Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[Zero Alpha]

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.

Daven have also just announced their second OPV family (OPV-2). An OPV size vessel would have to be a contender for the LOSC vessel. Perhaps making the survey/MCM function deployable to a variety of vessels and having a 'third OPV' as the primary platform would meet the perceived needs.

With modern ROV LARS, AUVs and modular survey grade sounders this approach would be more viable now than it ever has been.

 

[Volkodav]

I wonder what chance there is of NZ eventually moving to a navy of threes, realistically the answer is probably none.

By navy of threes I mean three frigates, three OPVs and three multirole support ships. The OPVs are already a real possibly and the frigates an unlikely outside chance that is discussed outside of government as sensible and probably necessary. The fantasy idea is the multirole support ships as, while conceivable, it would be very expensive to acquire a design that could replace Endeavour and Canterbury, let alone three of them. The only possible option I could see for that is a modified small tanker with a multi-mission deck and extensive aviation facilities with a modified LPD far to expensive for one, let alone three. There would be more chance of NZ buying one of the ex Russian Mistrals, i.e. none at all.

 

[Zero Alpha]

I wonder what chance there is of NZ eventually moving to a navy of threes, realistically the answer is probably none.

Sure there is...3 RHIBs, 3 Midshipmen and 3 Admirals!

3 'Large combat capable ships' is probably achievable. Perhaps not "frigates." Something like an Absalom would be a possibility, especially if the plan was for 2 'fitted with' and 1 'fitted for.' It would require some careful schedule management, but it would de-link hull and machinery service intervals from mission equipment while providing room for expansion. With the Endeavour replacement specifying mountings, power fittings, ammo lockers etc for mini typhoon and Phalanx, there is potential for mission equipment to be pooled across all the major fleet units.

3 OPVs are easily achievable, especially if the less versatile IPV fleet is reduced.

 

[swerve]

One thing I've never understood is why the Absalon class name is so often mis-spelled.

Nobody writes Horizom-class, or USS Abraham Lincolm, George Washingtom, Ronald Reagam, or even Carl Vinsom, or HMS Albiom, Oceam, Dragom, or Duncam, or calls a German navy ship Berlim, or speaks of HNLMS De Zeven Provinciëm or Karel Doormam.

Why pick on the Danes?

 

[t68]

One thing I've never understood is why the Absalon class name is so often mis-spelled.
B
Nobody writes Horizom-class, or USS Abraham Lincolm, George Washingtom, Ronald Reagam, or even Carl Vinsom, or HMS Albiom, Oceam, Dragom, or Duncam, or calls a German navy ship Berlim, or speaks of HNLMS De Zeven Provinciëm or Karel Dorrmam.

Why pick on the Danes?

Easy Jack Absalom is a cultural attaché for us Australians.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=W_I8AMxSgqE

 

[swerve]

Doesn't explain the non-Australians (USians, British) who get it wrong.

 

[old faithful]

I bought up this point a year or 2 ago, and got jumped on!
Good oya Swerve!

 

[t68]

Doesn't explain the non-Australians (USians, British) who get it wrong.

Sorry mate, just taking the mickey with that responce. I made that mistake some years ago till I believe you corrected me then.

Ya got me tho but they sound fairly similar.

 

[ngatimozart]

Sure there is...3 RHIBs, 3 Midshipmen and 3 Admirals!

3 'Large combat capable ships' is probably achievable. Perhaps not "frigates." Something like an Absalom would be a possibility, especially if the plan was for 2 'fitted with' and 1 'fitted for.' It would require some careful schedule management, but it would de-link hull and machinery service intervals from mission equipment while providing room for expansion. With the Endeavour replacement specifying mountings, power fittings, ammo lockers etc for mini typhoon and Phalanx, there is potential for mission equipment to be pooled across all the major fleet units.

3 OPVs are easily achievable, especially if the less versatile IPV fleet is reduced.

What is actually wrong with the IPVs? The main reason for their under utilisation is crewing and the reason for that is because of govts policies.

Regarding frigates, Iver Huitfelds would actually be better and three of them. They are cheaper than the projected Type 26 costs and we don't necessarily need all the Danish kit such as the Millennium gun. They can also be built in a Korean yard and fitted out how we like. An Absalon would be nice in NZ service but it isn't a frigate and we do need to field frigates because we are a maritime nation whether we like it or not. No hiding of heads in the sand and denying that will change it.

 

[RegR]

What is actually wrong with the IPVs? The main reason for their under utilisation is crewing and the reason for that is because of govts policies.

Regarding frigates, Iver Huitfelds would actually be better and three of them. They are cheaper than the projected Type 26 costs and we don't necessarily need all the Danish kit such as the Millennium gun. They can also be built in a Korean yard and fitted out how we like. An Absalon would be nice in NZ service but it isn't a frigate and we do need to field frigates because we are a maritime nation whether we like it or not. No hiding of heads in the sand and denying that will change it.

I would argue a absalom (ok ok absalon) is alot more useful, versatile and potent than our current ANZACs and to be honest for what we do and how we use frigates multi-role (even for a frigate) should not be over looked as an option.

Also agree regards IPV and if navy did lose them their funding would adjust as these mainly support other agencies. If customs, MPI, police etc lose their hours on these then they would probably require more of their own vessels and subsequent funding which would come from current allocation. OPV would be overkill for some smaller ops in a NZ context and therefore inefficient.

 

[t68]

What is actually wrong with the IPVs? The main reason for their under utilisation is crewing and the reason for that is because of govts policies.

Regarding frigates, Iver Huitfelds would actually be better and three of them. They are cheaper than the projected Type 26 costs and we don't necessarily need all the Danish kit such as the Millennium gun. They can also be built in a Korean yard and fitted out how we like. An Absalon would be nice in NZ service but it isn't a frigate and we do need to field frigates because we are a maritime nation whether we like it or not. No hiding of heads in the sand and denying that will change it.

I have to agree that sentiment in the current fiscal climate on which the NZDF finds itself with each service competing for there slice of the pie, whilst a collaborative buy and build between both nations would be ideal, but to get the RNZN to a place where it can sustain the effort NZ will have to look at alternatives.

You mention building in Sth Korea it may be time to look at the shipping as well, when you consider the majority of operations is patrolling the EEZ for NZ and it's protectorates in the Pacific, or on coalition missions as part of a task force as an escort group.

Maybe it's time to look at the Incheon class being built for Sth Korea and is in production now, whilst these ships are primarily produced to replace the coastal ASW ships against the North, they appear to be building them in batch and with every new batch they seem to be increasing the capabilty along with them. The Sth Koreans seem to have build plan of about 20-24 planned which should see the production line open for some time, the Phillipines have also expressed some interest in the ships it will be interesting to see the spec they are planning.

Whilst these ships are not in the league of of type 26 but if these are if priced right should give NZ the room to move to enable a number of ships in the fleet to sustain local and long range overseas operations if they can be procured in numbers.

Incheon Class Frigates / Future Frigate Experimental (FFX) - Naval Technology

 

[kiwipatriot69]

Royal New Zealand Navy

Seeing how hammered the Ipvs got last year at sea and needing repair according to the Nzdf pdf files i found,lack of crews and OPV'S being prefered overall, i would think selling the IPV fleet off to help fund another OPV and the Manawai replacement is in order, why not have a Opv similar to HMS Echo?

 

[Zero Alpha]

One thing I've never understood is why the Absalon class name is so often mis-spelled.

Nobody writes Horizom-class, or USS Abraham Lincolm, George Washingtom, Ronald Reagam, or even Carl Vinsom, or HMS Albiom, Oceam, Dragom, or Duncam, or calls a German navy ship Berlim, or speaks of HNLMS De Zeven Provinciëm or Karel Doormam.

Why pick on the Danes?

Picking on the Danes is always fun?

My spell check changes Absalon to Absalom. Absalom is biblical.

 

[Zero Alpha]

What is actually wrong with the IPVs? The main reason for their under utilisation is crewing and the reason for that is because of govts policies.

Regarding frigates, Iver Huitfelds would actually be better and three of them. They are cheaper than the projected Type 26 costs and we don't necessarily need all the Danish kit such as the Millennium gun. They can also be built in a Korean yard and fitted out how we like. An Absalon would be nice in NZ service but it isn't a frigate and we do need to field frigates because we are a maritime nation whether we like it or not. No hiding of heads in the sand and denying that will change it.

Nothing really wrong with them Ngati, I just think they're not used enough with current personnel levels to justify owning 4 of them. Crew are harder to come by than money and I'd rather those crew are used on something with more utility.

Absalon isn't a frigate, but I don't think it needs to be. We need something that is capable of operating in a combat environment, not necessarily on the pointy end of the spear in a ASW/ASuW fight.

 

[Lucasnz]

Nothing really wrong with them Ngati, I just think they're not used enough with current personnel levels to justify owning 4 of them. Crew are harder to come by than money and I'd rather those crew are used on something with more utility.

Absalon isn't a frigate, but I don't think it needs to be. We need something that is capable of operating in a combat environment, not necessarily on the pointy end of the spear in a ASW/ASuW fight.

Looking over an IPV last year I noticed a table by the CO's chair detailing max speed versus sea state (nothing unusual per say given you might often match sea state to speed for crew comfort and safety). What got me about the table was it clearly stated that damage will result in speed exceed sea state. The latest navy today indicated that the max endurance was around 8 days for some rations (the same as the Moa IPV) and that they were out of milk, bread and eggs by the time they hit Nelson (p.34). I will leave others to draw what they can out of it, but I would suggest a lack endurance to operate around the NZ coast, something that has always been a problem with our Patrol Craft.

While I support a frigate force if you look at Absalon you have a multi role vessel with frigate level armament and sensors. Clearly an enhancement for the JAFT. The overall issue with both the OPV and Frigates is numbers - 2 isn't enough for any class. Perhaps the answer lies in designing a single class of vessel (Accepting there will be comprises i.e. in crew size / construction standards) that at its basic level is equipped like a USCG Cutter (with ASW) and then uses modular capabilities to upgrade to full combat capability.

Whatever the answer I will leave you with the comments of a former US Navy pilot who did a lecture at the University of Otago some years back - Why do you need frigates? (My comment now - Especially when there is such a diverse range of designs now been produced - Might destroyers be better now given countries see an increasing need for an ABMD capability, equally might a Sigma class Corvette using Mistral be equally effective)

I look forward to the boardsides (maybe)

 

[RegR]

Nothing really wrong with them Ngati, I just think they're not used enough with current personnel levels to justify owning 4 of them. Crew are harder to come by than money and I'd rather those crew are used on something with more utility.

Absalon isn't a frigate, but I don't think it needs to be. We need something that is capable of operating in a combat environment, not necessarily on the pointy end of the spear in a ASW/ASuW fight.

The thing is would we use an OPV type to do the tasks currently covered by IPV? I know we could but then wouldn't it again be like using a frigate to do what OPV does to a degree and therefore a step back into the old days.

If the problem is manning then again the problem will still remain and the best we could do is combine 2 hulls (IPV) into 1 (OPV) and is it better to have the ability to multi-task with improved availability or cover more 'roles' with a singular hull? yes and no. If there is no actual issue with how IPV conducts it's intended role then is tricky one.

Agreed on frigates, for our small navy do we really need such a specific frigate or would we be better served with a more versatile frigate build? (all the more now when even the term RNZN frigate is being debated more frequently). The base platform is not so much the issue if we are going to add our own sensors/weapons/fit outs etc but usually built specifically for costs significantly more and is more geared in a particular direction, big navies can afford and in fact need this but we have to be alittle more no.8 about things, sometimes it even works.

On endurance I'd suspect 8 days is relevant for an IPV as you probably would not want to be onboard much longer with limited space, functions etc than you need to be in this particular arena (also considering other agencies) and the fact you are 'inshore' means a port/wharf/jetty is never to far away to stretch your legs, re-supply and settle you stomach haha.

Seastate not only dictates IPV operation but also that of what/who they observing/boarding in an inshore sense generally as well and is somewhat relative ie OPV chasing down a trawler fleet on the open sea vs IPV stalking an unknown yacht in and around the coastline.

 

[Lucasnz]

A new Damen Product just discovered. Interesting concept. Shows the diversity of designs out there these days, and probably makes the frigate question harder to answer.

 

[Zero Alpha]

The thing is would we use an OPV type to do the tasks currently covered by IPV? I know we could but then wouldn't it again be like using a frigate to do what OPV does to a degree and therefore a step back into the old days.

[snip]

On endurance I'd suspect 8 days is relevant for an IPV as you probably would not want to be onboard much longer with limited space, functions etc than you need to be in this particular arena (also considering other agencies) and the fact you are 'inshore' means a port/wharf/jetty is never to far away to stretch your legs, re-supply and settle you stomach haha.
.

Crew size for the OPVs is 35 versus 20 on the IPVs, so it's not like tying up several hundred when a couple of dozen would do. Similarly at patrol speeds fuel burn isn't going to be significantly different. There are big advantages to having a number of different platforms, and the IPVs do allow earlier opportunities for command responsibility. I'm not convinced anything a sale would yield would be worth that loss. We've got them now, may as well make the most of them. If a tradeoff has to be made somewhere though, the IPVs have the least utility. We should expect the them to be able to operate up to Fiji, Tonga, Samoa and Honiara though. Fresh provisions might be a challenge, but they're certainly got the endurance to get there otherwise.

 

[RegR]

Crew size for the OPVs is 35 versus 20 on the IPVs, so it's not like tying up several hundred when a couple of dozen would do. Similarly at patrol speeds fuel burn isn't going to be significantly different. There are big advantages to having a number of different platforms, and the IPVs do allow earlier opportunities for command responsibility. I'm not convinced anything a sale would yield would be worth that loss. We've got them now, may as well make the most of them. If a tradeoff has to be made somewhere though, the IPVs have the least utility. We should expect the them to be able to operate up to Fiji, Tonga, Samoa and Honiara though. Fresh provisions might be a challenge, but they're certainly got the endurance to get there otherwise.

Oh yes I agree, I'm not advocating getting rid of IPV I'm all for them as they provide a niche capability and fullfill a purpose within NZ waters along with the benefit of actual numbers with asscociated benefits (manning, operating cost, manuverability etc) as we would not get one for one OPV in terms of replacement which would diminish the fleet even more, a loss in itself.

I'm not so concerned with them venturing outside of local waters as operationally that's OPVs domain and is venturing outside of the IPV scope. This would also push all the points Lucas brought up no doubt giving the media something else to whinge about and further argue their validity, use them for their intended role and avoid criticism.

 

[kiwi in exile]

A new Damen Product just discovered. Interesting concept. Shows the diversity of designs out there these days, and probably makes the frigate question harder to answer.

Yes, thats a pretty interesting range of ships. Similar concept to the Absolon that so many are keen on. Similar size and capabilities from what I can gather too. In many respects, similar to what the Canterbury can offer too (although different in others). Some are optimised for combat and some for cargo.
If these kind of ships are an option for NZDF we have to view them in the context of the whole fleet. I think replacing/supplementing our ANZAC frigates with this kind of ship, in addition to whatever we replace the Canterbury and Endev with would give us excessive sealift capability, IE in excess of what we would need for the size of out JATF. If we were to replace the canterbury with something like this, while it would increase our naval combat capability, I imagine we would be loosing some sustainment and cargo capability. So I agree, does make the frigate question harder to answer, along with the rest.

If a LWSV is still on the cards, a mini version of this would be useful. Between that and a mythical 3rd OPV, who knows. Hopefully the DWP lays it all out.