Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[40 deg south]

From the September 'Navy Today', just out.

Still a question mark about the third OPV, but if it comes it will be better adapted to southern waters. Probably not a sister ship of the existing OPV's then.

The end-state for Navy 2020 is very clear to me. In the next five
years the plan is we will have “five new ships” join our Navy. We
will have two upgraded frigates and we will need to relearn how
to ‘‘fight them”. We will also have a new and much larger Maritime
Sustainment Capability (the ENDEAVOUR replacement) and a
Littoral Operations Support Capability (the RESOLUTION and
MANAWANUI replacement). There is also every chance that we will
have a third Offshore Patrol Vessel that will be better configured
to operate down to the south of New Zealand, especially within
Antarctic waters. Add to that the new SH2G(I) helicopters and we
will have a modern and capable fleet.

 

[40 deg south]

I'd expect Flensburger to have bid. It builds the German navy Berlin-class support ships, so certainly has the necessary experience. It markets a tanker design which seems to be a simplified version of the Berlin class.

Thanks for that Swerve.

I've never paid much attention to the Berlin class, as they have obviously been far outside NZ's limited defence budget. I'm looking forward to seeing how the programme to build two more in Canada goes, with every expectation that either costs or time-lines will blow out in a spectacular fashion.

 

[kiwi in exile]

From the September 'Navy Today', just out.

Yeah, interesting to see that mentioned in a NZ navy doc, rather than some other speculative forum, but its still a only maybe at this stage.

I was excited to see a 3 page article on 'why we need a credible naval combat force' but found it a pretty light read, nothing new or interesting. The use of the phrases 'adequate combat capability' and 'reasonable offensive capability' makes me think that they aren't really aiming very high, despite the title of the article. Would like to see them aim a bit higher, given the context that they outline in the article, and growing militiarization and instability and demand on resources to our south and in the Pacific.

 

[johnysteam]

I always read the Navy today journal and feel a bit sad for the NZ Navy. Clearly the whole ship acquisition is run by politicians who don't know what the are doing or who just go with what the public perception is.
The Project Protector is a prime example. Getting a lot of ships for a certain price, when the result was that they had major flaws, and could put staff at risk.

 

[RegR]

Yeah, interesting to see that mentioned in a NZ navy doc, rather than some other speculative forum, but its still a only maybe at this stage.

I was excited to see a 3 page article on 'why we need a credible naval combat force' but found it a pretty light read, nothing new or interesting. The use of the phrases 'adequate combat capability' and 'reasonable offensive capability' makes me think that they aren't really aiming very high, despite the title of the article. Would like to see them aim a bit higher, given the context that they outline in the article, and growing militiarization and instability and demand on resources to our south and in the Pacific.

Classic NZDF, all catchphrases and fancy diagrams drawn up in Wellington that don't actually materialise physically or fall well short of expectations. Gotta keep the public interested somehow I guess, can't wait for 'defence 2075 - a force to take us into the future', yeah right.

 

[kiwi in exile]

Classic NZDF, all catchphrases and fancy diagrams drawn up in Wellington that don't actually materialise physically or fall well short of expectations. Gotta keep the public interested somehow I guess, can't wait for 'defence 2075 - a force to take us into the future', yeah right.

Hopefully the DWP when (if?) its released will have something more substantial in it, But I wouldn't count on it. Even the JATF for all the discussion, is simply the fact that NZDF now aims to use the capabilities inheriently afforded by Canterbury. While we are doing well in terms of developing this capability, ticking off milestones, etc it's not really a radical step.

Discussions of future planning often seems to be limited to replacing outdated platforms. I feel the focus should be more on renewing and generating capabilities.

 

[RegR]

Hopefully the DWP when (if?) its released will have something more substantial in it, But I wouldn't count on it. Even the JATF for all the discussion, is simply the fact that NZDF now aims to use the capabilities inheriently afforded by Canterbury. While we are doing well in terms of developing this capability, ticking off milestones, etc it's not really a radical step.

Discussions of future planning often seems to be limited to replacing outdated platforms. I feel the focus should be more on renewing and generating capabilities.

Exactly, alot of it's just smoke and mirrors, of course we are going to put soldiers on CY and move our heavy equipment, that's it's main purpose, everything else is just normal progression to maximise utility 'at sea' and giving it a nifty title, nothing wildly new or in fact surprising regardless of how Wellington try to spin it. It gives them a current focus, nothing more.

Ha I can't wait for the combined airmobile brigade concept when we finally get the new airlifters, should be very different....

 

[kiwi in exile]

Exactly, alot of it's just smoke and mirrors, of course we are going to put soldiers on CY and move our heavy equipment, that's it's main purpose, everything else is just normal progression to maximise utility 'at sea' and giving it a nifty title, nothing wildly new or in fact surprising regardless of how Wellington try to spin it. It gives them a current focus, nothing more.

Ha I can't wait for the combined airmobile brigade concept when we finally get the new airlifters, should be very different....

The fact that we practice amphib ops regularly, and thinking 'amphibiosly' is becoming more ingrained across the organisation is a positive.

 

[RegR]

Most of the time it is just purely another form of transport, we jump on at one port and get off at another maybe sometimes via LCM. I guess it is good training for the naval and attached army SALT but for everyone else an extended ferry crossing with better meals.

 

[chis73]

Nice picture (here) of one of the new Seasprites testing underslung loads with Endeavour on the RNZN Facebook page. As one of the commentators notes, the picture is curious for what appears to be missing - namely the deck harpoon system. In Aussie service these aircraft would have been set up for the RAST system, but we don't use that. I don't know about you guys, but I would have thought the deck harpoon system would have been fitted while the aircraft were being refurbished at Kaman. Very puzzling that something that is essential to shipborne operation doesn't seem to have been done. What is it now - over 2 years since we signed on the dotted line?

It's also unusual to see a Seasprite without the external fuel tanks. Did anyone else note they were also missing during the tests with the Penguin missiles? Hmmm.

Trawling around the Spanish-language forums on the net indicates our fleet of SH-2G(NZ) is probably down to 3 now. One went to the US before the Vanuatu operation, and Peru expects one (05) to arrive direct from NZ in mid-October (this will be the one that will be used for spares and familiarization training and isn't getting the new cockpit).

Chis73

 

[40 deg south]

Naval support vessels from South Korea [DSEi15D3] - IHS Jane's 360

More from Janes on possibility of Aegir-based tanker, but not really any new information.

 

[ngatimozart]

clarification

Daewoo and Hyundai Shortlisted

New Zealand shortlists South Korean yards for tanker project - IHS Jane's 360

Jane's announce an all-Korean shortlist for Endeavour replacement. The free portion of the article is posted below - anyone know more?

It's official. Posted on the Ministry site today

Maritime Sustainment Capability
Client: Royal New Zealand Navy

The Request for Tender for this project closed on 24 June 2015. Following an evaluation of the responses, Hyundai Heavy Industries and Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering, both of Korea, have been shortlisted to provide Best and Final Offers.
Maritime Sustainment Capability [Ministry of Defence NZ]

 

[RegR]

It's official. Posted on the Ministry site today

What ships do they both offer that would fullfill NZs requirements and would go head to head? Scaled down aegir and....?

 

[ngatimozart]

What ships do they both offer that would fullfill NZs requirements and would go head to head? Scaled down aegir and....?

Don't know because whilst we know one yard is working with BMT, it hasn't been publicly disclosed who the other yard are working with or what design they are offering. The Aegir does have 18,000 tonne variant and that is roughly what I calculated the size of the original MPSC to be. Take away the two landing craft and the vehicles, it is still going to be a sizeable vessel. They didn't change the fuel, JP5, potable water, dry stores, container etc., requirements from what I understand.

 

[40 deg south]

What ships do they both offer that would fullfill NZs requirements and would go head to head? Scaled down aegir and....?

RegR
I'm pretty sure Hyundai have some in-house designs of their own. Last year their website had a section on 'special purpose vessels' that had some brief info on their various naval offerings, but I think the page has subsequently disappeared. It looked (to this landlubber) like a family of small (7-15,000 tonnes?) tankers with a 'son-of-Endeavour' look.

The only info I can readily find on google is a likely deal with the Indian Navy for 'fleet support ships'. Looks to be based on building the initial vessel in Korea, then local manufacture of another four. No ship size given, but The Hindu provides range and speed.

Price per ship is given below as (respectively) 2000 Crore Rupees and USD298m, which seems very high. I haven't checked the conversion to see if the prices tally.

A dive into the lively world of Indian defence blogging might produce more info, but I haven't got the time.

Hindustan Shipyard may join hands with Hyundai to build fleet support ships - The Hindu

Hyundai Heavy may join India's shipbuilding project

 

[40 deg south]

Things seem to be moving ahead on Sea Ceptor. The Royal Navy is receiving the initial bits for first installation (as part of a Type 23 upgrade), while Lockheed Martin is progressing a three-cell mini-launcher for smaller vessels (nice picture included).

All go for Sea Ceptor [DSEi15D4] - IHS Jane's 360

http://www.mbda-systems.com/mediagallery/news-files/PR_2015-09-15_EN-1-223.pdf

I've also linked a 2013 article on the tie-up between LM and MBDA, which I found interesting.
The MBDA and Lockheed Martin Agreement: A Significant Way Ahead for European Companies? | SLDInfo

 

[htbrst]

Things seem to be moving ahead on Sea Ceptor. The Royal Navy is receiving the initial bits for first installation (as part of a Type 23 upgrade), while Lockheed Martin is progressing a three-cell mini-launcher for smaller vessels (nice picture included).

Also hopeful is Italy look to be going ahead with an extended range variant (CAAM-ER) to equip their new OPV's and LHD's.

Assuming everything goes well with both the ANZAC Frigate upgrade and CAAM-ER development, it could provide a straightforward option to fit something with a bit more reach to the frigates down the track

 

[Bonza]

Also hopeful is Italy look to be going ahead with an extended range variant (CAAM-ER) to equip their new OPV's and LHD's.

Assuming everything goes well with both the ANZAC Frigate upgrade and CAAM-ER development, it could provide a straightforward option to fit something with a bit more reach to the frigates down the track

I still think it's a shame the RNZN didn't jump onboard with the ESSM/CEAFAR fitting with Australia, it seems to me that ESSM, while less advanced missile-wise than Sea Ceptor, really makes for a lot of capability when operated in unison with CEAFAR. Any idea why this didn't go ahead? I was honestly surprised when they announced the Sea Ceptor acquisition when a similar solution was available from the nearest ally, and known to be effective on ships of the very same class. But I don't know the full story so I'm possibly overlooking some very real issues...

 

[Todjaeger]

I still think it's a shame the RNZN didn't jump onboard with the ESSM/CEAFAR fitting with Australia, it seems to me that ESSM, while less advanced missile-wise than Sea Ceptor, really makes for a lot of capability when operated in unison with CEAFAR. Any idea why this didn't go ahead? I was honestly surprised when they announced the Sea Ceptor acquisition when a similar solution was available from the nearest ally, and known to be effective on ships of the very same class. But I don't know the full story so I'm possibly overlooking some very real issues...

I am not really certain that Sea Ceptor could be considered a "more advance" missile than ESSM. Some of the capabilities are of course different, both due to design age, and especially due to size.

A closer, more "apples to apples" comparison would be had comparing Sea Ceptor to RAM, since the missiles are comparable in terms of size/class.

From memory, the reason the ESSM upgrade programme was not selected, was due to a number of factors. Cost (unfortunately) was certainly one of them, but also the degree of risk, as well as the vessel design compromises which would have been required to make selection of the ESSM really worthwhile.

The RNZN had (has?) a single, 8-cell Mk 41 VLS aboard the ANZAC-class FFH's, just like the RAN. However, the RAN is able to quad-pack those cells with four ESSM per cell. Unfortunately, this modification had a negative impact on the frigate's topweight. Also given the changes to the masts to accommodate the CEA-FAR radar panels, which I do not remember if they made the topweight issue better or worse, changes had to be made to how the RAN operates their FFH's.

The RNZN FFH's each have a Mk 15 Phalanx CIWS (which IIRC just received the upgrade to enable engaging surface targets/FAC) above the hangars, which the RAN frigates lack. This would have mean that either NZ had to remove the Mk 15 entirely, plus the other needed changes to follow the RAN upgrade progamme path, adopt the RAN upgrades but only have an ESSM loadout of 8 missiles, vs. the 32 a RAN frigate can carry, or suffer even further issues with the frigate's seakeeping abilities due to topweight. Or course, follow a different path by adopting a different missile like Sea Ceptor.

From my POV, the entry of Sea Ceptor into service in the region is quite interesting.. It can provide potential exposure to friendly/allied naval services in the region who operate vessels which might at times, need an air self-defence capability more robust than a gun-based CIWS or MANPADS, but not want or need to dedicate the amount space, displacement, or resources, to operate a larger system like ESSM and/or Standard or Aster missiles.

 

[swerve]

Also hopeful is Italy look to be going ahead with an extended range variant (CAAM-ER) to equip their new OPV's and LHD's.

Assuming everything goes well with both the ANZAC Frigate upgrade and CAAM-ER development, it could provide a straightforward option to fit something with a bit more reach to the frigates down the track

Depends on the length of the VLS fitted. CAMM-ER is a metre longer than the original CAMM, so won't necessarily fit in the same launchers. It's over 50cm longer than RIM-7 or RIM-162 - though significantlly lighter. 60 kg heavier than CAMM, 70 kg lighter than Sea Sparrow, 120 kg lighter than ESSM.

Anyone using Aster 15 might find CAMM-ER very interesting, since they can carry four times as many missiles with the same or even greater range in the same VLS. It's the same length as Aster 15, which I suspect is not accidental.