Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[ngatimozart]

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.

It's the cost issue and practicalities. Would be able to get the full capability of the CTY into that design and I don't think so. To replace CTY a LHD would be better because of the well dock and the full length flight deck. Something around the 13 - 15K tonne displacement mark. That design looks like a Damen attempt of an Absalon and IMHO the Absalon is better and cheaper. We do need a third frigate and based on capability and cost an Iver Huitfeld would be ideal, also an Absalon because there will be situations where an Absalon is ideal.

 

[kiwi in exile]

That design looks like a Damen attempt of an Absalon and IMHO the Absalon is better and cheaper. We do need a third frigate and based on capability and cost an Iver Huitfeld would be ideal, also an Absalon because there will be situations where an Absalon is ideal.

Any idea of the comparative costs between the Absolon and the Damen vessel?

I agree that we do need more than 2 frigates, or at least more naval combat vessels. However, rather than buying another class of vessel with the additional training, spares, etc costs of operating more types, I'd be happy to wait till we replace the ANZACs. Maybe the 3rd frigate could be the transition between the ANZACs and their replacement, but we can wait a few years until we work out what we need to replace the ANZACs. If we really need the extra numbers in the mean time, a more combat credible 3rd OPV or LWSS can make up the numbers.

In terms of our future naval combat force I do hope we get more ships than 2 frigates. Our frigates are fine for what they are tasked with (anti-piracy etc) but as a combat force I have always been concerned with their lack of offensive weapons for 21st century naval combat. Against anythin with a decent AShM, the gun and seasprite launceh maverick/pengiun doesn't have the reach. Stan-flex type modules may be a good idea here- can be fitted for whatever the mission. But if we are to have a credible combat force in the maritime, we need to look at this.

A hi-low mix (IE frigates and OPVs) may be an economical way of meeting our policy obligations, but I feel that this will mean fewer credible combat ships.

 

[ngatimozart]

Any idea of the comparative costs between the Absolon and the Damen vessel?

I agree that we do need more than 2 frigates, or at least more naval combat vessels. However, rather than buying another class of vessel with the additional training, spares, etc costs of operating more types, I'd be happy to wait till we replace the ANZACs. Maybe the 3rd frigate could be the transition between the ANZACs and their replacement, but we can wait a few years until we work out what we need to replace the ANZACs. If we really need the extra numbers in the mean time, a more combat credible 3rd OPV or LWSS can make up the numbers.

In terms of our future naval combat force I do hope we get more ships than 2 frigates. Our frigates are fine for what they are tasked with (anti-piracy etc) but as a combat force I have always been concerned with their lack of offensive weapons for 21st century naval combat. Against anythin with a decent AShM, the gun and seasprite launceh maverick/pengiun doesn't have the reach. Stan-flex type modules may be a good idea here- can be fitted for whatever the mission. But if we are to have a credible combat force in the maritime, we need to look at this.

A hi-low mix (IE frigates and OPVs) may be an economical way of meeting our policy obligations, but I feel that this will mean fewer credible combat ships.

That's what I'm looking at now. I would suggest that the Absalon could be possibly US$100 million cheaper and it's a mature proven design. Part of the cost savings with the Absalons and Ivers is that they are built using commercial shipbuilding techniques and where possible COTS are used. They also use open source architecture where possible for the electronics that cuts costs again because you are not having to use bespoke single use systems / consoles etc.

 

[t68]

Has anyone heard about the Endeavour replacement since the RFI went out for her JSS type replacement, been looking over the net can't find anything.

 

[ngatimozart]

Has anyone heard about the Endeavour replacement since the RFI went out for her JSS type replacement, been looking over the net can't find anything.

Nothing. It's not a JSS type replacement per se, more an AOR. Will be a while before anything is made public. IIRC a RFT was issued but I could be mistaken. I am away from my PC at the moment so can't check.

 

[40 deg south]

Has anyone heard about the Endeavour replacement since the RFI went out for her JSS type replacement, been looking over the net can't find anything.

A tender was released in March, closes 24 June. The Navy expects to analyse bids and take a replacement proposal to Cabinet in early 2016.

Minimum specs were for a smallish oiler with space for 12 TEU containers on deck. Not very ambitious, but will be interesting to see what the tender throws up.

 

[vonnoobie]

I bought it up on the RAN thread but would the HNLMS Karel Doorman be suitable for the replacement of the Endeavour?

Would likely cost around $600m NZD, Could NZ afford that?

 

[RegR]

A tender was released in March, closes 24 June. The Navy expects to analyse bids and take a replacement proposal to Cabinet in early 2016.

Minimum specs were for a smallish oiler with space for 12 TEU containers on deck. Not very ambitious, but will be interesting to see what the tender throws up.

Always have min and max requirements for a capability just depends on the extras, add ons, through life and how much all these together would cost to find an acceptable median for eventual aqquisition. If we get a good deal who knows what we could potentially end up with once the final proposals are in.

We could end up with bare minimum or hopefully be pleasantly surprised, still somewhat of a gamble at this stage.

 

[40 deg south]

NZ Navy chief on Chinese foray in Indian Ocean | Brahmand News

New Zealand Navy chief visits Southern Naval command base | Brahmand News

Couple of indian media reports on a visit from NZ's Chief of Navy. While the opening lines of the first one indicate an anti-Chinese spin, the actual quotes show him being extremely diplomatic.

Asked about China's ongoing dispute in South China Sea with other countries in the region, the New Zealand Navy chief said his country does not take a position on who is right and wrong.

"What we do want and recommend is that the nations involved find a resolution that is transparent, peaceful and in accordance to international law," he said underlining that he was not taking anybody's side.

"From our perspective, there is lot of trade, relationship around South China Sea and Indian Ocean," he said.

 

[ngatimozart]

Defence have issued another RFI for the LOSC (Littoral Operations Support Capability). The reasoning given is that market conditions have changed.

 

[Gracie1234]

Has there been a change in capabilities required?

 

[kiwi in exile]

Has there been a change in capabilities required?

Since the release of the first RFI, and associated responses from industry, the LOSC User Requirements have been further refined through capability related studies, the project schedule has been updated, and the revised contract delivery date determined. The outcomes from these activities have been incorporated into this second RFI (4107-04 A). In the intervening period, there have also been changes in the ship design and construction market and global macro economic changes which may impact on the commercial information held by Defence.

Min Def quote, my itallics. haven't been able to access details online.

 

[ngatimozart]

Min Def quote, my itallics. haven't been able to access details online.

I am away at the moment so will have a look when I get home later in the week. I just saw the notification on MoD website last night.

 

[chis73]

Another interesting article from Richard Harman at Politik.co.nz
OUR "UNSUITABLE" DEFENCE EQUIPMENT PROBLEMS | Politik

The bit that intrigued me the most was this:

The Navy’s offshore patrol vessels will be unable to go further south than Campbell Island after 2018.

No explanation as to why given, but I would hazard a guess it would have more to do with proposed changes to the International Maritime Organisation's Polar Code (see recent changes section , here) than any sudden weight gain on the OPVs (which would compromise their ice-belt). Still, weight may be a minor factor: the OPVs have yet to deploy operationally with a Seasprite embarked (probably due to a lack of Seasprites more than anything else). I also recall an anecdote in Brown & Moore's Rebuilding the Royal Navy about a Leander class frigate that gained 45 tonnes just in paint alone (80 coats) over a decade. No wonder the Navy & people like Peter Greener (here) are so keen on a third OPV.

OT: Gerry Brownlee seems to have the hate on for the NH90:

“I think they are a dreadful purchase,” he said.

“I can’t understand why the previous Government bought them.”

At this rate he is definitely going to be off the NHI Xmas card list! Which could be a problem if we decide we have to have more.

Of course, they were bought:
a) because they were what the Army (the force du jour at the time) wanted.
b) because they were what the Australians had bought.

Infact, I'm pretty sure Goff had to back to Cabinet and ask for more money specifically for them.

Perhaps Brownlee should direct his anger towards the two previous ministers of his own government who knew perfectly well about the deployment problems, yet failed to do anything about it. Labour aren't innocent though, they stuffed up big time by not ensuring the NH90s were operable at sea (as this press release from Ron Mark today notes (here, useful for the note on the time required to fold & stow the NH90 onboard Canterbury).

To give Brownlee some credit, he did acknowledge that "NZ is a maritime nation". Well done.

Chis73

 

[RegR]

Another interesting article from Richard Harman at Politik.co.nz
OUR "UNSUITABLE" DEFENCE EQUIPMENT PROBLEMS | Politik

The bit that intrigued me the most was this:



No explanation as to why given, but I would hazard a guess it would have more to do with proposed changes to the International Maritime Organisation's Polar Code (see recent changes section , here) than any sudden weight gain on the OPVs (which would compromise their ice-belt). Still, weight may be a minor factor: the OPVs have yet to deploy operationally with a Seasprite embarked (probably due to a lack of Seasprites more than anything else). I also recall an anecdote in Brown & Moore's Rebuilding the Royal Navy about a Leander class frigate that gained 45 tonnes just in paint alone (80 coats) over a decade. No wonder the Navy & people like Peter Greener (here) are so keen on a third OPV.

OT: Gerry Brownlee seems to have the hate on for the NH90:



At this rate he is definitely going to be off the NHI Xmas card list! Which could be a problem if we decide we have to have more.

Of course, they were bought:
a) because they were what the Army (the force du jour at the time) wanted.
b) because they were what the Australians had bought.

Infact, I'm pretty sure Goff had to back to Cabinet and ask for more money specifically for them.

Perhaps Brownlee should direct his anger towards the two previous ministers of his own government who knew perfectly well about the deployment problems, yet failed to do anything about it. Labour aren't innocent though, they stuffed up big time by not ensuring the NH90s were operable at sea (as this press release from Ron Mark today notes (here, useful for the note on the time required to fold & stow the NH90 onboard Canterbury).

To give Brownlee some credit, he did acknowledge that "NZ is a maritime nation". Well done.

Chis73

Between politicians and reporters I don't have alot of faith in their understanding of most things military. This again is no exception.

 

[Cadredave]

Another interesting article from Richard Harman at Politik.co.nz
OUR "UNSUITABLE" DEFENCE EQUIPMENT PROBLEMS | Politik

The bit that intrigued me the most was this:



No explanation as to why given, but I would hazard a guess it would have more to do with proposed changes to the International Maritime Organisation's Polar Code (see recent changes section , here) than any sudden weight gain on the OPVs (which would compromise their ice-belt). Still, weight may be a minor factor: the OPVs have yet to deploy operationally with a Seasprite embarked (probably due to a lack of Seasprites more than anything else). I also recall an anecdote in Brown & Moore's Rebuilding the Royal Navy about a Leander class frigate that gained 45 tonnes just in paint alone (80 coats) over a decade. No wonder the Navy & people like Peter Greener (here) are so keen on a third OPV.

OT: Gerry Brownlee seems to have the hate on for the NH90:



At this rate he is definitely going to be off the NHI Xmas card list! Which could be a problem if we decide we have to have more.

Of course, they were bought:
a) because they were what the Army (the force du jour at the time) wanted.
b) because they were what the Australians had bought.

Infact, I'm pretty sure Goff had to back to Cabinet and ask for more money specifically for them.

Perhaps Brownlee should direct his anger towards the two previous ministers of his own government who knew perfectly well about the deployment problems, yet failed to do anything about it. Labour aren't innocent though, they stuffed up big time by not ensuring the NH90s were operable at sea (as this press release from Ron Mark today notes (here, useful for the note on the time required to fold & stow the NH90 onboard Canterbury).

To give Brownlee some credit, he did acknowledge that "NZ is a maritime nation". Well done.

Chis73

Where did you get that the Army wanted them from?, just curious.

 

[Todjaeger]

Between politicians and reporters I don't have alot of faith in their understanding of most things military. This again is no exception.

Some might call me a cynic, but I do not have very much faith in most people and their level of understanding, vs. their perceived level of understanding.

Unfortunately politicos and journos are amongst the worst. This goes for everything, not just military, naval and strategic matters. Making things worse though is those important areas of national concern are amongst the ones politicos and journos are most likely to be wildly off in their understanding and their perceptions.

 

[chis73]

Where did you get that the Army wanted them from?, just curious.

Any of the Major Project Reports from 2010 - 2012. I assume Army would have had some input into setting the requirement that the helicopter had to carry an 8-man section. NH90 beat out S-70M (considered too developmental, ironically) mainly on logistic grounds (fewer aircraft & personnel required).

 

[RegR]

Some might call me a cynic, but I do not have very much faith in most people and their level of understanding, vs. their perceived level of understanding.

Unfortunately politicos and journos are amongst the worst. This goes for everything, not just military, naval and strategic matters. Making things worse though is those important areas of national concern are amongst the ones politicos and journos are most likely to be wildly off in their understanding and their perceptions.

Politicians and journalists usually want the same thing, to be out there and known to further their career path. Truth, logic and reasoning sometimes get them there but is not always a pre-requisite and is dependant on the WOW factor more than anything. Why let facts get in the way of a good story/policy?

 

[vonnoobie]

Interesting fact, The Australian Army chose for 12 new build S-70M Black Hawks with a planned follow on order of 36 new or re manufactured S-70M's, In the end the politicians over ruled them...

I imagine had Aussie politicians not stuck there nose in where it doesn't belong that NZ would have gone for the S-70M as well.