Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[kiwi in exile]

Interesting indeed considering the manning issues awhile back, defence saving scheme, project problems etc etc. Still not enough info to build a picture.

I too seem to think this may just be a pre-cursor to a combined role littoral already mooted and not actually an extra dedicated OPV or even worse if it was a dedicated OPV could be the future of our combat fleet and pave the way for the ANZAC replacements if considered good enough (by govt of course).

I agree - still not enough info to build a picture.
My guess is that the 3rd OPV = the LWSV. Economy of having a dual role ship. Without getting any extra OPVs the LWSV would surely be tasked with patrol duties anyway wouldn't it? How different will the LWSV be from the OPV anyway. I always thought that the OPVs could carry out a lot of the duties planned for the LWSV.

According to the naval officer quoted in the Janes article, the OPV's will not replace the frigates. The OPV's allow the frigates to drop some of their patrol responsibilty and concentrate on being combat ships. With this in mind, having extra patrol capability could be used to justify having fewer frigates, IE getting by with 2, rather than 3 or 4 when the ANZACs are replaced. While I am for greater number of ships/patrol capability, I wouldn't like to see more OPVs at the cost of increasing our combat capability. Id rather see an extra frigate.

Cheers

 

[ngatimozart]

I agree - still not enough info to build a picture.
My guess is that the 3rd OPV = the LWSV. Economy of having a dual role ship. Without getting any extra OPVs the LWSV would surely be tasked with patrol duties anyway wouldn't it? How different will the LWSV be from the OPV anyway. I always thought that the OPVs could carry out a lot of the duties planned for the LWSV.

According to the naval officer quoted in the Janes article, the OPV's will not replace the frigates. The OPV's allow the frigates to drop some of their patrol responsibilty and concentrate on being combat ships. With this in mind, having extra patrol capability could be used to justify having fewer frigates, IE getting by with 2, rather than 3 or 4 when the ANZACs are replaced. While I am for greater number of ships/patrol capability, I wouldn't like to see more OPVs at the cost of increasing our combat capability. Id rather see an extra frigate.

Cheers

The OPVs and the LWSCs are two different beasts. Yes part of the LWSC requirement is EEZ patrol but that is also same for Endeavour, Canterbury and the MPSC. The main function of the LWSC is Littoral Warfare not EEZ patrolling, policing and monitoring which is the main function of the OPVs. Anyway from reading the LWSC RFI issued last year I get the impression the LWSC is going to be somewhat larger than the OPVs and that is after they cut it back to minimum basics as NZGs are wont to do. The OPVs are 1900 tonne so maybe the LWSC will be closer to 2500 tonnes. LucasNZ maybe able to critique.

 

[MrConservative]

The specs for the LWSV indicate that it will be more of a multi-role mother ship type approach which is they way things in that field are heading. The LMV type which ST Marine are going down this route with a small launch sized vessel able to be deployed and retreived from their LMV. Though there are different requirements between what ST Marine are doing and what we require, that broader concept is indicative. Therefore with a ship of our envisaged LWSV, a dedicated survey drone, MCM drone, dive support, Remus and other kit can do their specialist work when tasked and the mother vessel can conduct presence, patrols, MAOT and other directed taskings - for example the mooted 1A Ice capability would make it useful in the Southern Ocean fishing season free up an OPV for taskings in the South Pacific.

 

[MrConservative]

Interesting indeed considering the manning issues awhile back, defence saving scheme, project problems etc etc. Still not enough info to build a picture.

I too seem to think this may just be a pre-cursor to a combined role littoral already mooted and not actually an extra dedicated OPV or even worse if it was a dedicated OPV could be the future of our combat fleet and pave the way for the ANZAC replacements if considered good enough (by govt of course).

It is stated goal of the Green Party and with a sea change in the Labour Party in terms of Defence (Around half a dozen Labour MPs will be at least status quo on the Anzac replacements - the rest in my view are likely to follow Russel Normans world view) that the Frigates replacements will not happen are goneburgers, along with the Intel agencies and possibly the NZSAS. If the Greens/Labour/Hone get the treasury benches without needing Winston the Anzac upgrades will be toast and if they survive to govern a second term (frankly unlikely) then I would say no more frigates and replaced by OPV's.

The current government realizes the cost of not keeping a real and credible regional security contribution is far greater than the cost of a couple of frigates. If not the cold shoulder of trade and diplomacy would prevail something the Greens and their ilk do not comprehend.

 

[Lucasnz]

I've been looking at the RFI for the Littoral Warfare Support Vessel. The RFI is vague in many of the general areas you might usually look at, but when compared to the OPV the requirements are fundamentally different. For example for Planning purposes a base line of 90 personnel was to be used provisions etc, the speed profile is different and helo capability while at sea state 5 could be by way of fixed or retractable hangar. The Australian Maritime College article talks about 150 people but I wouldn't place my hat on that necessarily.

Overall I think the 3rd OPV is a separate issue to the Littoral Warfare Vessel, unless the Navy is prepared to compromise on some elements of the design , like dynamic positioning etc. Going back over some of the old documents I've got I noticed Tenix provided an option for 3 IPV but commented that "sustainability" of having a vessel continuously available was an issue (at least that's how I recall them in the 30 mins since reading it). You probably are getting the same issue with just two OPV and two Frigates for their respective tasks. A new design OPV might allow the navy to dabble in some more capabilities that blends the two rolls (after all whats a 76mm between friends) though who wants another orphan.

Does anyone by any chance have a copy of the Project Protector RFI / RFP documents.

 

[Gibbo]

I've been looking at the RFI for the Littoral Warfare Support Vessel. The RFI is vague in many of the general areas you might usually look at, but when compared to the OPV the requirements are fundamentally different. For example for Planning purposes a base line of 90 personnel was to be used provisions etc, the speed profile is different and helo capability while at sea state 5 could be by way of fixed or retractable hangar. The Australian Maritime College article talks about 150 people but I wouldn't place my hat on that necessarily.

Overall I think the 3rd OPV is a separate issue to the Littoral Warfare Vessel, unless the Navy is prepared to compromise on some elements of the design , like dynamic positioning etc. Going back over some of the old documents I've got I noticed Tenix provided an option for 3 IPV but commented that "sustainability" of having a vessel continuously available was an issue (at least that's how I recall them in the 30 mins since reading it). You probably are getting the same issue with just two OPV and two Frigates for their respective tasks. A new design OPV might allow the navy to dabble in some more capabilities that blends the two rolls (after all whats a 76mm between friends) though who wants another orphan.

Does anyone by any chance have a copy of the Project Protector RFI / RFP documents.

Yeah I don't know what to think about this article. So the aim is to reduce costs by operating a 3rd OPV & freeing up the ANZACs!?! That doesn't make sense - it means a significant additional capital outlay that frankly hasn't been publicly touted. The LWSV & AOR replacements have been quite extensively discussed publicly so I don't think they are being confused for a 3rd OPV.

A new OPV means additonal manning requirements & extra ongoing support, maintenance costs etc - especially as it will be an orphan! Surely OPV #3 can only 'save money' by there being cuts in other areas!!! - like if a frigate is tied-up or 2 remain in service with only 1 full crew available at short notice. The extra $$$ hasn't been referred to in relation to any extra OPV so is the DWP 2015 going to fore-shadow frigate cuts - 'freed-up' & tied-up!?!

What I'd really like to know is has this guy (LtCdr was it?) been way mis-quoted (common enough these days); or has he let something out of the bag that's he's currently being lashed with the cat o' nine tails for!?!

 

[ngatimozart]

Yeah I don't know what to think about this article. So the aim is to reduce costs by operating a 3rd OPV & freeing up the ANZACs!?! That doesn't make sense - it means a significant additional capital outlay that frankly hasn't been publicly touted. The LWSV & AOR replacements have been quite extensively discussed publicly so I don't think they are being confused for a 3rd OPV.

A new OPV means additonal manning requirements & extra ongoing support, maintenance costs etc - especially as it will be an orphan! Surely OPV #3 can only 'save money' by there being cuts in other areas!!! - like if a frigate is tied-up or 2 remain in service with only 1 full crew available at short notice. The extra $$$ hasn't been referred to in relation to any extra OPV so is the DWP 2015 going to fore-shadow frigate cuts - 'freed-up' & tied-up!?!

What I'd really like to know is has this guy (LtCdr was it?) been way mis-quoted (common enough these days); or has he let something out of the bag that's he's currently being lashed with the cat o' nine tails for!?!

Ah nothing like a good lashing to keep the crew in line I get the impression that this is a kite been flown to maybe see what happens and gauge support for the idea. It was a Lt Cdr so well down the food chain which makes me wonder about its validity. I like the idea, but the funding at present would be a big issue and I think so well into the 2020s unless the NZG supply extra CAPEX for it on the middle or high pathways. I don't necessarily think that an orphan vessel would be a major concern especially if it was being used as "bridge", so to speak, between the current OPVs and their replacements. That way you wouldn't have to replace all three at the same time so one way around block obsolescence in that capability.

Just an observation about the Protector Class OPVs operating in Antarctica, I haven't heard any chatter amongst the ex kiwi sailors or current ones about problems down there. The impression I get from them and elsewhere is that they do the tasks they are supposed to and the FFVs would as a rule avoid the ice. Ain't no money in sustaining ice damage.

 

[Volkodav]

Could the money saving argument be that there are currently functions being carried out by expensive frigates that could be carried out by an OPV instead if one were available? i.e. the frigates are spending time at sea conducting OPV taskings with their greater fuel burn and significantly larger crewing costs rather than concentrating on their core tasks and roles. It would be cheaper to have an extra OPV to relieve the frigates of these non-core tasks and permit them to be deployed more gainfully in roles that require or justify a frigate.

 

[MrConservative]

There is of course the thorny issue of having a period of time over the next while when we are down to just a single operational Frigate while the upgrades are done, testing and training conducted and so forth.

That single operational frigate is going to be thrashed and if there a problem with it which puts it out of action a few critical months effluent may hit the fan.

Frankly we are short of hulls and just maybe there is a reasonable methodology in all this - that is to avoid a clear and present crisis that may have far reaching consequences.

Also upgrades are planned for the current OPVs which will also take one at a time out of circulation. for a period of time. Plus with a projected budget surplus estimated north of a billion next year there is finally some fiscal wriggle room to do this and do the Endeavour and LWSV. For context of current OPV build costs, the Irish have just built their 1900t 90m Samuel Beckett class OPV for Eur55m - so for under NZ$100m a number of issues could be solved.

A third improved Protector class - with the faults eliminated may indeed be a panacea and built to the envisaged upgrade standards of the current OPVs has merit. Now is the time to do this. Much of the reasons for the last personel exodus which impacted the Navy and caused IPVs to be alongside a couple of years back was due to the delays and lack of sea time opportunities - folk with specialist skills, who jjoined the Navy to serve on ships, vote with there feet and leave and they are difficult to replace. Maybe that lesson has finally resonnated .... who knows. Maybe finally our political masters are getting it and that we after a generation of stupity regarding defence they are actually thinking deeper than the superficiality of cuts and absolute minimum capability and we the punters are in disbelief that they might do something sensible for once.

 

[Gracie1234]

I think the above post is spot on. Looks like the lack of numbers of hulls, both frigates and opv's, is starting to have an impact on what can actually be done. The Govt wants this output but it just can not be done as there is no ships available.
Hopefully another OPV at the upgrade standard is on the way, and a three hulls min mindset feeds into the replacement frigate budget.
At least with the replacement Seasprites we will have the numbers to actually achieve the required outcome.
I personally feel pretty good about the future, the govt budget is looking good, the govt seems practical (more than some in the past) our international friends and external environment are all pulling in a direction which will drive an increase in funding. We need to start spending more or else we will have our resources stolen and our international relations will start to suffer in the Asia-Pacific. Which all cost NZ Inc money. I think the days of scraping by on 1% GDP is just not sustainable any more.

 

[kiwi in exile]

I agree about the need for more hulls, and defenitely want to see more than 2 frigates/combat ships in the future. But surely recruitment and retention of sailors is an issue. A short time ago weren't we having trouble crewing the IPV's. I know an extra OPV won't require too many more sailors. Can anyone give an informed update on the situation here. I know the economy is picking up and people are comming back fro across the ditch.


On another note- having a 3rd OPV may make the transition to a green party peace keeping force easier

 

[htbrst]

The idea for a third OPV probably stem out of shortcomings in the number of hulls available for patrol duties as in Project Protector the MRV (Canterbury) was envisaged to have patrol as a major part of its operations, but this was found not to be particularly practical in real operations . In addition, 5 IPV's were also envisaged to meet patrol requirements - but only four were eventually purchased.

Thus, as the current goverment can so categorically blame the current opposition for the need for the extra OPV, I'd rate the likelyhood of actually buying one quite a bit higher than I normally would.

(Adding an additional IPV now is a bit hard since the shipyard has closed)

 

[Lucasnz]

The idea for a third OPV probably stem out of shortcomings in the number of hulls available for patrol duties as in Project Protector the MRV (Canterbury) was envisaged to have patrol as a major part of its operations, but this was found not to be particularly practical in real operations . In addition, 5 IPV's were also envisaged to meet patrol requirements - but only four were eventually purchased.

Thus, as the current goverment can so categorically blame the current opposition for the need for the extra OPV, I'd rate the likelyhood of actually buying one quite a bit higher than I normally would.

(Adding an additional IPV now is a bit hard since the shipyard has closed)

The Maritime Patrol review in 2002 stated that the min number of OPV was 2. This was at a time when the RNZN was operating three frigates. Expanding on the MFR review you find that in constabulary duties include the following:

• Pollution Control
• Resource Protection Operations
• Illegal Immigration
• Enforcement of Maritime Agreements
• Contraband Operations
• Anti-Piracy
• Peace Support Operations

Most vessels that have been deployed on Anti-Piracy operations have been high end ships. The French have deployed the Floreal and the Danish the Theitis class in support of Anit-Piracy ops.

If the RNZN has found that it can not meet its international operations with two frigates and wishes to use OPV's on International Missions some upgrade in sensors and potentially weapons, based on the French and Danish deployments would be required. STX defined a mid-range OPV with a estimated cost $US90-95 Million has having the following capabilities in a 2011 presentation has been:

• 2D Surveillance and Target Indication Radar
• Stabilized Electro-Optical Surveillance System
• GFCS
• 57mm gun
• C3 System
• Tactical Displays

The above cost is likely to be higher based on the comments in at the bottom of the presentation. To achieve that within the existing design and current weight limitations would IMHO require removal of the ice belt in order to fit the 57mm and C3 system. A possible option.

 

[Todjaeger]

The Maritime Patrol review in 2002 stated that the min number of OPV was 2. This was at a time when the RNZN was operating three frigates. Expanding on the MFR review you find that in constabulary duties include the following:

• Pollution Control
• Resource Protection Operations
• Illegal Immigration
• Enforcement of Maritime Agreements
• Contraband Operations
• Anti-Piracy
• Peace Support Operations

Most vessels that have been deployed on Anti-Piracy operations have been high end ships. The French have deployed the Floreal and the Danish the Theitis class in support of Anit-Piracy ops.

If the RNZN has found that it can not meet its international operations with two frigates and wishes to use OPV's on International Missions some upgrade in sensors and potentially weapons, based on the French and Danish deployments would be required. STX defined a mid-range OPV with a estimated cost $US90-95 Million has having the following capabilities in a 2011 presentation has been:

• 2D Surveillance and Target Indication Radar
• Stabilized Electro-Optical Surveillance System
• GFCS
• 57mm gun
• C3 System
• Tactical Displays

The above cost is likely to be higher based on the comments in at the bottom of the presentation. To achieve that within the existing design and current weight limitations would IMHO require removal of the ice belt in order to fit the 57mm and C3 system. A possible option.

Do you recall, or have access to see if that requirement for 2 OPV's was based off also getting a patrol capability from the MRV? Or if the requirement factored in the requirement for periodic maintenance and repairs, upgrades, etc that naval vessels, including OPV's have?

-Cheers

 

[Lucasnz]

Do you recall, or have access to see if that requirement for 2 OPV's was based off also getting a patrol capability from the MRV? Or if the requirement factored in the requirement for periodic maintenance and repairs, upgrades, etc that naval vessels, including OPV's have?

-Cheers

I've put some quotes from the Maritime Forces Review below about the MRV Patrol Capability

1.19 The minimum patrol option is for the MRV, at least two OPVs, and upgrading the five IPCs. This would provide a minimum level of coverage but would not satisfy the total requirement and the overall capability required.

6.13 Any ice-strengthened vessel would be reliant to a large extent, as the fishing vessels are, on an icebreaker operated by another country to gain access to the Ross Sea. An ice-strengthened MRV could operate in the Southern Ocean and Ross Sea during the summer months, and would be able to conduct Southern Ocean patro]

7.7 ...The MRV will be available to supplement the naval patrol force when not engaged on these roles

7.9 This Review, and consultation with civilian agencies, suggests that a mix of five small inshore patrol vessels for most of the inshore tasks and at least three capable OPVs, plus the MRV, for the offshore tasks would meet this requirement.

My reading of the report suggests that budgetary constraint removed the ability to obtain the 3rd OPV or it was lost in order to obtain the IPV to meet the higher priority inshore role, given the limitations with the Moa Class IPC. The MRV appears to have been assigned a Patrol Role, but not on a permanent basis. Changes in defence thinking and the development of the Joint Amphibious Task Force have potentially impacted on the MRV Patrol capability. Hope that helps.

 

[aussienscale]

Changes in defence thinking and the development of the Joint Amphibious Task Force have potentially impacted on the MRV Patrol capability. Hope that helps.

Just wondering what the JATF will look like ? has anything official been released on the make up of it ? Navy's input is pretty obvious, what will the RNZAF and Army bring to the table, and does the NZ Army have or have planned an Amphibious role similar to what is happening with 2RAR in Aus ? Just curious on equipment, troops etc and any numbers if available

Cheers

 

[Cadredave]

Just wondering what the JATF will look like ? has anything official been released on the make up of it ? Navy's input is pretty obvious, what will the RNZAF and Army bring to the table, and does the NZ Army have or have planned an Amphibious role similar to what is happening with 2RAR in Aus ? Just curious on equipment, troops etc and any numbers if available

Cheers

Aussie no firm detail as of yet still being developed but the following should give you an insight

From a Navy perspective:
RNZN - The Joint Amphibious Task Force: The Maritime Dimension

This from a Strategic view:
http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/public-docs/future-35-our-strategy-to-2035.pdf

In effect JATF will be tasked to provide different capabilities when and where the need arises.

Cheers CD

 

[Zero Alpha]

My reading of the report suggests that budgetary constraint removed the ability to obtain the 3rd OPV or it was lost in order to obtain the IPV to meet the higher priority inshore role, given the limitations with the Moa Class IPC. The MRV appears to have been assigned a Patrol Role, but not on a permanent basis. Changes in defence thinking and the development of the Joint Amphibious Task Force have potentially impacted on the MRV Patrol capability. Hope that helps.

It's important to remember that the review was talking about broad indicative capabilities. The reality of the compromises needed to get affordable and workable designs into service has led to some of the original indicative capabilities to be traded away.

The review also said 4 IPVs with 6 crews were needed. They're struggling to find 2 crews for 4 vessels currently.

 

[Gibbo]

There is of course the thorny issue of having a period of time over the next while when we are down to just a single operational Frigate while the upgrades are done, testing and training conducted and so forth.

That single operational frigate is going to be thrashed and if there a problem with it which puts it out of action a few critical months effluent may hit the fan.

Frankly we are short of hulls and just maybe there is a reasonable methodology in all this - that is to avoid a clear and present crisis that may have far reaching consequences.

Also upgrades are planned for the current OPVs which will also take one at a time out of circulation. for a period of time. Plus with a projected budget surplus estimated north of a billion next year there is finally some fiscal wriggle room to do this and do the Endeavour and LWSV. For context of current OPV build costs, the Irish have just built their 1900t 90m Samuel Beckett class OPV for Eur55m - so for under NZ$100m a number of issues could be solved.

A third improved Protector class - with the faults eliminated may indeed be a panacea and built to the envisaged upgrade standards of the current OPVs has merit. Now is the time to do this. Much of the reasons for the last personel exodus which impacted the Navy and caused IPVs to be alongside a couple of years back was due to the delays and lack of sea time opportunities - folk with specialist skills, who jjoined the Navy to serve on ships, vote with there feet and leave and they are difficult to replace. Maybe that lesson has finally resonnated .... who knows. Maybe finally our political masters are getting it and that we after a generation of stupity regarding defence they are actually thinking deeper than the superficiality of cuts and absolute minimum capability and we the punters are in disbelief that they might do something sensible for once.

Ah yes good point - upgrades will see both ANZAC & Protector hulls out of action at times. I certainly hope a 3rd OPV is on the cards & an 'improved' version of the current vessels would do well - especially if 'up-rated' to be able to take on anti-piracy taskings. I still have doubts that the officer quoted was take in the right context.

I understood that since the Protector fleet entered service that the ANZACs had pretty much pulled back from light patrol tasks - am I wrong? They both seem fairly pre-occupied with overseas work-ups & exercises these days (in between upgrades etc). Pity one wasn't available for Southern Katipo 13.

 

[CJohn]

My reading of the report suggests that budgetary constraint removed the ability to obtain the 3rd OPV or it was lost in order to obtain the IPV to meet the higher priority inshore role, given the limitations with the Moa Class IPC. The MRV appears to have been assigned a Patrol Role, but not on a permanent basis. Changes in defence thinking and the development of the Joint Amphibious Task Force have potentially impacted on the MRV Patrol capability.

I would tend to agree.
A third improved Protector class would be ideal, but if an orphan hull is considered, there maybe a possibility one of these hulls will be available in near future and would fit many of the requirements.

The British Government has confirmed it will build three improved River Class OPV's and a decision to decommission three of the orginal hulls prematurely will be taken next year. There could be a good deal arranged for one of them.