Galicia is listed as around 6000nm, but only at 12kts (compare the old HMS Fearless LPD (similar displacement): 5000nm at 20kts). ...
Chis73

You mean a Bay class . . . . but presumably with a permanent hangar. A bit bigger, 8000nm at 15 knots.

 

[chis73]

You mean a Bay class . . . . but presumably with a permanent hangar. A bit bigger, 8000nm at 15 knots.

Not exactly, the Bay is perhaps too large for NZ, but something similar based on the Rotterdam hull or maybe even smaller. Rather than a single LCU, perhaps 2 LCM and a couple of LCVPs (if they could be squeezed in). There is an 8000t Enforcer design, but that is probably too small. Generally, we would be looking to transport an extended company group, not a battalion sized force, but across oceanic distances. A battalion would be an emergency lift for us.

Chis73

 

[swerve]

Well, at least you have an example of how one can take an Enforcer & reduce the dock to add cargo space & bunkerage, even if the specific model is too big for you.

 

[Volkodav]

And there are through deck variations of the enforcer as well. It seems that the design can be pretty much tailored to meet any requirement and so long as it doesn't increase cost too much a through deck is probably a good thing to have.

 

[MrConservative]

Mr C, I think I'll have to support Ngati on this one (ie a future LPD vs a LHD). My reasoning is as follows:

The main requirement for this vessel is to transport the army's equipment, which (due to increased need for additional armour / IED protection) keeps getting heavier - increasingly outstripping the abilities of aircraft to lift it, as well our ability to afford to buy & operate possible heavier aircraft. I don't see that trend changing any time soon.

Therefore, increasing the number of helicopters (by selecting a LHD vs a LPD) doesn't help solve the fundamental problem much at all, as the equipment we have to shift is too heavy for just about any helicopter to lift. A LPD the size of Rotterdam/Galicia can carry just about as many helicopters as we could support anyway (6 Lynx or NH90 sized, or 4 Merlin/Super Puma size). I don't think we have any pretensions of conducting amphibious assaults, which might be a stronger justification for a LHD.

That said, I agree with you that, as-is, the Rotterdam/Galicia is not perfect for us. A modified version, trading well-dock length for increased general cargo space, & fuel bunkerage, might suit better. A Harper's Ferry version if you will. Range for Rotterdam/Galicia is listed as around 6000nm, but only at 12kts (compare the old HMS Fearless LPD (similar displacement): 5000nm at 20kts).

Personally I feel the NZDF's case for a dedicated amphibious ship is still marginal (which is probably why the Canterbury is described as a multi-role vessel, even though it isn't). Sure, if the Army took the plunge and formally became Marines (I think they would have some trouble swallowing that dead rat) - then fine, make an amphibious ship the centrepiece of our force. But at the moment, the requirement for tactical sealift, as opposed to strategic, is in the very-small percentages.

We're stuck with Canterbury for the foreseeable future (so we might as well make the most of it), but there is also a need for a simple cheap logistics ship that is more pressing. I'm thinking some kind of smallish RO-RO / container vessel, preferably run on STUFT principles on the trans-Tasman route (so that it could be made available at much shorter notice than chartering a vessel from, say, Europe). If it were ice-strengthened & modified for some aviation fuel carriage it might be a ship more suitable for the Antarctic resupply mission that seems to have specified in the last MPSC RFI. The annual Scott Base fuel requirement is only 400m3 (approx 330t) - not including our share of aircraft fuel - and it seems only a small amount of that 400m3 can be stored at Scott Base. So specifying a large tanker to deliver it seems wasteful.

Chis73

Sorry Chris - you are missing the context completely. Why do you think the case for a ship with amphibious capability in the NZ context is marginal? The line in your argument that revealed the biggest clue was the assumption that somehow an LHD type vessel is purely connected with Amphibious Assault ops. No nope nada.

The ADF is not building the Canberra class just for assault ops? Sure within the context of the ADF capability it will do that role well supporting a US led scenario - BUT the likely operational tasking of the vessel will be in support of lower spectrum ChpVI (frequently) and Chp VII ops. That is why the ADF went for such a vessel - the flexibility it offers within the construct of modern defence outputs. They have gone for it because it is a capability multiplier in multiple operational environments well beyond the vessels they will replace.

We are talking about a mid teen tonnage vessel here - one that is about getting the balance right The CY may have a purpose to currently shift just army equipment and some portion of the CTAG personnel. Thus now we need to look towards role development within the next vessel that has to be synergized with the future ops, tempo and outlook.

An LHD type vessel (which lets be honest I find those generic terms dated and not descriptive of roles - but at least they do indicate the basic difference between an LPD and LHD) generally has improved aviation capability that the other the LPD lacks. Fundamentally thats the difference. To not recognise that advantage in an future operational sense for the NZDF is frankly incredulous.
The vessel which I have been spelling out will do exactly the same or even improved capability as Canterbury in sealift and ship2shore transfer of machineery and equipment to support a NZ CATG. Well dock, Bunkerage, cargo space, containers, crane, landing craft yada yada . It is all there across the spectrum of designs that are emerging. And I repeat just so filters through what it will add and this is the enabler of improved aviation capability and a modest degree of strategic projection beyond just the logistical. The NZDF considers the CY a strategic sealift vessel btw and not a tactical sealift vessel. Much in the same way that the RNZAF considers the analogy of the B757 - tactical loads strategic distances. That is due to the small sized of our sharp end defence capability and our geographic position. Even if it is a relatively smallish load that might be considered of tactical size in contrast to far larger militaries - the reach nevertheless demanded is strategic in distance.

That said I agree with you however regarding the use of the future AOR vessel for Antarctic support. Not a great idea that can be done better and more effectively with a dedicated Southern Ocean vessel that could/should replace the as yet un-replaced Resolution hull.

 

[Volkodav]

Considering NZ population and anticipated future wealth would it be unreasonable to see them evolving a navy not too different from some of the Nordic states, i.e. Norway or Denmark? 3-5 high capability frigates, a couple of multi-role vessels (Denmark) and smaller craft.

Obviously submarines would be out of the question but 3-5 frigates, some OPVs for Southern ocean work and a pair of small multirole amphibs should not be out of the question.

 

[chis73]

Why do you think the case for a ship with amphibious capability in the NZ context is marginal?

Um, I said the case for a dedicated amphibious ship was marginal ie. one that does little else, while being in full-time navy employ - which was what we have effectively got with Canterbury. The need to transport the army at short notice is relatively rare; the requirement to then land over-the-beach much rarer still. Yet we need this ship close to home all the time just in case. Are we getting value for money, or could we do it a better way?

I understand your viewpoint regarding a LHD. I'm sure the Endurance 160 would be a great ship. But...asking for a ship with a 5-spot flight deck, capable of hangaring what seems to be 7 medium helos - don't you feel that is gilding the lily a bit in a NZ context. We've been to the well twice now to try to sort the army sealift requirement (Charles Upham & Canterbury) and come up short-changed both times.

Now, onto other matters:

Where would be a good place to start, design-wise, for an Antarctic supply STUFT ship? An ice-strengthened modernised Sir Galahad LSL (1987 version - currently serving with Brazil as the Garcia D'Avila)?

Chis73

 

[StingrayOZ]

I would have thought NZ would shy away from anything that currently isn't in service and built from the ground up as a ice capable ship, as adding ice breaking capability in the metre plus range isn't trivial.

A more modern Aurora Australis (or simular) would I think be more appropriate. Was actually built after Galahad. 1000m3 of fuel. At least as a starting point.

A mini-LHD isn't the craziest thing aired. If NZ wants to adopt the seabasing concept which for our region makes a lot of sense, as relying on local capabilities can be dicey or non-existent. While the aviation facilities might seem overkill for a pure NZ POV, allies and coalition forces do have assets that could be deployed to assist and make use of the capability. Deploying with AUS, UK or US forces or cross decking with such forces may occur, and can function/train within those forces seabasing capabilities. But this gets back to NZ policy, of how does she see herself acting in the region with or without her allies. 2 spots would be fine if she was operating by herself off Wellington, but integrating as part of a combined US, AU, UK force as a hospital, or in theatre support ship you are not really able to contribute. With a US LHD (or carrier) tied up providing fixed wing air support, an Australian LHD using its well dock, having something that could handle 5 would be much more useful.

 

[ngatimozart]

Considering NZ population and anticipated future wealth would it be unreasonable to see them evolving a navy not too different from some of the Nordic states, i.e. Norway or Denmark? 3-5 high capability frigates, a couple of multi-role vessels (Denmark) and smaller craft.

Obviously submarines would be out of the question but 3-5 frigates, some OPVs for Southern ocean work and a pair of small multirole amphibs should not be out of the question.

I would think 3 FFH GP frigates with stanflex or similar built along the lines of the Absalons and 4-6 OPVs built to IC ice standard with stanflex or similar and armed with 76mm gun, Mk41 VLS, couple of 30mm and .50 cal etc., around the 2,500 - 3000 tonne displacement like corvettes but able to do taskings that current OPVs tasked with plus antipiracy, ASW etc., and act as escort for a 13,000 tonne RNZN LPD / LHD if need be in low risk environment.

 

[1805]

Denmark seems to have requirements quite well aligned to NZ; Absalon/Knud Rasmussen/ice strengthening/Stanflex. Would it not be worth having discussions around seeing if there is any common ground for future requirements, on a non commitment basis. Replacement of the Absalon's could even be on a similar timescale to Canterbury. Who know in 10-15 years time the Danes might be thinking they worked well, but if only they have been 8-9000 and maybe a small dock they would have been better. The potential of spreading design costs over another 2-3 hulls might mean they are prepared to let NZ have influence over the requirements, particularly if that was the way they were inclined to go anyway.

I would not be surprised if Denmark looks back on the Absalon & Iver Huitfeldt-classes and thinks 5 x 6,600 could be done even better by 3 x 11-12,000. Bigger ships better able to handle helicopters, radars higher, less crews.

I think NZ would be better focused on getting access to a really well equipped multi role helicopter force, with good ASW, a robust anti ship missile, SAR logistics, maybe even a bit of ground support capability, rather than going for a single high profile LHD with not much on it....could easily end up like the sorry tail of the Chakri Naruebet.

 

[ngatimozart]

Denmark seems to have requirements quite well aligned to NZ; Absalon/Knud Rasmussen/ice strengthening/Stanflex. Would it not be worth having discussions around seeing if there is any common ground for future requirements, on a non commitment basis. Replacement of the Absalon's could even be on a similar timescale to Canterbury. Who know in 10-15 years time the Danes might be thinking they worked well, but if only they have been 8-9000 and maybe a small dock they would have been better. The potential of spreading design costs over another 2-3 hulls might mean they are prepared to let NZ have influence over the requirements, particularly if that was the way they were inclined to go anyway.

I would not be surprised if Denmark looks back on the Absalon & Iver Huitfeldt-classes and thinks 5 x 6,600 could be done even better by 3 x 11-12,000. Bigger ships better able to handle helicopters, radars higher, less crews.

I think NZ would be better focused on getting access to a really well equipped multi role helicopter force, with good ASW, a robust anti ship missile, SAR logistics, maybe even a bit of ground support capability, rather than going for a single high profile LHD with not much on it....could easily end up like the sorry tail of the Chakri Naruebet.

A ship that acts as a frigate and a landing ship is not going to fullfill all the rolls required of the RNZN. That is too much of a multirole. The Absalon have a primary role as frigates with a secondary limited landing capability. Yes the Danes and us have similar sized navies and similar populations but our security and regional outlooks are very different. Danish SLOCs do not extend to half the globe; ours do. Their nearest neighbour is across the fence; ours is about 1200 nautical miles away. However there is a lot of merit in your suggestion about cooperation with the Danes. It is most definitely not something to be sneezed at.

The Endeavour replacement is being looked at in a regional context and any Canterbury replacement or addition has to be seen in a regional context as well. Whilst on its on a13,000 tonne LHD in the RNZN appears to be excessive, but when you take into account NZs location and its relationship with Australia then such an LHD is far more practible in the long term. If it is a Navantia built one then it has compatibility with the RAN ones. We are unlike Thailand in that we would get far greater use out of a LHD than they do out of their CV which doesn't have a dock and it is therefore limited. (Same as we are with Canterbury).

 

[MrConservative]

Um, I said the case for a dedicated amphibious ship was marginal ie. one that does little else, while being in full-time navy employ - which was what we have effectively got with Canterbury. The need to transport the army at short notice is relatively rare; the requirement to then land over-the-beach much rarer still. Yet we need this ship close to home all the time just in case. Are we getting value for money, or could we do it a better way?

I understand your viewpoint regarding a LHD. I'm sure the Endurance 160 would be a great ship. But...asking for a ship with a 5-spot flight deck, capable of hangaring what seems to be 7 medium helos - don't you feel that is gilding the lily a bit in a NZ context. We've been to the well twice now to try to sort the army sealift requirement (Charles Upham & Canterbury) and come up short-changed both times.

Now, onto other matters:

Where would be a good place to start, design-wise, for an Antarctic supply STUFT ship? An ice-strengthened modernised Sir Galahad LSL (1987 version - currently serving with Brazil as the Garcia D'Avila)?

Chis73

Gilding the lily - no. Getting something which is more multi-role than the simple sealift of the CY is very sensible. Endurance 160 is just one of a number of designs - it seems that they are all offering what could be loosely termed a multi-role amphibious support ship. You would need to have hangerage for 4 NH-90s at least plus 2 Seasprites or alternatively 2 A109's with space for at least a couple more airframes to future proof the vessel post 2030. It may well be that our Sprites are replaced by a Seirra / Romeo mix one day in the future. It is not too much of a stretch to consider that a multi-role amphibious support ship it could deploy as a long range patrol vessel with a couple of Sprites / Sierras or Romeos embarked depending on the situation (as what was the original intention when they dreamed up Protector - so in a way such a ship would be replacing the original F-427 and the L-427 - though I stress it is NOT a frigate just a long range patroller) . Four to five landing spots would be plausible. You would want a flight deck that can handle a visiting Chinny or larger US type (as the interoperability of the vessel with partner nations is essential - for it is a regional asset not just a Kiwi one) and still be able to operate at least simultaneously a Sprite and a NH-90.

As for the Southern Ocean / Antarctic role - as I was discussing a few pages back with John Newman on this subject the Scando's do a good line in patrol vessels which are 1A Ice and could be adapted to embark a hanger and flight deck, and have reasonable deck and storage space, enough to do resupply on Scott Base and support the sub Antarctic islands. The cost is circa the Otago - so not over the top and would be reasonable to operate. Effectively the 3rd OPV we should have had in the first place.

 

[Volkodav]

A bit of a leap here but lets assume NZ goes for a more conventional LPD type it could be smart to specify the design for but not with a number of systems from the ANZACs, i.e. the 5" gun, Mk41 with ESSM and the Phalanx to have the potential to evolve an Absolon type capability (with the added advantage of a proper dock).

Now the next step is the real stretch, I can not see NZ opting for an AWD with area defence let alone ABM capability, let alone a cruise missile for land attack. Now you can fit your current ANZAC systems to your LPD(s), so does the ANZAC replacement have to be a conventional frigate at all? Could you instead go for a 6-8000 ton through deck warship designed specifically to operate NZDF helos and future UCAVs? The base ship would have point defence missiles and guns as well as a comprehensive sensor suit and high en combat system but its real strength would be its helicopters, UAVs and UCAVs.

For your actual combatants you can replace the current OPVs and IPVs with Corvettes