Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[40 deg south]

As a result of WWII experience, the USN likes to have extra crew dedicated for damage control. Other navies I know have a different approach, but at some point personnel making recommendations on which particular vessel is most suitable would also look at the crewing arrangement to determine what sort of numbers are actually reasonable and feasible. If the crew gets too small (a la LCS) then some of the crew maintenance functions need to be transferred to dock personnel, and/or require the vessel to spend more time alongside so that shore-based personnel can perform maintenance.

Tod
Good points as always.

I'd suggest a slightly different explanation for the USN's more generous crewing. It seems likely to me the the RN and others would have come out of WWII with similar experience - that spare bodies are useful in combat.

I suspect the real difference is that the USN hasn't (until now) been subjected to the same level of budget stress as other western navies, and that is changing in front of our eyes.

I'd expect any future post-LCS designs to have a strong focus on automation and keeping crews to a minimum. The LCS may have been a step too far and too soon, but the trend will continue.

 

[ngatimozart]

Tod
Good points as always.

I'd suggest a slightly different explanation for the USN's more generous crewing. It seems likely to me the the RN and others would have come out of WWII with similar experience - that spare bodies are useful in combat.

I suspect the real difference is that the USN hasn't (until now) been subjected to the same level of budget stress as other western navies, and that is changing in front of our eyes.

I'd expect any future post-LCS designs to have a strong focus on automation and keeping crews to a minimum. The LCS may have been a step too far and too soon, but the trend will continue.

Different philosophies between the RN and the USN. For example most USN carriers in WW2 didn't have armoured flight decks, whereas the RN carriers did. Hence after a kamikaze attack a USN carrier either sank or was out of commission for many months, because of repairs whilst, a RN carrier was repaired a lot quicker due to less damage. The USN tends to specialise their crew more whereas the RN and Commonwealth navies didn't, especially in the Seamans branch. For example everybody onboard an RNZN ship is expected to be able to do basic damage control and fire fighting. It's part of the basic training and ongoing training. It's less to do with budget stress and more to do with navy philosophy, history, tradition training, culture etc. There are big differences in these between the USN and RN (including Commonwealth navies).

 

[Todjaeger]

Different philosophies between the RN and the USN. For example most USN carriers in WW2 didn't have armoured flight decks, whereas the RN carriers did. Hence after a kamikaze attack a USN carrier either sank or was out of commission for many months, because of repairs whilst, a RN carrier was repaired a lot quicker due to less damage. The USN tends to specialise their crew more whereas the RN and Commonwealth navies didn't, especially in the Seamans branch. For example everybody onboard an RNZN ship is expected to be able to do basic damage control and fire fighting. It's part of the basic training and ongoing training. It's less to do with budget stress and more to do with navy philosophy, history, tradition training, culture etc. There are big differences in these between the USN and RN (including Commonwealth navies).

Perhaps someone who is ex-USN like AegisFC will see this and comment, but it is my understanding that everyone aboard a USN vessel is trained in damage control. Where things get different (and cause higher numbers) is that some portion of the crew when at General Quarters are dedicated to damage control.

Something else which I believe might be different between the USN and RN/Commonwealth navies is that officers in the USN are trained as engineers/engine room ops, even if they are normally tasked with other roles aboard ship.

As Ng mentioned, some differences in experience, doctrine and philosophy between different navies.

One of the concerns I have about significant pushes towards reducing crew size, is that while a vessel might be able to operate with a skeleton crew, expecting satisfactory and sustained performance will result in eventual failures. Nevermind what can actually happen in the event of hostilities.

-Cheers

 

[Lucasnz]

Perhaps someone who is ex-USN like AegisFC will see this and comment, but it is my understanding that everyone aboard a USN vessel is trained in damage control. Where things get different (and cause higher numbers) is that some portion of the crew when at General Quarters are dedicated to damage control.

Something else which I believe might be different between the USN and RN/Commonwealth navies is that officers in the USN are trained as engineers/engine room ops, even if they are normally tasked with other roles aboard ship.

As Ng mentioned, some differences in experience, doctrine and philosophy between different navies.

One of the concerns I have about significant pushes towards reducing crew size, is that while a vessel might be able to operate with a skeleton crew, expecting satisfactory and sustained performance will result in eventual failures. Nevermind what can actually happen in the event of hostilities.

-Cheers

Ng is correct. To advance to Leading Hand everyone had to do an advanced DC where they acted as scene leaders etc in the tank. I think the reason the RNZN has a standardised fitness test regardless of age or rank is the focus on DC, combined with the small size of the RNZN. I know that when I joint the RNZN had learnt and implemented alot of lessons from the Falklands (Smoke Curtains, ELSA, Larger escape hatches etc).

You are correct about the engineering officers. RNZN officers specialise from the time they join in one area, the exception being pilots / observers (this might have changed) were required to obtain bridge watch keeping tickets.

If you look at the USS Stark the personnel involved in Damage Control on the Stark had to be relieved after a period of time from the supporting ships. One of the articles I've read on US damage control (slightly dated) indicated that 18 Persons were required for a DC Team. I would think there would be a point where Displacement / Size would limit any reduction in crewing in order to meet damage control needs.

There is a trend towards automated responses for fire (if I'm reading things correctly online) though the use of fog / sprinkler systems that will be OK in a peace time environment but in battle damage could lead to a situation similar to the Stark where a broken fire main flooded areas of the ship and caused stability concerns.

 

[kiwi in exile]

Came across this on another blog: https://twitter.com/jackrs55/status/454516296932401152 "New" NZ seasprites "first" flight

Neither the RAN or RNZN Seasprites carry any ASW sensors (unless you want to count the FLIR & the radar, which could pick up a sub at periscope depth or on the surface). They can drop a torpedo or depth charge based on data sent from someone else (eg. a frigate or an Orion).

Chis73

I would be interested to know if the new helos were likely to be upgraded with dipping sonar/sonarbouys at any stage. Given the size of our EEZ and sub proliferation in the Asia-Pacific region, would be great to see this capability added.
Also, aren't we due to replace/upgrade our torpedoes as well.

I have also read that the OPV's are having their current 25mm mounts replaced with raphael Typhoon mounts, similar to the 50 cal mounts on the frigates- in the name of streamlining training, maintaince etc. Does this mean that the 25mm mount on the Canterbury is also being switched. It would seem like any advantage to changing the OPV mounts is lost without also changing the Cant'ys as well.

 

[CJohn]

Yes, Canterbury along with the OPV's will be fitted with a new 25mm gun system plus new optical systems for the IPV's.

Stated from the Major Projects Report 2012

"A contract for the provision of a replacement Naval Gun System, TOPLITE Typhoon,has been awarded to remediate the weapon performance of
Canterbury,Wellington and Otago. Studies have also identified obsolescence and safety issues with the optics sub-systems installed on the Inshore Patrol Vessels. As a result the Capability Steering Group has endorsed the replacement of the existing electro optical systems with TOPLITE.
Ship installation will be conducted on a time and availability basis in programmed
maintenance periods."

 

[kiwi in exile]

Yes, Canterbury along with the OPV's will be fitted with a new 25mm gun system plus new optical systems for the IPV's.

Thanks for that. I'm sure I rememeber reading an interview somewhere (have been looking, but I cannot find it) with a RNZN spokesperson regarding the upgrades where they asked about upgrading the 25mm bushmaster to 30mm. From what I recall, they talked about the pros (better range and more punch, used by some allies, both guns have a high percentage common parts) and cons (another ammo type, not common to NZ army, additional training, why bother for EEZ patrol, 25mm guns more common with allies).
Not sure if they had seriously considered this as a option, but it sounded as though they had thought about it. If anyone is familiar with this source, a link would be appreciated
Cheers

 

[RegR]

Just curious, what are the new optics on the IPVs for? Are they getting something bigger or is a .50 cal being stabilised?

 

[ADMk2]

Yes, Canterbury along with the OPV's will be fitted with a new 25mm gun system plus new optical systems for the IPV's.

Stated from the Major Projects Report 2012

"A contract for the provision of a replacement Naval Gun System, TOPLITE Typhoon,has been awarded to remediate the weapon performance of
Canterbury,Wellington and Otago. Studies have also identified obsolescence and safety issues with the optics sub-systems installed on the Inshore Patrol Vessels. As a result the Capability Steering Group has endorsed the replacement of the existing electro optical systems with TOPLITE.
Ship installation will be conducted on a time and availability basis in programmed
maintenance periods."

That's what NZ should have opted for right from the start. They could have even piggy-backed RAN's order and possibly saved money overall.

Instead they appear to have chosen the cheaper option, which back-fired and are now spending more overall...

Brilliant!

 

[kiwi in exile]

Just curious, what are the new optics on the IPVs for? Are they getting something bigger or is a .50 cal being stabilised?

As quoted previously:
Stated from the Major Projects Report 2012

"Studies have also identified obsolescence and safety issues with the optics sub-systems installed on the Inshore Patrol Vessels. As a result the Capability Steering Group has endorsed the replacement of the existing electro optical systems with TOPLITE"

Plus advantages of running common systems across the fleet. And enables RNZN/DoC/Customs/Police to keep a better eye on poachers etc.

 

[Volkodav]

Not sure if this has been posted previously, I had a quick look and couldn't find it so sorry if someone has put this up already. It pools to be a design study on the sort of ship that could fill the role.

Littoral Warfare Support Capability Vessel. Royal New Zealand Navy.

https://elibrary.utas.edu.au/utas/items/9f7e4708-ad85-49f7-abec-5659310b16f4/1/

 

[ngatimozart]

Not sure if this has been posted previously, I had a quick look and couldn't find it so sorry if someone has put this up already. It pools to be a design study on the sort of ship that could fill the role.

Littoral Warfare Support Capability Vessel. Royal New Zealand Navy.

https://elibrary.utas.edu.au/utas/items/9f7e4708-ad85-49f7-abec-5659310b16f4/1/

Yes it has been and has a few fundamental flaws in the design and assumptions behind it.

 

[40 deg south]

Russian shipyard lays keel of new class Replenishment Oiler "Academician Pashin

RNZN isn't the only organisation looking for a small flexible oiler/replenishment ship. Meet the "medium-sized sea tanker Academician Pashin”.

Interesting picture at the link, looks a lot like a standard commercial layout for a small tanker with the accommodation right at the stern. Vital stats follow:

Main characteristics of Project 23130:
» Length overall – 130 m
» Breadth overall – about 21 m
» Draught overall – about 7,0 m
» Deadweight at draught 7,0 m – about 9000 t
» Maximum speed – 16 knots
» Endurance – 60 days
» Ship’s crew – 24 sailors
» Sailing area – unlimited in accordance with ship’s class according to the rules of Russian Maritime Register of Shipping

 

[ngatimozart]

Russian shipyard lays keel of new class Replenishment Oiler "Academician Pashin

RNZN isn't the only organisation looking for a small flexible oiler/replenishment ship. Meet the "medium-sized sea tanker Academician Pashin”.

Interesting picture at the link, looks a lot like a standard commercial layout for a small tanker with the accommodation right at the stern. Vital stats follow:

Main characteristics of Project 23130:
» Length overall – 130 m
» Breadth overall – about 21 m
» Draught overall – about 7,0 m
» Deadweight at draught 7,0 m – about 9000 t
» Maximum speed – 16 knots
» Endurance – 60 days
» Ship’s crew – 24 sailors
» Sailing area – unlimited in accordance with ship’s class according to the rules of Russian Maritime Register of Shipping

Different navies different philosophies. I would've put the lilly pad down aft behind the accommodation block and maybe a hangar. Small crew so lots of busy people at RAS time.

 

[ngatimozart]

Lockheed Martin Canada has been awarded the primary contract to upgrade the RNZN frigates combat systems. $446 million is the cost for the total upgrade and the upgrade is scheduled to begin in 2016.

Jonathan Coleman 1 MAY, 2014

Frigate combat systems upgrade contract awarded

Defence Minister Jonathan Coleman says the Government has awarded the prime contract for the frigate combat systems upgrade to Lockheed Martin Canada.

“HMNZS Te Kaha and HMNZS Te Mana are nearly 20 years old and it is important to update their self-defence and sensor capabilities systems to a standard comparable to the frigates used by Australia, Canada and the UK,” says Dr Coleman.

“Our international partners place a high value on New Zealand’s ability to deploy a credible maritime combat force into the Pacific and further afield.

Earlier this year, HMNZS Te Mana made a valuable contribution to international anti-piracy efforts in the Gulf of Aden, working closely with a range of partners including the US, EU and NATO.”

The frigate combat systems upgrade includes new radars, electronic detection and other above water systems, the self-defence missile system, decoys against missiles and torpedoes, and an upgrade to the hull-mounted sonar.

The total project cost of the combat systems upgrade is $446 million, and is being funded from within the existing NZDF’s baseline as part of the Defence Capability Plan.

“Following a robust and competitive tender process Lockheed Martin Canada was selected as the most suitable and cost effective tenderer,” says Dr Coleman.

“I would like to congratulate Lockheed Martin Canada and associated companies on being awarded this contract. Lockheed Martin Canada have valuable experience in this area having undertaken a similar upgrade of the Canadian Navy Halifax Class frigates.”

The majority of the work will be completed in Canada and includes the procurement and integration into the ships’ combat system of key sensors.

Lockheed Martin Canada is also working with New Zealand Trade and Enterprise to scope a range of potential opportunities for local companies to support the project.

The final design work for the combat systems upgrade will commence shortly. The upgrade is scheduled to begin in 2016.

The frigates are currently undergoing a platform systems upgrade to modernise heating, ventilation, propulsion and stabilisation systems.

HMNZS Te Kaha and HMNZS Te Mana were designed in the late 1980s and introduced into service in 1997 and 1999. In November 2012 Cabinet approved the business case to upgrade the self-defence and sensor capabilities of the frigates.
beehive.govt.nz - Frigate combat systems upgrade contract awarded

 

[StevoJH]

I still fail to see why it wouldn't be simpler and probably safer to just put them through the ANZAC class ASMD program alongside their Australian sister ships (soon to be half sisters).

Or was the Australian upgrade seen as being too expensive?

 

[t68]

I still fail to see why it wouldn't be simpler and probably safer to just put them through the ANZAC class ASMD program alongside their Australian sister ships (soon to be half sisters).

Or was the Australian upgrade seen as being too expensive?

Yes would be interesting to see how comparison would be $ wise if they were aligned to the same standard HMAS Perth.

HMAS Perth (III)

 

[chis73]

I still fail to see why it wouldn't be simpler and probably safer to just put them through the ANZAC class ASMD program alongside their Australian sister ships (soon to be half sisters).

Or was the Australian upgrade seen as being too expensive?

Glad to see this project moving forward. I'm waiting for more detail to come out on exactly what we are getting for our money (I'm preparing to be substantially underwhelmed). Hopefully two fire control radars, ESSM & Sea-Ceptor (but I'm not holding my breath). Every time Jonathan Coleman mentions that were getting a good price on a defence project, my heart sinks. You just know it's going to be a fairly token effort.

It's been hinted at for some time (eg. since the announcement of the Sea-Ceptor selection) that the Aussie ANZAC upgrade path was not the way we were going to go (expense being the primary obstacle). Bill English is completely focussed on delivering a government budget surplus this year (so any sane consideration of capability is out the window - this upgrade will be the absolute bare minimum to reduce initial purchase cost). Same scenario as the recent Seasprite purchase.

I think they have picked the right contractor, if the Australian pathway was out. Lockheed Martin Canada have recent experience with the FELEX Halifax class upgrades; the combat systems on the Halifax class are pretty similar to our ANZACs (eg SAAB radars, fire control, CMS). And like most defence projects these days, it's pretty much the same companies behind the scenes.

Chis73

 

[40 deg south]

I still fail to see why it wouldn't be simpler and probably safer to just put them through the ANZAC class ASMD program alongside their Australian sister ships (soon to be half sisters).

Or was the Australian upgrade seen as being too expensive?

Stevo

Any info on the cost of the Australian upgrade package?
The NZ DefMin release talks about an all-up cost of NZD$446 million, or NZ$223 per ship. In round terms, AUD$200 million a unit.

How does this price stack up with what you guys are paying?

Pretty sure lower sustainment costs have been a major factor - Sea Ceptor is supposedly a lot cheaper per shot than ESSM.

Glad to see this project moving forward. I'm waiting for more detail to come out on exactly what we getting for our money (I'm preparing to be substantially underwhelmed). Hopefully two fire control radars, ESSM & Sea-Ceptor (but I'm not holding my breath).

Glad you aren't holding your breath, Chris. If we are getting SeaCeptor, its a dead cert we aren't getting ESSM as well.

Bill English is completely focussed on delivering a government budget surplus this year (so any sane consideration of capability is out the window - this upgrade will be the absolute bare minimum to reduce initial purchase cost).

I understand work is being done from 2016 onwards, so probably not much by way of substantial costs for now. Matches entry of SeaCeptor into RN service, so probably piggy-backing on another larger order as with the MAN trucks.

 

[40 deg south]

New Zealand Ministry of Defence Awards Upgrade Program to Lockheed Martin Canada · Lockheed Martin

LockMart presser has some more details not in the Minister's release.

Would greatly welcome someone more technical than I having a stab at what this means with regard to the sensor fit-out. Clearly, we aren't getting a carbon-copy of the Halifax upgrade, as they went with ESSM rather than SeaCeptor. But is it reasonable to expect Halifax-like sensors?