Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[alexsa]

Thinking back to the RFI specs Ngati posted in October (p214), I'm not sure there is anything off the shelf that can carry out
- diving support
- mine countermeasures
- military hydrography
plus some generic support requirements

Most navies seem to have different vessels for these task, as far as i can tell. My impression is that RNZN is pushing the multi-purpose vessel concept about as far as it can go*, hence I'm very interested to see what they end up with. My guess is that they will stay close to the original maximum size, but drop the ice strengthening to same money.

*Well, I guess they don't need a drilling rig, so thats one positive.

Logic check

you cannot simply take a drill ship and turn it into an OPV or anything else. The structure and systems are optimised and trying to essentially redesign such a platform is plain silly.

There are OSV derived patrol and dive vessels out there that provide a much better platform for this purpose with better speed and range.

 

[40 deg south]

Logic check

you cannot simply take a drill ship and turn it into an OPV or anything else. The structure and systems are optimised and trying to essentially redesign such a platform is plain silly.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to suggest NZ did this. Both Gibbo and I were (I think) suggesting an offshore support vessel-type layout might be a good starting point for the dive support/hydrography/mine countermeasures vessel..

I've heard the view that these ships are generally too small to meet the NZ RFI, so I googled up the largest UT-class vessel I could find, as they are a benchmark OSV. In doing so I failed to notice a damn great drilling rig sticking out the top of the pictured ship. Which Volkodav and KiwiRob promptly pointed out.

I think my original point, that NZ may get bids based on an OSV platform for the new vessel, is still valid.

 

[Gibbo]

Sorry, I wasn't trying to suggest NZ did this. Both Gibbo and I were (I think) suggesting an offshore support vessel-type layout might be a good starting point for the dive support/hydrography/mine countermeasures vessel..

I've heard the view that these ships are generally too small to meet the NZ RFI, so I googled up the largest UT-class vessel I could find, as they are a benchmark OSV. In doing so I failed to notice a damn great drilling rig sticking out the top of the pictured ship. Which Volkodav and KiwiRob promptly pointed out.

I think my original point, that NZ may get bids based on an OSV platform for the new vessel, is still valid.

Yeah basically that is what I was thinking - an offshore support vessel-type layout might be a good starting point for the LWSV, however whatever it is I doubt there is anything off the shelf that will meet all RNZN LWSV requirements, so some customisation of a base vessel is required - much as an OPV would need the same customisation. What that base vessel will be is anyone's guess!

I am certainly not suggesting we can simply take that fugly drill ship & make it work.

 

[alexsa]

Sorry, I wasn't trying to suggest NZ did this. Both Gibbo and I were (I think) suggesting an offshore support vessel-type layout might be a good starting point for the dive support/hydrography/mine countermeasures vessel..

I've heard the view that these ships are generally too small to meet the NZ RFI, so I googled up the largest UT-class vessel I could find, as they are a benchmark OSV. In doing so I failed to notice a damn great drilling rig sticking out the top of the pictured ship. Which Volkodav and KiwiRob promptly pointed out.

I think my original point, that NZ may get bids based on an OSV platform for the new vessel, is still valid.

The UT527 design is OSV based and provide hanger, working deck and 22 to 25 knots for 20000 nm. The Damien OSV based 98m OPV2800 is 2600 tonnes, hanger, medium (MR90) helo capability 24 knots and 7000nm range at 12 knot with a main gun up to 76mm.

There is a lot out there.

 

[alexsa]

Offshore Patrol Vessel - Damen Shipyards Group

As an example

 

[Gibbo]

Offshore Patrol Vessel - Damen Shipyards Group

As an example

Yes, or as another example - Hr.Ms. Snellius & Hr.Ms. Luymes. A fairly good starting point for the LWSV - I know it's a lot smaller than what the preferred specs as documented but it's bigger than it first appears - effectively twice the length of Manawanui. It also appears to be well set-up with cranage etc to support the diving bell & other modular systems like MCM etc.

Perhaps a newer longer variation with a helicopter pad & a little extra working space aft!?!

Hydrographic Survey Vessel - Damen Shipyards Group
Snellius klasse A802 en A803 Hydrografische Opnemingsvaartuigen (HOV) (do a translate!)

 

[RegR]

Why don't they just stick with a modified Protector class OPV with all the now known bugs ironed out instead of potentially going down the same track as I'm sure jamming three capabilities into one hull is already going to present some issues.

Personnel, crew and engineers, already know the current design, capabilities and limitations therefore training is already at a standard making it easier to cross train/crew in the future.
A specific MCM, hydro or dive module could be slotted into the current hanger space dependant on required role whilst retaining a flight deck(not overly sold a generic helo is required) and office/ops space could be plug and played to suit.

Seems about the right size (why we would want this larger than our frigates??) with a decent manning complement (79 all up) and has a deck/crane to transport the hydro support vessel.

Hydrographic, MCM and dive tender is already a lot of options to cover so we'll leave troop transport, OPV, supply etc up to the other ships. Multi-roleing can only go so far before it becomes more problematic than beneficial.

 

[alexsa]

Yes, or as another example - Hr.Ms. Snellius & Hr.Ms. Luymes. A fairly good starting point for the LWSV - I know it's a lot smaller than what the preferred specs as documented but it's bigger than it first appears - effectively twice the length of Manawanui. It also appears to be well set-up with cranage etc to support the diving bell & other modular systems like MCM etc.

Perhaps a newer longer variation with a helicopter pad & a little extra working space aft!?!

Hydrographic Survey Vessel - Damen Shipyards Group
Snellius klasse A802 en A803 Hydrografische Opnemingsvaartuigen (HOV) (do a translate!)

I know I hark on about this but it is not that simple to add a bit to a ship. The impact of additional length is not to be underestimated. The top weight of helicopter pads, and the helo itself, can have a significant impact on stability particularly in lower fuel loads. Unless the tank arrangement has this in mind (noting this is an integral part of the hull) then things can get tricky.

In short, modifying the length and top weight of a ship carries a greater risk.

 

[Gibbo]

I know I hark on about this but it is not that simple to add a bit to a ship. The impact of additional length is not to be underestimated. The top weight of helicopter pads, and the helo itself, can have a significant impact on stability particularly in lower fuel loads. Unless the tank arrangement has this in mind (noting this is an integral part of the hull) then things can get tricky.

In short, modifying the length and top weight of a ship carries a greater risk.

Yes absolutely agree - any variation to design and/or weight distribution changes the dynamics of the hull significantly however if it is a new build, as we suggest here, the final product would be built with the extra length properly engineered into the final design.

Even a new OPV would require some subtle changes in design, but the key question is does the OPV hull form lend itself to the LWSV task? It may be fine, but for example how well will it's hull profile lend itself to stationary mooring over a dive-site? She might roll like a cork when in a beam-on swell (remembering stabilisers only work underway) & make crane use impossible.

I guess what I'm trying to say is if the OPV hull design fits the bill, all well & good - but the choice of hull should be determined by it's ability to suit vessels role rather than whether there are economies of scale. An OPV hull is optimised for taskings where speed & endurance on the open sea are key requirements. A littorals vessel is going to be largely tasked with work either moored or trawling slowly around the shallower littorals with only transits in between requiring any speed so the optimum hull design for each type is likely to be very different.

Once you've got the right hull form, you start to look at the systems to go on-board & consequently the layout of the interior. You can always still add the same engines, generators, marine systems etc into a different hull form & still get the benefit of systems commonality.

Having said that, even if they asked Tenix to build a variation of the OPV now, I wonder if they'd be able to source the same models of engine, generators, systems componentry etc? The OPV's are now basically running with 5-6 year old systems & given the pace of technology change I suspect new builds would get different versions. So even though the existing vessels versions are still supported, they wont necessarily be available for new builds. Granted however that may be of little overall consequence at the end of the day.

Whatever gets the nod it'll be variation on an existing design - it's going to be a interesting project to follow.

 

[alexsa]

Yes absolutely agree - any variation to design and/or weight distribution changes the dynamics of the hull significantly however if it is a new build, as we suggest here, the final product would be built with the extra length properly engineered into the final design.

Even a new OPV would require some subtle changes in design, but the key question is does the OPV hull form lend itself to the LWSV task? It may be fine, but for example how well will it's hull profile lend itself to stationary mooring over a dive-site? She might roll like a cork when in a beam-on swell (remembering stabilisers only work underway) & make crane use impossible.

I guess what I'm trying to say is if the OPV hull design fits the bill, all well & good - but the choice of hull should be determined by it's ability to suit vessels role rather than whether there are economies of scale. An OPV hull is optimised for taskings where speed & endurance on the open sea are key requirements. A littorals vessel is going to be largely tasked with work either moored or trawling slowly around the shallower littorals with only transits in between requiring any speed so the optimum hull design for each type is likely to be very different.

Once you've got the right hull form, you start to look at the systems to go on-board & consequently the layout of the interior. You can always still add the same engines, generators, marine systems etc into a different hull form & still get the benefit of systems commonality.

Having said that, even if they asked Tenix to build a variation of the OPV now, I wonder if they'd be able to source the same models of engine, generators, systems componentry etc? The OPV's are now basically running with 5-6 year old systems & given the pace of technology change I suspect new builds would get different versions. So even though the existing vessels versions are still supported, they wont necessarily be available for new builds. Granted however that may be of little overall consequence at the end of the day.

Whatever gets the nod it'll be variation on an existing design - it's going to be a interesting project to follow.

A significant number of OSV are built for dynamic positioning. This capability can be built into OPV based on the same hull.

 

[ngatimozart]

With the ANZAC upgrade we've seen that the Sea Ceptor missile has been chosen as the Sea Sparrow replacement. Whilst it doesn't have the range of ESSM it is cheaper, doesn't need a dedicated radar system and it has an active radar seeker head. We've noted that the RNZN doesn't have a ASuW missile such as Harpoon and a long range SAM maybe the Aster 30 would fill both roles. Granted whilst it wouldn't take out a heavily armoured warship, it nevertheless could still do a substantial amount of damage, just from the sheer kinetic energy of the Mach 4.5 impact of 510kgs of mass. Secondly as much as I like the CEAFAR / CEAMOUNT system, just based on perception of cost I can't see the RNZN be allowed by the NZG or treasury to purchase the system. I am wondering therefore if the Type 997 Artisan 3D Radar used now by the RN will be purchased instead. I just think that both the Aster 30 and Artisan would be money well spent.

 

[MrConservative]

Ceafar / Ceamount with CEC or Artisan - what is the chequebook differential and opportunity cost based on? Ceafar / Ceamount with CEC will have some very admirable qualities in the years ahead that we may find useful when / if engaged with RAN / USN.

 

[40 deg south]

The UT527 design is OSV based and provide hanger, working deck and 22 to 25 knots for 20000 nm. The Damien OSV based 98m OPV2800 is 2600 tonnes, hanger, medium (MR90) helo capability 24 knots and 7000nm range at 12 knot with a main gun up to 76mm.

There is a lot out there.

Thanks Alexa Some interesting links there.

Incidentally, I had a look through the Feb/Mar issue of Navy Today. Nothing much new, except the following comment was interesting.

Last December, the government indicated it would provide additional funding to support NZDF personnel and improve defence equipment and infrastructure. “We are presented with an opportunity and the challenge is to make the most of that opportunity,” said Lt Gen Keating.

 

[ngatimozart]

Ceafar / Ceamount with CEC or Artisan - what is the chequebook differential and opportunity cost based on? Ceafar / Ceamount with CEC will have some very admirable qualities in the years ahead that we may find useful when / if engaged with RAN / USN.

I haven't yet seen any figures in open source material so made a guestimate. It actually doesn't matter if the RNZN uses Artisan instead of the Ceafar /Ceamount / CEC with regard to working and operating with the RAN & USN. The RN is using Artisan and it works with the USN plus NATO navies as well as others. It's the ability to data-link that matters. Personally I would far prefer the RNZN to go down the Ceafar /Ceamount / CEC track, because in the long term I believe that it would be to the RNZNs best interest and actually be cost effective. However I believe that when, compared to Artisan, the pollies and bean counters will see it as having too much capability. Unfortunately they don't have a reputation for taking the long view when it comes to defence and defence purchasing.

 

[Volkodav]

Considering Sea Ceptor has been selected by the RNZN CEASCAN can probably be fitted on its own without the X band CEAMOUNT. This would reduce weight and cost compared to the Perth baseline.

 

[MrConservative]

I haven't yet seen any figures in open source material so made a guestimate. It actually doesn't matter if the RNZN uses Artisan instead of the Ceafar /Ceamount / CEC with regard to working and operating with the RAN & USN. The RN is using Artisan and it works with the USN plus NATO navies as well as others. It's the ability to data-link that matters. Personally I would far prefer the RNZN to go down the Ceafar /Ceamount / CEC track, because in the long term I believe that it would be to the RNZNs best interest and actually be cost effective. However I believe that when, compared to Artisan, the pollies and bean counters will see it as having too much capability. Unfortunately they don't have a reputation for taking the long view when it comes to defence and defence purchasing.

In my view NG it does matter. Ceafar /Ceamount / CEC offers the integrated perspective with respect to USN / RAN at a unique level for us. It is better to be in the room with them rather than just been in the next room is an analogy that was repeated to me recently. The frigates are one of our cornerstone assets, the only maritime combatants and the synergy with RAN / USN is vital from here on out - the P-3 replacement is in the same context.

I understand the Treasury ignorance at times, but often in the past their best analysts were not put into defence advisory, likewise corrections and police, but in the end they don't get to make the decisions and if evidence of the advantages overwhelms one way or another with respect to a particular system regardless of numerical cost - the capability will win. Treasurys God like status is not what it was in the Richardson / Birch / Cullen days - the occupant on the 9th floor is never patronised unlike countless PMs prior - He is no Jim Bolger.

 

[Volkodav]

The other factor is CEAFAR is scaleable which could make it an option for a midlife update on the OPVs or for future OPVs or combatants. Add in the low platform impact of Sae Ceptor and the RNZN is very well set up for the future.

 

[RegR]

Have been looking at the Type 26 frigate specs and actually looks like a good bit of kit if it comes together and hopefully if the proposed numbers go ahead could come with a favourable(relative) price.

I like the idea of mission bays and modular space as it gives the frigate some increased options other than straight frigate, semi multi-role, and hopefully we would go all out on fitout as I would prefer 2 fully capable defensive/offensive combat frigates rather than 3 under-equipped expensive target ships. Although I would prefer 3 frigates and would place us better operationally somehow I feel we will only get 1 for 1(bare minimum) unless some other hippy takes power and decides OPVs are a good enough......... Another option could be to stand up a third crew to cycle through both and provide more at sea time but I seem to recall that being the original plan for the IPVs however due to short manning that never worked out in reality.

Also if UK, Aus, NZ and Canada(re-joins) then a good name would be Commonwealth class just as ANZAC was a good choice for our current class. Type 26 is ok but alittle plain and you need a name that has some history, relevance and meaning behind it to complement the individual ship names.

 

[t68]

It will be interesting to see which way the Kiwi goverment would jump into something like this, well I guess it will come down to the final price and which configuration would be cheaper to buy and maintain in the long run.

You have made a start in reference to UK kit would it be in your favour just to go to the Brits and build an extra three on their production run instead of Aussie build.

I like the name of that Commonwealth Frigate.

 

[ngatimozart]

Have been looking at the Type 26 frigate specs and actually looks like a good bit of kit if it comes together and hopefully if the proposed numbers go ahead could come with a favourable(relative) price.

I like the idea of mission bays and modular space as it gives the frigate some increased options other than straight frigate, semi multi-role, and hopefully we would go all out on fitout as I would prefer 2 fully capable defensive/offensive combat frigates rather than 3 under-equipped expensive target ships. Although I would prefer 3 frigates and would place us better operationally somehow I feel we will only get 1 for 1(bare minimum) unless some other hippy takes power and decides OPVs are a good enough......... Another option could be to stand up a third crew to cycle through both and provide more at sea time but I seem to recall that being the original plan for the IPVs however due to short manning that never worked out in reality.

Also if UK, Aus, NZ and Canada(re-joins) then a good name would be Commonwealth class just as ANZAC was a good choice for our current class. Type 26 is ok but alittle plain and you need a name that has some history, relevance and meaning behind it to complement the individual ship names.

Yes agree the Type 26 does look good and I have come around to it. I would like it with the UK hull and machinery but not UK systems. I think something along the lines the RAN / US / or Danes have now and with CEAFAR, CEAMOUNT & CEC fitted just like the RAN. In the long term that would be a far better option because from what I understand the CEAFAR etc., upgrades are software based rather more than hardware based. Also the capabilities it offers are world class. Three vessels would be my personal choice.