Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[Gibbo]

While not military, to get a comparison of size with ships that are regularly tied up in NZ there is NIWA's Tangaroa - she is ice-strengthened and had dynamic positioning systems added a few years ago.

Vessels | NIWA

A bit smaller than the maximum specifications noted for the navy, but about the size we will end up with I imagine.

Given Tangaroa was retrofitted with the dynamic positioning system, are similar second-hand ships likely to be looked at as an option?

Yes she is a fine looking vessel & I've thought before how good she'd look in grey - but naval trawlers are pretty rare! :rolling

If all the specified equipment in the RFI gets delivered then the LWSV will need to be at least 100 metres just to find space for it all. What with a flight deck, REA tenders, RHIBs, decom chamber and cranage etc for bell - it'll require a fair bit of space!

I understand one drawback with Manawanui is the limited working area available on the quarter-deck, so the LWSV no doubt will need to be long enough to also accommodate more aft space.

 

[Gibbo]

I very much doubt that the HMGs will be on stabilsed mounts. In NZ pollies & treasury terms they are a very expensive luxury. The M2.50 cal on the OPVs are not stabilised. For their M2.50 cal the RNZN use the pre Kahu RNZAF A4 TLAR targeting system - That Looks About Right based on the Mk 1 eyeball. With the Maritime Projection and Sustainment Capability vessel (Endeavour replacement) the RNZN and MoD appear open to trying something new (within reason) that will fit within their budget and meet their requirements.

Yes I also doubt we'll see HMG's in stabilised mounts (mini-typhoons). The RFI for Endeavour replacement apparently states "...includes 'an appropriate number' of manually laid 0.5-inch machine guns and/or space and weight for a close in weapon system such as Phalanx" - which shows it can be reasonably expected that such requirements will be specified at the outset.

So if the LWSV RFI doesn't include installed weapons specified then at best we'll only see 'manually laid' HMG's. Mind you if the RFI states storage is required for 6 HMG's then I suspect the plan is to provide mounts for manually operated HMG's with a few spare - could be up to 4 that could cover all 4 quarters of approach!?!

At the end of the day I guess it's more a case of the budget will be tight & they best spend it on equipment for operations that'll be used regularly. Besides, it wouldn't take much to plonk a few HMG's on stands - they've done it with Manawanui.

 

[CJohn]

From this article I think we can be sure of one of the responders to the Endeavour RFI Aegir family evolves to meet replenishment and logistics applications

As stated three quaters down the page refering to Norway's selection for Project 2513

"A similar Aegir 18 variant is currently being put forward by DSME and BMT Defence Services for New Zealand’s projected Maritime Projection and Sustainment Capability. This project, for which a request for information was issued in April 2013, envisions the acquisition of a new vessel to replace the Royal New Zealand Navy’s fleet replenishment tanker HMNZS Endeavour by 2018."

 

[gf0012-aust]

doesn't NZG gazette the tender responses?

 

[ngatimozart]

doesn't NZG gazette the tender responses?

Not sure. I'll have a look.

 

[ngatimozart]

doesn't NZG gazette the tender responses?

It appears that they don't publish such information.

 

[40 deg south]

Excellent, I like the sound of this vessel already! Sounds like it could be a very valuable & well used vessel!

If built to MilSpec (unlikely I'm picking) & armed with a few HMG's on stabilised mounts it'll be even better!

I wonder (out loud!) what similar platforms already exist in military service to perform this specific role? I suspect there must be others to use as a baseline for comparison!?!

I've also been wondering about any similar vessels already in service. Nothing obvious has popped up on Google, most nations seem to have specialist vessels for mine clearance vessels and dive support, rather than combine them into a single hull. And thats not to mention the hydrography!

One possibility is a BMT design for a 'utility auxilary ship'.
BMT Salvas Utility Auxiliary Ship | BMT Defence Services

Unlike most of the BMT designs showcased on the website, there is no accompanying datasheet. So we have no firm idea of the dimensions, but it ticks many of the other boxes (multi-function, designed to handle diving support, helicopter deck, appropriate crew/passenger numbers).

The most glaring problem with this design is that is doesn't exist outside of a few computer-generated images and (presumably) detailed design drawings. It would be a bold move for NZ to buy a first-of-class vessel directly off the plans.

On the other hand, if BMT/DSME win the Endeavour replacement contract, then BMT will have not just a foot but a whole leg inside the door at RNZR.

Any other candidates out there?

 

[40 deg south]

Netherlands reverses Karel Doorman decision - IHS Jane's 360

There has been some suggestions on the NZ, Australia and Canada maritime threads that one of these countries should put in an offer for the unwanted Dutch support vessel Karel Doorman.

According to Janes, the Dutch have smehow found enough cash to complete and operate the KD, and the vessel is no longer for sale.

So much for that plan!

 

[ngatimozart]

I've also been wondering about any similar vessels already in service. Nothing obvious has popped up on Google, most nations seem to have specialist vessels for mine clearance vessels and dive support, rather than combine them into a single hull. And thats not to mention the hydrography!

One possibility is a BMT design for a 'utility auxilary ship'.
BMT Salvas Utility Auxiliary Ship | BMT Defence Services

Unlike most of the BMT designs showcased on the website, there is no accompanying datasheet. So we have no firm idea of the dimensions, but it ticks many of the other boxes (multi-function, designed to handle diving support, helicopter deck, appropriate crew/passenger numbers).

The most glaring problem with this design is that is doesn't exist outside of a few computer-generated images and (presumably) detailed design drawings. It would be a bold move for NZ to buy a first-of-class vessel directly off the plans.

On the other hand, if BMT/DSME win the Endeavour replacement contract, then BMT will have not just a foot but a whole leg inside the door at RNZR.

Any other candidates out there?

The RFI has very specific requirements and if those requirements are adhered too, the vessel will be a bespoke design, not an adaption of an existing design. The purpose of this RFI is to seek information from the industry in order to put a business case to the NZG. That is stated in the RFI. The RFP will be the more interesting document.

 

[Lucasnz]

BMT offers the Ventaor which offers many of the roles offered and armed

 

[ngatimozart]

BMT offers the Ventaor which offers many of the roles offered and armed

Yes I see that and it looks like the design could be modified to meet the other roles. I am curious about how their modular system works compared to the StanFlex system. How long does it take to re-role the vessel? Do they have seperate consoles for seperate roles / missions? Or are there generic consoles with software changes at re-role time? StanFlex is 24 hours re-role, has generic consoles and all that is needed is software changes.

 

[Lucasnz]

Found this on the BMT website about possible options for Endeavours replacement

Still working my way through it. Interesting reading.

 

[ngatimozart]

Found this on the BMT website about possible options for Endeavours replacement

Still working my way through it. Interesting reading.

That is very interesting. Based on the basic modelling they are looking at a vessel 35m longer, 3m wider in the beam, with a draught maybe 3.8m deeper than Canterbury. As a rough guide the Spanish Armada AOR A15 SPS Cantabria is around about the same size and it's 19,550 tonnes. Will be very interesting to see what they come up with. Nice find.

 

[Lucasnz]

Its a decent sized vessel they are looking at. Whats interesting is they refer to Mini Typhoon GS. The GS version on the Rafael website contains a Surface to Surface missile, but in mini typhoon the option provides a fitting for a compact missile system to be integrated.

I wonder if they realise DNB will start running into space issues shortly not to mention the need for a larger dry dock. Theres a photo here (further down) showing all the ships alongside, except one IPV, While there's still the berth on the outside of the dry dock wharf things are going to be tight especially if the Littoral Warfare Support Vessel comes in at the max size. Looking at the picture there are only a couple of places for rafting up.

 

[chis73]

Found this on the BMT website about possible options for Endeavours replacement

Still working my way through it. Interesting reading.

Very interesting link Lucasnz. I'm surprised that there was such a formal process when even a cursory - 'not even the back of a postage stamp' - calculation of the wanted requirements vs the available budget says very plainly - 'Nope'.

So, from this study, the optimal solution to stay within budget is a commercial build that drops the LCM carriage, and the ice-strengthening. I don't see a stern ramp or bow doors - so I assume the vehicle transfer would be lift-on lift-off via the cranes. The design to me looks short of stores space unless you use the vehicle deck (there are only a small number of containers too). All Dangerous cargo (ie ammunition) only carried in containers on deck, rather than below the waterline. Not sure if there is even a clearway through the ship to transfer stores from the bow storage area to the flight deck or RAS stations (there probably is, just not visible on the sketch). And of course a whole container is too heavy to transfer by jackstay or to be lifted underslung by helicopter - so you would have to be able to access any stores in the containers and break the contents down into smaller loads.

I wonder what nice features of say the Fort Victoria class this design has (ie quietened propulsion, nitrogen generator for non-combustible atmosphere over the cargo fuel tanks, full helicopter maintenance workshops, merchant navy accommodation standards) - without even thinking about self-defence capabilities. See JNE Vol 31, Book 2 - AOR (Journal of Naval Engineering (JNE))*. Vol 44, Book 2 - "concept studies for a JSS" is also worth a look for a take on the Canadian JSS.

There seems to be too much of the design being driven by minority interests (I guess Army or Joint Force HQ for amphibiousness, other government departments for ice-strengthening).

* NB: Only works with Internet Explorer. One of the best sites out there for naval engineering history though.

Chis73

 

[ngatimozart]

Very interesting link Lucasnz. I'm surprised that there was such a formal process when even a cursory - 'not even the back of a postage stamp' - calculation of the wanted requirements vs the available budget says very plainly - 'Nope'.

So, from this study, the optimal solution to stay within budget is a commercial build that drops the LCM carriage, and the ice-strengthening. I don't see a stern ramp or bow doors - so I assume the vehicle transfer would be lift-on lift-off via the cranes. The design to me looks short of stores space unless you use the vehicle deck (there are only a small number of containers too). All Dangerous cargo (ie ammunition) only carried in containers on deck, rather than below the waterline. Not sure if there is even a clearway through the ship to transfer stores from the bow storage area to the flight deck or RAS stations (there probably is, just not visible on the sketch). And of course a whole container is too heavy to transfer by jackstay or to be lifted underslung by helicopter - so you would have to be able to access any stores in the containers and break the contents down into smaller loads.

I wonder what nice features of say the Fort Victoria class this design has (ie quietened propulsion, nitrogen generator for non-combustible atmosphere over the cargo fuel tanks, full helicopter maintenance workshops, merchant navy accommodation standards) - without even thinking about self-defence capabilities. See JNE Vol 31, Book 2 - AOR (Journal of Naval Engineering (JNE))*. Vol 44, Book 2 - "concept studies for a JSS" is also worth a look for a take on the Canadian JSS.

There seems to be too much of the design being driven by minority interests (I guess Army or Joint Force HQ for amphibiousness, other government departments for ice-strengthening).

* NB: Only works with Internet Explorer. One of the best sites out there for naval engineering history though.

Chis73

The design in the presentation is a basic "illustrative" only design done for a couple of workshops where what could be achieved within the budget was worked, so it is not the final design. The Canadian JSS is another story with what CAN$2.9 billion budgeted for three ships and based on the Berlin Class. We may have our quirks in defence procurement but thank goodness our defence procurement process is very different to the Canadian one.

NZDF is moving towards a JATF and that is one of the drivers behind the original requirements. NZDF is also required to operate in and around Antarctica so that is the why of the ice requirements. It is the taskings that the NZG have given NZDF and it is those taskings along with available funding that determine the requirements of what the MoD are looking for. Because of the project budget not all requirements make it through so as seen in the presentation a process was instituted to identify what could be attained and be best vfm. You will note that at the moment the Army miss out on this one.

 

[gf0012-aust]

It appears that they don't publish such information.

ta for that

 

[ngatimozart]

I've bought this over from the NZDF thread because this discussion belongs here.

Absalons are not considered frigates by the Danes. Unless you are meaning the Danish Iver Huitfeldt class on which it was based from.

The Royal Danish Navy has different classification for the Absalon, Kommandostøtteskib or Command and Support ships, but for all intents and purposes it may be classified as a frigate that happens to have extra capabilities. At the end it's semantics. In reality the Absalon is quite capable of operating any weapons capability and sensor capability found on modern western frigates. The build methodolgy was different in that the Latvian yard used commercial modular building practices, and they had a fixed price contract. The Iver Huitfeldt class is a development of the Absalon and at present mounts 2 x 76mm guns; 1 as A gun and the second as B gun. This is temporary until the Danes obtain more 5" guns then A gun will be 5" and B gun will be a full stabilised 35mm auto cannon. The Danes have and are including the usual frigate weapons and sensors on the Iver Huitfeldt class and some of that would be options not taken up by the RNZN.

I do not regard the Absalon as plausible future ANZAC replacement as I also do not think traditionally sized Corvettes are as well - the Iver Huitfeldt class is another matter. That the Absalon can do peacetime Frigate work must not be confused with what a modern full spectrum frigate has to be able to do and survive when a high intensity situation arises. This wider region has serious players with serious capability

Yes the wider region does have serious players, however NZ has the well known issue of little money and large need.

A future vessel/hull design concept similar to the Danes Iver Huitfeldt & Absalon could be an interesting approach for the RNZN. Two-three full spectrum surface combatants complemented with a further two to three lower speced vessels utilising modular systems for 2nd tier and support roles, sharing as much as possible COTS to save costs - yet one type can actually has the distinction that it can deal with the sharp end.

We have the 4th largest EEZ in the world, covering 4 million square km, plus we have responsibilty for some of the Pacific Islands EEZ enforcement. 99% of our trade is tranported by sea and our SLOC extend to Australia, Singapore, China, Japan, USA, Middle East and Europe, with the three most important being Australia, Singapore and China. If these SLOC are for any reason interrupted or interfered with, then the damage to NZ could be very substantial. This doesn't include Antarctica which adds yet another 3000 odd nautical miles of distance to cover.

Therefore we cannot afford a large and wide ranging fleet, hence we have to be somewhat more canny and wise in how we allocate our resources, both financial and personnel wise. Being very aware that too much multi-tasking on one platform can cause more problems than it solves, an Absalon combat capable frigate would be an idealoption for NZ. The Absalon is 6,300 tonnes and very capable of carrying the weapons and sensors that the RNZN would acquire. It has hangarage for 2 medium class helos etc. It allows the RNZN and NZDF to undertake traditional patrol frigate roles plus having the ability to add some amphibious and C2 capability to the JATF. Imho, in the long term it would be an astute investment if CEAFAR was fitted especially as any subsequent upgrades are software based, not hardware.

Corvettes are changing and in NZs case OPVs would be an easier political sell. Again its semantics and nomeclature. Todays OPVs like the Navantia BAMs can carry more firepower than the old Leander class frigate the RNZN had. A 3000 tonne OPV is probable and that is only some 600 or so tonnes less than an ANZAC frigate. My Absalon / OPV force mix allows for greater flexiblity within the RNZN from a soft power to a hard power approach with modular weapons and sensors that can be moved from OPV to OPV taking only 24 hours. It's all about thinking multiscalar, multilevel and getting the most capability for the dollar.

 

[MrConservative]

I am well aware of all of that above Ngati and I generally agree with your sentiments - however there is a reason why the Danes built the 3 Iver Huitfeldt class in addition to the 2 Absalons.

Commodore Neils Borck has done an excellent "road test style" appraisal of the Iver Hiutfeldt and spends sometime comparing its attributes to the Absalon. Try and track it down. Within the text you will discover why the Absalon is not the choice for NZ as an ANZAC replacement. They are pretty fundamental and demarcate the 4 areas where modern Frigates and Destroyers have to require excellence as warships or be a liability. Speed, survivability, signature and seaworthiness. The Ab does not compare with favour to the Ivers in those principal areas - but then it is not a frigate - it is a flexible combat support and command ship. The Ab is a fantastic platform for numerous tasks but it is not and never should be considered as a Frigate replacement.

Furthermore the opportunity cost of a tricked up Absalom versus a purpose built Frigate like the Ivers does not stack up. Especially if you want to belatedly tack on CEAFAR. All that will do is make the vessel more aware of its own extant limitations. In the NZ case there is no comparative advantage for an Absalon over the Iver. The Absalon does have its logistical sealift attractiveness however that is a simply redundant capability if we are to eventually replace the CY with a better and more capable vessel as well as also have a Aegir 18R type vessel to replace the E.

Delete the Absalon from the mix for a Anzac replacement and replace with the Ivers or similar then I will buy into the concept.

 

[Todjaeger]

Something to remember about the Danish StanFlex system and modules. The vessel itself needs to have the appropriate sensor and computer systems, as well as the fitted socket spaces and wiring loom.

Relating to that, one of the significant costs for modern warships is now the sensor and electronics fitout. This is actually why OPV's have become so popular for the last decade or two. Since they are not intended as combatants, but instead for use in a constabulory role, OPV's typically have a much more basic sensor and electronics fitout vs. a FSG of approximately the same size but having half (or less) the cost.

The notion of some RNZN corvettes and OPV's being able to change roles based on module fitout would require that the vessels have the same sensor and electronics fitout, which would make the OPV's consequently more expensive and less attractive for EEZ patrolling roles. A close look at what sort of levels of patrolling are required by NZ and where would likely be needed.

Also I doubt that corvettes flying the RNZN ensign would be advisable, at least given what corvettes generally are nowadays. Speaking generally, a modern advanced corvette (FSG) packs much of the capability of a modern FFG into a smaller hull. There might be some capability shortfalls like mounting a 76mm/62 naval gun vs. a 127mm/54 naval gun. The SAM might be a smaller, shorted-ranged missile and/or there might be less aboard. Similarly the AShM/LACM might be fewer in number and/or smaller (NSM vs. Harpoon Block II or later...)

The issue with fitting all those capabilities into a smaller hull is that the sea keeping and endurance of the smaller hull just is not as much as for a larger FFG. Granted the FSG likely would cost less, the cost differential is not made up by the extra corvettes which would be required to meet some of the range/endurance reqs. Corvettes do work well for some areas, like the Baltic and Med where the vessel is usually going to be operating out of a home port, and friendly ports are also always nearby.

I do like the StanFlex system, and I think given the limited number of hulls which NZ can realistically afford the StanFlex system can help meet some of the role requirements which might arise by providing some 'swing-role' capability. However there are still going to be some areas which require dedicated assets.

-Cheers