Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Okay, this does make a bit more sense then. The two and a half years of training atop the civilian college/uni, plus whatever else required seemed a bit much.
Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
Zero Alpha
New Member
Lsv
Shortlist for the survey/dive replacement includes:
Damen
BMT
BAE
Hyundai
Fincantieri
Lockheed Martin
Navantia
Some interesting options there. Damen and BMT have smaller options, but the size guidance in the ROI document suggests something much bigger.
You'd have to say that a large OPV design could well be in the mix.
Shortlist for the survey/dive replacement includes:
Damen
BMT
BAE
Hyundai
Fincantieri
Lockheed Martin
Navantia
Some interesting options there. Damen and BMT have smaller options, but the size guidance in the ROI document suggests something much bigger.
You'd have to say that a large OPV design could well be in the mix.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Interesting. Similar but not identical to Endeavour replacement list:
Damen
Daewoo
Hyundai
Navantia
Fincantieri
Seaspan
Teekay
So two British contenders (BMT, BAE) and one American (LockMart) join the list for the littoral ship, while would-be tanker providers Daewoo (Korea), Seaspan (Canada) and Teekay (US) drop off.
I had wondered if there would be any Japanese interest - clearly not. It seems their government may be more bullish about defence exports than the industry suppliers.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
With the help of Mr Google, I've attempted to answer this question from a week or two back.Note this relates to the Endeavour replacement. Apologies for length.
Navantia
State-owned Spanish shipbuilder that scooped the Australian AWD and LHD contracts. Their latest auxiliary, the Cantabria, was commissioned in 2010. At 170m and 19,500 tonnes, she may be a little big for NZ’s requirements. The RAN took her for a 10-month test drive in 2013.
Spanish Armada Ship Cantabria arrives in Australia | Royal Australian Navy
Cantabria has a little sister, the Patino, built in 1995. At 17,000 tonnes, she may be a better fit for NZ. In any case, these two vessels prove that Navantia can scale the same basic design.
Patino Class Auxiliary Oiler and Replenishment Ship - Naval Technology
Both these vessels appear to have much larger crews (approx. 130) than the existing Endeavour’s 50-strong complement, which would push up operating costs.
Australia has short-listed Navantia and Daewoo as preferred suppliers for two new auxiliaries. Good overview here.
Australia’s Next Supply Ships: Serious about Success
Given much of the Australian fleet is now Navantia-designed, I suspect commonality benefits mean Navantia will win the contract, with Daewoo included just to keep them honest on price.
DEFENSE STUDIES: Australia and Navantia Sign Contract for Design Analysis of Two Supply Ships
Fincantieri
https://www.fincantieri.it/cms/data/pages/000052.aspx
Italian builder of naval vessels and cruise liners, Fincanteiri is currently churning out FREMM frigates, and has recently built an interesting LPD for the Algerian navy. They built the Etna refuelling ship for the Italian navy in 1998. Etna is NH90-capable and has space for 12 TEU containers as required in the NZ specs, but fuel capacity appears a little low. At 21 knots, very fast for a support vessel.
Etna Class - Naval Technology
Two enlarged versions, the Deepak class, were supplied to the Indian Navy in 2011.
INS Deepak Underway-Replenishment Fleet Tanker
The Indians had some gripes over steel specifications, but all three vessels appear to be operating effectively in service.
Damen
Welcome - Damen Schelde Naval Shipbuilding
Damen is a highly respected Dutch designer and builder of commercial and naval vessels. Currently delivering SIGMA corvettes to Indonesia, among many other projects. Experienced in building in offshore or customer-nominated yards, and part-owner of a Vietnamese shipyard. Has supplied non-combat vessels to the RAN.
RAN News
Doesn’t have a tanker portfolio that I am aware of, but undoubtedly could create or modify a design. Built the JSS Karel Doorman for Netherlands – an extremely impressive multi-purpose vessel with a hefty price tag approaching 400 million Euro. Would be great for NZ, but well outside our budget.
The Dutch JSS Multi-Purpose Support Ship
Seaspan
Home - Seaspan
Vancouver-based company that has recently has focussed on repair/overhaul work and building ferries for the Canadian market. Winner of major contract for non-combat vessels under Canada’s National Shipbuilding Programme.
Vancouver Shipyards, National Shipbuilding Program, Non-Combat vessels
Given the steep costs for locally building the two Berlin-class AORs that Canada has ordered, it seems likely Seaspan would seek to do a build for NZ outside of Canada. Pitching for the NZ contract may be a way of getting more value out of the design/engineering team they need to meet their demands from the Canadian navy.
Has to be considered a very long shot for the NZ contract.
TeeKay
https://teekay.com/
This is the least-known contender. Teekay is an American-based firm whose main business is the transportation and storage of oil and related fuels. They run a fleet of around 100 tankers, either owned or leased.
https://teekay.com/business/tankers/
As far as I can tell, they have no shipyard and most of their vessels were built in either Korea or China. No indication of their in-house design/engineering expertise, but they didn’t get this big by buying ships that aren’t both cheap and effective.
May have been included by NZDF to provide a commercial baseline cost that militarised tankers can be compared against.
Hyundai
Shipbuilding | Business Overview | Corporate Information | HYUNDAI Heavy Industry Investor Relations
The world’s largest shipbuilder. If it floats, these guys can build it. Supplied the current HMNZS Endeavour, which has given good service at very modest cost.
The Hyundai website used to have a good Naval section, that I am now unable to find. That showed (from memory) a family of three small tankers that had a ‘Son of Endeavour’ appearance. Size ranged from around 8000 – 15,000 tonnes (again, from memory). The largest one could be a contender for NZ. There were no detailed specs, but if anyone finds the page please post the link.
Korea itself is said to be introducing a new class of replenishment ship between now and 2020 – the AOE-II. I haven’t found any specifications, but some web reports have Hyundai winning a contract for three ships.
If the size and specs were broadly similar to NZ’s requirements, Hyundai would be able to deliver at low cost as they would already have a production line running.
Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering (DSME)
Korea’s no. 2 shipbuilder. Currently producing four MARS Tankers for the UK.
RFA Tide Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability (MARS)
Britain’s Tide Class: Supplies are From MARS
Also building a smaller tanker for the Norwegian navy, that looks similar to NZ's requirements.
BMT’s Aegir design selected for Royal Norwegian Navy’s JLSS programme - Naval Technology
Both these designs are from the Aegir family of British design house BMT. A brochure is here:
http://media.bmt.org/bmt_media/resources/38/AegirBrochure.pdf
The BMT Aegir 18A design was proposed by Aust Submarine Corp as a joint Korean-Australian solution to the RAN’s need for new auxiliaries. However, the Aust government has opted to seek bids directly from Navantia and DSME.
The fact that five vessels are already planned or under construction from this design family must serve to lower risk. Add in the existing links between RNZN and BMT, and I would rate DSME as favourite to win the NZ contract for a new tanker/auxiliary.
Last edited:
Zero Alpha
New Member
Nice summary.
Just a couple of quick points:
Damen's JSS is based on one of several proven hull designs they have. I'm sure they could scale the design to a smaller hull version. Most of the cost is probably tied up in the mission equipment carried that NZ wouldn't necessarily want. Rumour has it Damen was the preferred option for what became Canterbury, so I assume that means their methodologies and commercial approach is acceptable.
The project includes through-life support. Teekay builds and operates some very large ships on behalf of the Australian government (the Customs southern ocean vessel) and some large corporates like BHP, so presumably understands through life support well. They may well be making an aggressive bid using a business model not offered by the other vendors.
For my two cents I'd say that the BMT/Daewoo option and Damen would be the two lead contenders, but if Teekay can secure a good design they'd be competitive with their through life support and more innovative commercial approach.
Regarding the Australian project, BMT had a strategic partnership with ASC (BMT run submarine engineering school), but that didn't stop BMT supplying designs for DSME....
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Interesting. Always good to get some more information, thanks.
I certainly didn't find much info on Teekay on the web, so thanks for the heads-up on their Australian operations.
The published time for receipt of tenders is the middle of this year, with a recommendation going to Cabinet in early 2016. That leaves them 6 months to do the analysis. Hope someone in Wellington has the calculator primed and ready to go.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Canadian firm putting together team to bid on New Zealand supply ship project | Ottawa Citizen
A Canadian take on being long-listed to bid for the Endaevour replacement. This article says that Davie Shipyard in Quebec is the lead company, whereas the NZ MinDef release listed Seaspan of Vancouver. The article makes it clear this will be a 'team Canada' joint effort, so the significance is probably nil. The comments at the end are sceptical about Canada's chances, probably rightly.
My impression was that the Davie bid might be separate from the Seaspan one (who will likely offer a variant of the Queenston / Berlin class AOR they are slated to build). Davie will have their work cut out, the tender deadline is only a few months away.
Is anyone else getting very nervous about this tender? We have made substantial changes in specification from the RfI, but allowed only a very short timeframe for bids. Also, we seem to be following a separate path from the Australians (with one of their two candidates - the Cantabria class - ruled out because it is single shaft). Isn't this exactly what the Canterbury debacle should have taught us to avoid. From what I've seen, the requirement is now for more of an AO rather than a JSS, likely an enlarged Endeavour. It doesn't seem like a genuine AOR either (mainly liquid fuels, not much internal warehouse space for dry stores, ammo & foodstuffs (most of the stores space will likely be in the few containers on deck). Probably that is because the starting budget is woefully inadequate to buy a serious AOR. I have to ask: is an AO really the right ship for the JATF? Endeavour was bought (cheaply, following the Fiji coup) when our naval force was based on 4 (ok, 3.5) frigates - now we have an amphibious task group to support.
The very short timeframe may work in our favour a bit, in such that bidders will probably have to offer what they already have ready to build. Most of those are AORs, but may be outside the initial budget limits.
It will be interesting to see what was cut from the RfI specs. The vehicle deck & the chinook-size flight deck most probably. The other thing wanted was serious ice strengthening in order to supply McMurdo & Scott bases. That's probably just a once-a-year trip (easy to arrange a charter), and it is dependent on access provided by a single 30+ year-old USCG polar icebreaker (the possibility of said ship breaking down was stated by the USCG Commandant in a recent interview as being the one thing most likely to keep him awake at night), so I don't know how sensible that requirement may be. The items in the press about the RfT don't make any mention of landing craft either (not even a single LCVP, which would make the fuel supply drops to islands like Raoul & Penrhyn easier).
I would urge Mr Brownlee to watch this one very closely, and perhaps consider a re-think. This ship will be the lynchpin of our future fleet. Please don't skimp on this one!
The Deputy Chief of the Navy gave a speech at the recent ASPI Future Surface Fleet conference in Canberra. No video yet*, but the slides from the presentation are here. Nice pic of the future Endeavour concept there. Also, more info on the LWSV. It looks like we will be gapping that capability for 1.5 years (really 2.5). The concept art looks quite like some of the oceanographic ships in other navies (think HMS Echo).
Addendum: As Road Runner notes on the RAN thread, the video from the ASPI conference is now online. RNZN material here, specifically the first 20 min, and some q&a for the last 15 min.
* the youtube videos of last year's Submarine choice conference are worth checking out.
Last edited:
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Davie Shipyards was not selected to be part of Canada's Naval Ship Building Program. That should be a red flag for NZ.
There is a good interview with Rear Admiral Steer on Defense News today. Well worth a read.
Good to see him pushing the message for 3 ships to replace the ANZACs when the time comes. The bad news is that it sounds like they may well not be frigates, or at best "slightly used" ones. I wonder what will be available in the "slightly used" market 15 years from now? FREMM, Singaporean Formidable-class, something South Korean or Japanese?
Just to re-iterate my point about the Endeavour replacement needing to be an AOR: look at how the logistics requirements for our naval "expeditionary force" have changed compared to 1988. Then, we had 4 frigates (all variants of the Leander class) and a single helicopter (Wasp) for the navy to support. Now we have a multitude of ship classes (Frigates, Canterbury, the future LOSC, maybe the OPV) that are all going to need spare parts, several unique-to-the-region weapon systems (Sea Ceptor, Penguin, Mk46?) that we won't be able to rely on the US or Australia to support, several helicopter types (Seasprite - also unique, NH90), possibly a company-group sized land force to feed & supply (which may well be sea-based in Canterbury). A few containers on the Endeavour replacement just doesn't look like it is going to cut it. And containers really require access to decent port facilities - what if they are damaged? Port facilities in the Pacific aren't the greatest at the best of times. This new ship is a 30-year investment, let's do it right. We need a "one-stop" fleet replenishment ship.
Adding a decent fleet stores capacity (say 10% to 30% of fuel capacity) to this ship is a much better option than a separate ship:
1) you don't need a separate crew (I suspect many of the extra logistics people could well come from Army)
2) the fuel load will act as ballast, so sailing around with the stores areas largely empty is much less of a problem (compared to say the Charles Upham or Canterbury)
Chis73
Good to see him pushing the message for 3 ships to replace the ANZACs when the time comes. The bad news is that it sounds like they may well not be frigates, or at best "slightly used" ones. I wonder what will be available in the "slightly used" market 15 years from now? FREMM, Singaporean Formidable-class, something South Korean or Japanese?
Just to re-iterate my point about the Endeavour replacement needing to be an AOR: look at how the logistics requirements for our naval "expeditionary force" have changed compared to 1988. Then, we had 4 frigates (all variants of the Leander class) and a single helicopter (Wasp) for the navy to support. Now we have a multitude of ship classes (Frigates, Canterbury, the future LOSC, maybe the OPV) that are all going to need spare parts, several unique-to-the-region weapon systems (Sea Ceptor, Penguin, Mk46?) that we won't be able to rely on the US or Australia to support, several helicopter types (Seasprite - also unique, NH90), possibly a company-group sized land force to feed & supply (which may well be sea-based in Canterbury). A few containers on the Endeavour replacement just doesn't look like it is going to cut it. And containers really require access to decent port facilities - what if they are damaged? Port facilities in the Pacific aren't the greatest at the best of times. This new ship is a 30-year investment, let's do it right. We need a "one-stop" fleet replenishment ship.
Adding a decent fleet stores capacity (say 10% to 30% of fuel capacity) to this ship is a much better option than a separate ship:
1) you don't need a separate crew (I suspect many of the extra logistics people could well come from Army)
2) the fuel load will act as ballast, so sailing around with the stores areas largely empty is much less of a problem (compared to say the Charles Upham or Canterbury)
Chis73
Has the US navy retired the AGM-119 Penguin?
Uncertain - but they seem to be retiring the only platform (iirc) they have cleared to fire it, the SH-60B (see here). I don't like it's chances.
You know Chis 10 x 20ft TEUs is 200 tonnes of dry goods and munitions. If they double stack the TEUs then it's 400 tonnes. However the double stacking would be subject to ship stability requirements. The Penguin a good missile far better than the Maverick and probably the close to the max of what the Sprite can carry size wise. You know that we are not going to get Harpoon missiles or similar so we have to use what he have whether we like it or not. As much as I like the JSM and NSM we more than likely won't see those in NZ service either on basis of cost alone. Have you read the tender documents for Endeavour replacement - the MSC?
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
I'd certainly back Ngati in recommending a look at the full tender spec (>600 pages!). It requires a registration on GETS, but that only takes a few minutes.
From my read of it, the only dry stores capability is the12 TEUs on deck. If I interpret the doc correctly, up to four of them could be used for ordinance. These are minimums, of course, but the requirements are well short of what chis73 thinks are necessary. It really is a tanker with deck cargo, rather than a JSS-type vessel.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the tip - the slide on the Littoral Operations vessel was particularly interesting. The time line it lays out is:
2015 Q1 Cabinet approves short-list options
2016 Q1 Cabinet approves funding
2017 Q1 Cabinet approves contract
2017 Q2 - 2018 Q4 Ship build/Capability gap
2019 q1 Ship delivery
2020 Q1 Ship fully operational
The rest of the slide makes it clear they want more than just a dive tender or hydrographic vessel, but want to be able to embark other forces, have a self-protection capability and be helicopter/UAV capable. (Although the outline shape suggests a forward-mounted landing deck with no hangar capability).
Valid point about a homogeneous force being replaced by an assortment of fewer capable and less capable ships. Two ANZACs and (potentially) three OPVs in two classes, makes me wonder if a homogenous class of frigates, equipped "for but not with", may have been a smarter way to go over the long term.
NZ procurement has its strengths, were they often seem to achieve more with less, but it definitely seems to lack sensible strategic direction. Geography seems to dictate a high end, sustainable, frigate force of at least three but probably five ships, as well as a number of OPVs and a couple of multirole support ships, i.e. the Danish navy without the fast attack craft and submarines, but instead there is a navy of ones and twos that would embarrass many third world nations.
NZ procurement has its strengths, were they often seem to achieve more with less, but it definitely seems to lack sensible strategic direction. Geography seems to dictate a high end, sustainable, frigate force of at least three but probably five ships, as well as a number of OPVs and a couple of multirole support ships, i.e. the Danish navy without the fast attack craft and submarines, but instead there is a navy of ones and twos that would embarrass many third world nations.
It's a historical political and national weakness plus an inbred political stinginess to pay for defence because it is not seen as a necessity. We are a maritime nation but the politicians and the general public ignore that and this sea blindness is what leads to a poorly resourced navy. The moat that surrounds NZ is seen as a strong defence to keep baddies at arms length, not the actual liability and subsequent weakness it is. The pollies have a lack of strategic insight which is not helped by the bean counters.
Zero Alpha
New Member
I'd argue the Navy is more versatile now than it ever has been. It's got a wider range of capabilities, and it is better at working with the other service.
It's certainly lost some depth in some areas (ASW being a clear one), but ASuW capability is better than it ever has been (well, since Royalist paid off!).
The changes and increased relevance aren't the result of strategic insight from the senior defence leadership. They were forced on them by the politicians.
The lesson here is that defence also has a long way to go showing strategic insight and recognising the evolving needs of the country.
A Defense Industry Daily article on the RNZN ANZAC FFH upgrade. It notes that there is a MoU between Lockheed and MDBA regarding the fitting of the Sea Ceptor missile into the Mk41 VLS and the RNZN frigates are the first candidates for this fit out. A further reading article on the MDBA CAMM which Sea Ceptor is the marine component of.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Babcock wins New Zealand support deal - IHS Jane's 360
If the navy's desire for a third OPV somehow found funding, Babcock is already building a stretched version of the NZ OPVs, albeit without helicopter facilities.
Ireland Orders Third Offshore Patrol Vessel | Naval Today
Business as usual for Devonport.
If the navy's desire for a third OPV somehow found funding, Babcock is already building a stretched version of the NZ OPVs, albeit without helicopter facilities.
Ireland Orders Third Offshore Patrol Vessel | Naval Today