Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[recce.k1]

.... 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

.... 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.

"Nicked" from the NZDF thread (the last post before they were moved here, from NM's link above) and following on from the new discussions above ...

I don't profess to be a naval expert but from my basic understanding of RNZN doctrine the navy requires, as you say, 2-3 or more full-spectrum surface combatants which both contribute to collective defence efforts and should tensions escalate can seamlessly slot into any allied task force or operation and make a realistic contribution to those efforts, all without being a "drag" (requiring additional support or protection) to said operation.

From what is being written here the multi-functional Absalon doesn't quite fit the bill in the above context (presumably not unless it were significantly modified, increasing costs) and then again what would the ability to transport some troops, stores and their vehicles achieve when there may not be such a requirement as such in the early stages of escalating tensions when the initial response is to rapidly assemble an allied task force and send them into harm's way?

Having said that .... I feel a multi-role Absalon (or up-spec OPV/FSG corvette/OCV type) perhaps would be more useful for NZ needs in the aftermath of the initial tensions when an AO has been secured (by a greater coalition presence in place) and then there could be a need for such a multi-role ship to escort other vessels and have troops and equipment on board to facilitate security of ports and surrounds etc.

Can a small country/economy afford such a two tiered combatant/semi-combatant naval approach? I'm not so sure or at least I'm not so sure this is the best approach and value for money.

Instead what could be more beneficial for a smaller nation like NZ is to have these 2-3 full-spectrum surface combatants (upgraded ANZAC's and their replacements in the 2020's) ... but also another 2-3 multi-role (Absalon type) Patrol Vessels i.e. as Tod describes above, nothing much more than a 76/62 naval gun, ASW abilities, short-range SAM, countermeasures and 1-2 helos/UAV's, with the ability to carry limited troops, cargo and vehicles primarily for increasing NZ's presence in the South Pacific & Southern Ocean including routine EEZ patrolling and/or for peace stabilisation efforts in the South Pacific (and possibly further afar i.e. northern Australia and SE Asia or thereabouts).

(Think of these as the up-spec'ed OPV's perhaps the RNZN should have acquired 10 years ago when Phil Goff/Labour were in Opposition at the time of East Timor and proposed such vessels etc).

Politically this could be a better sell. It's also a new capability, slotting in-between the ANZAC's and current OPV's. The idea here is that the OPV buy was reduced from 3-4 to 2 which also suggests there is still a requirement, so why not go one better now that the benign strategic environment notion has been put to bed? Keep the 2 OPV's primarily for NZ/Southern Ocean patrolling and these new enhanced patrol vessels primarily for South Pacific/Melanesian/Micronesian/PNG/ET patrolling and peace stabilisation efforts where greater awareness and self-defence is more necessary than around NZ and its Southern Oceans etc. (Then in the 2020/2030's when the OPV's require replacing, replace them with these same proposed patrol vessels).

In this era of the rise of other powerful states and economies I still believe there is a place for NZ to resume a forward operating base in the Pacific (since the 60's when Sunderland ASW flying boats were based in Fiji), be that Fiji (alas obviously not at the moment), Tonga or wherever, in association with infrastructure development shared with the US and Aus etc. This is where the enlarged multi-role patrol vessel could be based, flying the flag, supporting the locals & HADR (with the troops & air, land and sea mobility abilities coming in handy etc) and for keeping an eye (surveillance) on other "international" comings and goings etc.

Thus freeing up the ANZAC's to work when needed in the Indian Ocean, the Gulf & Asia with coalition forces etc, and the current OPV's watching the "benign" NZ EEZ and Southern Ocean in the summer months etc.

If this is a go-er what sort of (Absalon/FSG/OCV type) enlarged Patrol Vessel capabilities would NZ actually need?

Also is this something the future (?) Australian OCV concept could evolve into? Could the two nations embark on a joint-shipbuilding initiative in the future?

 

[40 deg south]

Request for information - Littoral Operations Support Capability Project [Ministry of Defence NZ]

Off topic from the previous posts, but it looks as if the RFI deadline for the littoral support vessel has been extended by around a month.

In my (civilian) experience, this means one of two things:
1) No credible submissions received
2) A very credible supplier has expressed interest but advised they can't meet the time frame specified.

The required specs mean the vessel is so multi-function as to be a floating Swiss army knife - perhaps MinDef has overestimated the level of interest/ability to work on such a complex project given NZ's well-known funding limitations.

News | Further Expansion for BMT

In unrelated news, UK designer BMT have opened a new 40-strong office to work on the Norwegian Logistics and Support Vessel project. I can't help but wonder if some time is also being devoted to the Endeavour replacement?

 

[ngatimozart]

Request for information - Littoral Operations Support Capability Project [Ministry of Defence NZ]

Off topic from the previous posts, but it looks as if the RFI deadline for the littoral support vessel has been extended by around a month.

In my (civilian) experience, this means one of two things:
1) No credible submissions received
2) A very credible supplier has expressed interest but advised they can't meet the time frame specified.

The required specs mean the vessel is so multi-function as to be a floating Swiss army knife - perhaps MinDef has overestimated the level of interest/ability to work on such a complex project given NZ's well-known funding limitations.

The time extension for RFI submission is 10 days. It is now 12/12/13 1200 NZDF vice 02/12/13 1200 NZDT. Reason given is that the Crown had been approached by several respondants for an extension. The Crown further advises any subsequent extensions is highly unlikely. The required specs should not be overly difficult to meet as they utilise existing technologies. Not everything on the Crowns list will make it to the final design and build unless, they find a previously unknown chest of treasure. There will be a budget figure that the Crown has in mind and the data received from the RFI will allow the Crown to determine what the industry has to offer and from that what the Crown is going to have to pay for.

News | Further Expansion for BMT

In unrelated news, UK designer BMT have opened a new 40-strong office to work on the Norwegian Logistics and Support Vessel project. I can't help but wonder if some time is also being devoted to the Endeavour replacement?

Time has been devoted to the Endeavour replacement and if you look at the BMT presentation involving the Endeavour replacement, you'll see part of the process being undertaken. I would presume that the LOSC will follow a similar process after the RFI data is analysed. That BMT presentation has been previously posted on this thread by another poster and commented on about two months ago.

 

[ngatimozart]

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.

I found the Commodores appraisal. [ame="http://www.slideshare.net/Logimatic/seen-sailed"]Seen & sailed - The Iver Huitfeldt class by Commodore (Ret.) Niels ...[/ame]. I take it this is the one you are referring to. His appraisal was interesting and I noted the cost, US$363 million per ship. There are quite a few things I do like about the Ivers and how they've done things, such as the four x 20ft containers being stowed below the flight deck for food stores etc., and lifted in / out through a hatch in the flight deck; the flight deck capability of taking 20 tonne helos; the Integrated Platform Management System; and the crewing level.

It appears that the Danes have primarily designed the Ivers as AAW frigates, whereas as recce notes we need patrol frigates. I stand corrected and agree that the Ivers would be far better at Tier 1 level than the Absalons and would meet the RNZNs needs better. The NZG would change some of the outfitting to suit NZ needs / requirements and I think that the above water sensors would be one. Although I believe that CEAFAR would be a good system for the RNZN, however upon reflection, I think that the Artisan (Advanced Radar Target Indication Situational Awareness and Navigation) 3D Radar, being fitted by the RN to their Type 23 frigates, maybe the better platform in that it, unlike from what I understand of CEAFAR, also allows for surface searches and contacts. The 76mm guns would be replaced with a 5"gun in A turret. I would also like to see an ASuW missile capability such as Harpoon or NSM on RNZN ships. It does have, IMHO, a lot of potential for the RNZN at what may be a reasonable cost.

I think that 3 would be preferable to two, so my suggestion would be for 3 Ivers, plus 1 Absalon and 4 OPVs. I have noted what Tod has said and think that the suggested OPVs could be extended beyond EEZ use eventually. I acknowledge that the sensors are expensive however it is something worth investigating. If the NZG wouldn't spring for 3 Ivers then, maybe 2 x Ivers and 2 x Absalon as a poor mans second place. Eventually the Canterbury is going to be replaced and I would like that replacement to be an LPD. Canterbury does have some good points and a couple I would like to see taken across to its repalcement, is the large flight deck and hangar facility plus the bridge wings over hang. I noted some USN officers commented that the overhangs were really good, because it allowed them really good vision to see where they were when manoeuvering in tight spaces. Although Mr C is a big fan of an LHD with a black kiwi on the funnel, I do not think an LHD would be politically saleable. The Canberra class LHDs have 6 landing spots and Canterbury has 4 plus it can alternatively lillypad a chook. I think the most important part of the LPD / LHD discussion in an NZ context is the D part - the dock.

I think one important part of this Ivers / Absalon discussion, is maybe not so much the actual acquisition of the ships themselves, but the concepts and design processes that were used in the design and construction of these ships. So maybe we can think of them as templates.

 

[MrConservative]

NG _ I am more of a big fan of a Multi-role Amphibious Sealift & Support ship with a black Kiwi on the funnel. In my view LHD and LPH are soooo 90's!

BTW in this day and age we need to have a patrol frigate that is anti air, anti surface and anti sub capable. The maritime combat environment is just as much in the air now as it is surface and sub-surface.

And that extends to amphibious ops and capability as well. More prevalent now than in the late 90s when the Zacs came on duty and when the concept for an amphibious support vessel was mooted in the Sealift review. Even more important in another 15 years when CY goes and the Zacs are replaced.

 

[Lucasnz]

Dropped into the Defence Library today briefly. Janes (Oct) Navy is reporting Lockhead Canada has been shortlisted for the ANZAC FSU. Upgrade based on that given to Hailfax class. Naval Forces have confirmed Fincantieri have submitted a bid for the joint logistics ship.

 

[ngatimozart]

Dropped into the Defence Library today briefly. Janes (Oct) Navy is reporting Lockhead Canada has been shortlisted for the ANZAC FSU. Upgrade based on that given to Hailfax class. Naval Forces have confirmed Fincantieri have submitted a bid for the joint logistics ship.

This is what Naval Technology state what was in the Halifax upgrade. Wikipedia has some slightly more detailed info and links to some sources.

Fincantieri built the auxillary ship Etna (A5326) for the Italian Navy. It was launched in 1997. In 2010 they built two Deepak class tankers for the Indian Navy. They also built the Italian CV Cavour. They build a lot of cruise liners including the Concordia class.

 

[40 deg south]

Fincantieri built the auxillary ship Etna (A5326) for the Italian Navy. It was launched in 1997. In 2010 they built two Deepak class tankers for the Indian Navy. They also built the Italian CV Cavour. They build a lot of cruise liners including the Concordia class.

So who does that give us as confirmed and probable bidders?

Sounds as if Fincanteria and BMT/Daewoo are confirmed.

Navantia would have to be a strong probability following their recent lease of a supply ship to RAN.

I've always assumed Hyundai, who built the current Endeavour, would submit a bid.

Another possible contender is, somewhat improbably, Rolls Royce. They have been heavily involved in specialised ship construction for years, and have recently unveiled a move into patrol boats and naval auxiliaries.

Naval surface ships - Rolls-Royce

Now that would be pure class - trading in the Hyundai for a Roller!

 

[40 deg south]

Dropped into the Defence Library today briefly. Janes (Oct) Navy is reporting Lockhead Canada has been shortlisted for the ANZAC FSU. Upgrade based on that given to Hailfax class. Naval Forces have confirmed Fincantieri have submitted a bid for the joint logistics ship.

Interesting, thanks.

I wonder how that fits with the Sea Ceptor being the preferred missile? The Halifax went for the ESSM. Graphic of upgrade here:
Lockheed Martin · Naval Combat Management Systems

I thought the Sea Ceptor announcement might tilt things in a British or at least European direction; perhaps BAE or Thales. Did Janes give any indication on the timing of a decision?

 

[ngatimozart]

NG _ I am more of a big fan of a Multi-role Amphibious Sealift & Support ship with a black Kiwi on the funnel. In my view LHD and LPH are soooo 90's!

BTW in this day and age we need to have a patrol frigate that is anti air, anti surface and anti sub capable. The maritime combat environment is just as much in the air now as it is surface and sub-surface.

And that extends to amphibious ops and capability as well. More prevalent now than in the late 90s when the Zacs came on duty and when the concept for an amphibious support vessel was mooted in the Sealift review. Even more important in another 15 years when CY goes and the Zacs are replaced.

What would you define as a Multi-role Amphibious Sealift & Support ship? Whether a ship used in amphibious ops is labelled a LHD / LPD / LSD etc., or combination of one of those with an AOR called e.g., a MPSC, I think one may end up arguing semantics, because no matter what or how you label it, the core role and requirements are still the same. However, it is an area worth exploring and I feel that the issue of nomenclature should not sidetrack the conversation. Therefore, the definition is important.

Amphibious operation.
A military operation launched from the sea by an amphibious force, embarked in ships or craft with the primary purpose of introducing a landing force ashore to accomplish the assigned mission. (JP 1-02).
Logistics over-the-shore operations.
The loading and unloading of ships without the benefit of deep draft-capable, fixed port facilities in friendly or non-defended territory and, in time of war, during phases of theater development in which there is no opposition by the enemy; or as a means of moving forces closer to tactical assembly areas dependent on threat force capabilities. Also called LOTS operations.
US JCS Joint Doctrine for Amphibious Operations Joint Publication 3-02
http://www.hnsa.org/doc/pdf/jp3_02.pdf

Those two definitions are important within the context of this discussion, in that they describe the required mission. How this mission is executed is a large series of processes and requires specific types of shipping, equipment, and personnel. In this particular case, the US Forces methodology is a tool for this and it is guided by the doctrine in the publication cited above. The 1998 USMC concept paper Operational Manoeuvre From The Sea posits that the movement of troops equipment stores and follow up logistics etc., from ship to objective should be seamless and smooth without the traditional delays between the two for build ups of troops and logistics. Therefore, sustainment has to keep pace with the frontline troops. Hence, sealift and support are co-dependent.

This then brings us to platforms. Is one platform for sealift and support desirable, logical and practical? Or is it best that sealift of troops and equipment be a separate to that of the logistics tail? In a large navy such as the USN or RAN, I do not think that this would be so much of an issue. However for a cash strapped RNZN this may be seen by some as an issue. IMHO to combine the roles of sealift and sustainment in one hull would be a mistake and expensive in the long term. I think it also creates a potential issue with 300 – 400 troops on board a fuel tanker. That vessel would be a prime target and we’d have all our eggs in one basket. Our amphibious capability potentionally could go the way of the moa in one missile strike. Another issue in my mind would be the eventual size of the said vessel. Possibly, we could be looking at a tonnage in excess of 26,000 tonnes and would a vessel that size be able to utilise Devonport Naval Base?

Therefore, I’d rather stay with two vessels, one as an LPD etc., and the other the future MPSC. In my view, one very important feature of a sealift ship is the dock in the ship and that is what the MRV Canterbury doesn't have. A second very important feature is a good sized and rated flight deck plus good hangarage, especially on a kiwi ship because of where we are and what we do. I feel that sometimes you can put to many roles into a platform and then lose more than you gain. I did like the idea that the MPSC started with regarding the two landing craft, but cost has appeared to end that particular idea, but no final decision has yet been published.

With regard to the Zac replacements, yes I was meaning a patrol frigate capable of ASW, AAW & ASuW. I do think that with regard to AAW we need a longer range missile than the Sea Ceptor but the Sea Cepter is superior to the Sea Sparrow we are using at the moment. My comment about the Iver was about how the Danes are using them.

 

[ngatimozart]

.... Another possible contender is, somewhat improbably, Rolls Royce. They have been heavily involved in specialised ship construction for years, and have recently unveiled a move into patrol boats and naval auxiliaries.

Naval surface ships - Rolls-Royce

Now that would be pure class - trading in the Hyundai for a Roller!

No, I think RR are more into the machinery side of things. They have been supplying gas turbine (jet) engines for warships since the 1960s. However I do agree the Silver Ghost emblem would look very tiddly on the bridge.

Interesting, thanks.

I wonder how that fits with the Sea Ceptor being the preferred missile? The Halifax went for the ESSM. Graphic of upgrade here:
Lockheed Martin · Naval Combat Management Systems

I thought the Sea Ceptor announcement might tilt things in a British or at least European direction; perhaps BAE or Thales. Did Janes give any indication on the timing of a decision?

A lot of the Halifax upgrade is ex Europe and who the prime contractor is becomes less of an issue in that side of things. With regard to the ESSM, in some ways I would've preferred it but eventually it comes down to cost. Also Sea Ceptor offers something I don't think ESSM can do at the moment and that is ability to take high speed small surface craft at a distance ~>1nm.

 

[Lucasnz]

My view of the future fleet composition is that NZ is unlikely to increase the size of the naval combat force given that the ANZAC Fleet will be due for replacement around 2030 combined with the competing need to replace the P3 and C130 after 2020. That also means that there will most likely be no overall increase in fleet numbers or a limited increase of 1 vessel at most.

At the same time NZ still has a diverse range of task to form. The RNZN has always advocated a 4 frigate force, however I believe this can be split into 2 types the ANZAC and Patrol Frigates primary for NZ Pacific Operations.

By Patrol Frigate I'm looking at Floreal / Thetis weapons and sensor fit out combined with the base line ANZAC requirements of 6,000nm @ 18kts and a max speed of 24 and crew of 70. In essence a mid-tier combatant. Ideally three would be good.

From that reduce Patrol Force to 5 vessels (OPV), that would take up the the Littoral Warfare role as well. These would be the only ice strengthen vessels or the Patrol Frigates would be.

That leave two vessels being Canterbury and the Logistics Ship to give a total force of 11 ships.

In thinking about ships we also need to consider the limitations the RNZN faces we looking at fleet size. Firstly the Dry Dock - The Max Length is 170 metres and 22 metres wide, the RFI for LWSV quote smaller figures. Both the Type 26 and Absalon are starting to push the limits for the dry dock on beam. In addition DNB is limited in the number of vessels it can take, especially give the increase lengths for the frigates (Type 26 118m to 146m) and endeavours replacement (BMT 138m to 169m metres) and the proposed LWSV is likely to be larger.

Anyway my two cents worth on the discussion. There are that many options we could go down but a SWOT analysis would indicate that Combat Capability at the medium to high level is the RNZN's biggest weakness right now. At present there is no guarantee that RNZN couldn perform the role it had East Timor again. That as much political risk as well as military.

 

[KiwiRob]

The build methodolgy was different in that the Latvian yard used commercial modular building practices, and they had a fixed price contract. .

The Absalon's were built by Odense Steel Shipyard, they were not built in Latvia. I doubt and if the yards in Riga would have the ability to build a vessel like this.

 

[KiwiRob]

No, I think RR are more into the machinery side of things. They have been supplying gas turbine (jet) engines for warships since the 1960s. However I do agree the Silver Ghost emblem would look very tiddly on the bridge.

Rolls Royce have a large ship design department, based in Norway. All UT designs are Rolls Royce.

Ship design and systems - Rolls-Royce

http://www.rolls-royce.com/Images/RR_B_Design_090712_LR2b_MASTER_tcm92-39354.pdf

 

[KiwiRob]

In thinking about ships we also need to consider the limitations the RNZN faces we looking at fleet size. Firstly the Dry Dock - The Max Length is 170 metres and 22 metres wide, the RFI for LWSV quote smaller figures. Both the Type 26 and Absalon are starting to push the limits for the dry dock on beam. In addition DNB is limited in the number of vessels it can take, especially give the increase lengths for the frigates (Type 26 118m to 146m) and endeavours replacement (BMT 138m to 169m metres) and the proposed LWSV is likely to be larger.

How hard would it be to rebuild the drydock? Surely that's not as big a problem as buying the right vessels for the job they are required to do.

 

[Cadredave]

How hard would it be to rebuild the drydock? Surely that's not as big a problem as buying the right vessels for the job they are required to do.

Rob you've been out of NZ too long it would be faster purchasing the new replacement Frigates than rebuilding the dry dock, with the hoops you have to jump thru with the RMA, council and not in my back yard crowd who populate Devonport and will drag it through the courts.

CD

 

[Shanesworld]

Rob you've been out of NZ too long it would be faster purchasing the new replacement Frigates than rebuilding the dry dock, with the hoops you have to jump thru with the RMA, council and not in my back yard crowd who populate Devonport and will drag it through the courts.

CD

This is probably stupid as can be but is a relocation of Devonport a possibility with sale of the land used to fund construction of a new drydock or pair of at the new site? Probably worse RMA issues to deal with but EPA is a new beast that could be advantageous for this move.
Allow for a bigger site for a bigger fleet? Too naive?

 

[ngatimozart]

My view of the future fleet composition is that NZ is unlikely to increase the size of the naval combat force given that the ANZAC Fleet will be due for replacement around 2030 combined with the competing need to replace the P3 and C130 after 2020. That also means that there will most likely be no overall increase in fleet numbers or a limited increase of 1 vessel at most.

I've been re-reading the Ministers recent speech to the Defence Industry Assn and whilst it's pollie speak I do think it may be a possible indicator of the future. In it he notes that Defence via the DMRR is now starting to be able to have a long term plan of what it has to do. He also notes that NZDF will have to increase it's numbers and expand in order to operate the upgraded and new kit it has and is getting. He also stated that the NZG is committed to funding a credible first world defence force and that NZ maintains a credible Naval Combat Force and SOFs. The planning is out to 2030. I get the feeling that penny may have started to finally drop and that even treasury might be starting to get the picture.

At the same time NZ still has a diverse range of task to form. The RNZN has always advocated a 4 frigate force, however I believe this can be split into 2 types the ANZAC and Patrol Frigates primary for NZ Pacific Operations.

By Patrol Frigate I'm looking at Floreal / Thetis weapons and sensor fit out combined with the base line ANZAC requirements of 6,000nm @ 18kts and a max speed of 24 and crew of 70. In essence a mid-tier combatant. Ideally three would be good.

From that reduce Patrol Force to 5 vessels (OPV), that would take up the the Littoral Warfare role as well. These would be the only ice strengthen vessels or the Patrol Frigates would be.

That leave two vessels being Canterbury and the Logistics Ship to give a total force of 11 ships.

I'm still of the view that three tier one patrol frigates and four or five tier 2 OCVs / OPVs / Light Patrol Frigates is the way forward, practical and attainable. So my numbers would be:

• FFH Patrol Frigates 3
• OPVs / Light Patrol Frigates 4
• IPV 4
• Canterbury or replacement 1
• MPSC 1
• LWSW 1

That gives us a fleet of 14 which should be managable if handled right (Yea right - a Tui moment). We could keep costs down by looking at how the Danes have built their Ivers, Absalons and the StanFlex using modular systems, COTS where they can and commercial ship building practices. That's one thing I like about the Ivers is the COTS systems being used for the combat systems, IPMS and the StanFlex concept of generic work stations with only the software needing to be changed. Things like that and I also note that Sea Ceptor doesn't use a bespoke sensor. So things like that can make a big difference to the final price.

In thinking about ships we also need to consider the limitations the RNZN faces we looking at fleet size. Firstly the Dry Dock - The Max Length is 170 metres and 22 metres wide, the RFI for LWSV quote smaller figures. Both the Type 26 and Absalon are starting to push the limits for the dry dock on beam. In addition DNB is limited in the number of vessels it can take, especially give the increase lengths for the frigates (Type 26 118m to 146m) and endeavours replacement (BMT 138m to 169m metres) and the proposed LWSV is likely to be larger.

Anyway my two cents worth on the discussion. There are that many options we could go down but a SWOT analysis would indicate that Combat Capability at the medium to high level is the RNZN's biggest weakness right now. At present there is no guarantee that RNZN couldn perform the role it had East Timor again. That as much political risk as well as military.

My thoughts on the LWSW might be that it ends up around the 3000 tonne mark. it is the MPSC that is going to be large and I think 20,000 odd tonnes give or take. I agree a real issue is going to be DNB and not just the dry dock. As CD notes the locals won't be very keen on any expansion of DNB but it now can be pushed through the Resource Management Act because the govt changed the rules a while back to cut down the consenting time. So now unless you are directly affected by a proposed activity under the RMA you cannot be a party to the proceedings. Another way is to do an unnotified consent then hopefully it won't go to the Environment Court.

For DNB and the future fleet I see four options:

• 1. Status quo - do nothing
• 2. Expand the facilities - enlarge dry dock & wharves
• 3. Base part of the fleet elsewhere - but to where?
• 4. Relocate the Naval base - to where?

I think that the DNB issue is going to have to be faced one day whether it be because of a fleet of larger ships or because of pressure from the nimbys who live in the area, or a combination of both.

Rob thanks for the corrections. My original source for the Absalons said Latvia. My bad.

 

[ngatimozart]

Apparently the contract has been signed by the NZG & Kongsberg for an undisclosed number of Penguin Mk 2 Mod 7 anti-ship missiles to go on the newly acquired Seasprites. PICTURE: Kongsberg completes JSM fit check on F/A-18 or http://www.defense-aerospace.com/ar...w-zealand-buys-penguin-anti_ship-missile.html

 

[MrConservative]

What would you define as a Multi-role Amphibious Sealift & Support ship? Whether a ship used in amphibious ops is labelled a LHD / LPD / LSD etc., or combination of one of those with an AOR called e.g., a MPSC, I think one may end up arguing semantics, because no matter what or how you label it, the core role and requirements are still the same. However, it is an area worth exploring and I feel that the issue of nomenclature should not sidetrack the conversation. Therefore, the definition is important.

Therefore, I’d rather stay with two vessels, one as an LPD etc., and the other the future MPSC. In my view, one very important feature of a sealift ship is the dock in the ship and that is what the MRV Canterbury doesn't have. A second very important feature is a good sized and rated flight deck plus good hangarage, especially on a kiwi ship because of where we are and what we do. I feel that sometimes you can put to many roles into a platform and then lose more than you gain. I did like the idea that the MPSC started with regarding the two landing craft, but cost has appeared to end that particular idea, but no final decision has yet been published.

Defining a ''Multi-role Amphibious Sealift & Support'' vessel in the Kiwi context?

Well I am not talking about single a vessel that does everything including AOR as AOR is part of the next Endeavours enhanced logistical role and that project is locked in and a CY replacement is a flow on. Secondly and this is a point that people need to digest we do not need a vessel which will sealift and then amphibious assault with a whole 550 strong CTAG shebang and then supply it all in one big hit. Nor am I asking for one. The full monty Tawara style assault first over the beaches with the RNZN next generation CY leading the charge is just not going to happen and planners at the coalition level have no expectation of NZ needing to do this or frankly wanting us to do this. Nor do we want to or plan to either. So that excludes any LHD, LHA or what ever the USN classification maybe. On the other hand a vanilla supply and transport ship does not have the role flexibility to be effective and more events happen and evolve within operational context than simple ship and shore. There nuances that are to be considered within the lense of NZ amphib ops in which approach has evolved since the 1990s.

Thus what are the likely scenarios for us? Well in NZ's case you go to the Rulebook we follow. NZDF providing military assistance beyond its borders under UN Chp VI and Chp VII mandates. HumSupt ops viz disaster relief, SASO et al at the Chp VI level or associated context through to the graduated build up of personnel and equipment in situ of a Peace Enforcement Mission at Chp VII level. The lift and mobility of forces at the CTAG level does not and cannot work in any way other than in the graduated approach and this is evolving within the NZDF context with the JATF / F35 outlook and has done so since Timor. Our amphibious sealift and support within the JATF remit is a package that comes with the E replacement underway, the LWSV and the results of the air mobility study.

So a simple definition. Exactly what the CY does but with an increased capacity to sealift a LTG of around 250 plus extra surge accommodation in austere mode (the Evac role or the unexpected requirement of lifting a further rifle company), a proportional yet undramatic increase in lane meters and stores - but as I noted above a whole CTAG sealift and assault operation is not a goer. Plus the obvious like well dock which should have been in the current CY concept from day one, better self protection is obvious, C2 suite, level 2 medical, and significantly as this is the real emphasis - an increased aviation capability - particularly with respect to flight deck tempo level than the traditional small - medium sized LPD's or RoRo sealifters like the CY. Minimum of three landing spots - but frankly anymore than four is pointless. Flight deck able to handle a visiting CH-53 / Chinook, NH90 and a Seasprite with concurrency. Lastly improved patrol characteristics as effectively that will be a fair share of any future CY replacements tasking outside of a directed mission. Therefore a multi-role vessel, amphibious, sealift and support ship.

One of the real world advantages of better aviation capacity in an amphibious support role was displayed very recently when the JMSDF deployed to assist in the Philippines typhoon disaster response. A very likely scenario that the NZDF will be engaged with in decades ahead. One of the immediate response multipliers was the ability to operate rotary assets off the spacious flight deck at higher tasking tempos due to the increased emphasis the Japanese have put on flight deck space and ops. Saved lives and got supplies and personnel to more locations faster as well as also being able to simultaneously conduct SAR and Medivac. A substantive advantage over the traditional box LPD designs with truncated 2 spot aft flight decks. It is for this reason that a design revolution has happened in recent years as lessons learned with designs and case studies from fairly much all the large naval architectural firms.