Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

t68

t68

Well-Known Member
I came across this debate about RO-RO ships being turned into naval Maritime Support Vessel’s on another site and was thinking would this be suitable for NZ as an eventual replacement for Canterbury?, albeit using more modified design using a Point Class RO-RO as its basis. I have had a bit of a search but have not seen any recent information on it. Now I have not seen any visuals on how MSC are changing the MV Gragside. But I was wondering if this idea was feasible in a RNZN context.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/th...operations-mothership-12801da6f353#.xqg64sn78

If we were to increase the freeboard to the height of the cover bow section, that would enclose the container deck. Increase the height of the bridge area to make a hanger below, forward of the bridge area should be in theory enough for 4 helicopter spots for NH-90 and rated for Chinook. Utilising the aft section behind the bridge/hanger structure with a heave compensated crane it could in theory become a mounting location for 2x LCU MK10. The stern would have to be modified to accept a stern gate marriage between it and the LCU and we need a starboard ramp for vehicle loading. Being 62m longer and 3m wider should in theory give NZN a greater capability overall and with greater capacity to move heavier or larger groups ashore.

I realise I am adding a substantial amount of weight and it may need a plug to increase its length, but looking at the Canadian conversion of MV Asterix to AOR seems to be adding considerable weight as well, I’m not a naval architect
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-dv0sbyZUcdA/ViWhSI3dKpI/AAAAAAAALSQ/2_9QZK3avbc/s1600/Resolve-SM2.jpg

Or should NZ go MOTS with 2x Kalaat Beni Abbes (474) an improved Italian San Giorgio class,

Italian shipyard Fincantieri delivered amphibious ship Kalaat Beni-Abbes to Algerian Navy

This new amphibious vessel can accommodate 3 Landing Craft Mechanized (LCM) + 3 small Landing Craft Vehicle Personnel (LCVP) + 1 large Landing Craft Personnel (LCP) + 2 semi-rigid boats. The hangar can accommodate up to 15 armoured vehicles. The crew will consist in 150 sailors while the ship may accommodate a landing force of 440 soldiers.

A weapons suite: - MBDA SAAM-ESD (Aster missiles + A50 launcher Sylver) behind the island superstructure - 1x OTO Melara Super Rapid76-mm/62 at the bow - 2x 25mm remote weapon stations

Basic Specifications: -Total displacement = 9000 tons -Length = 142.9 meters -Width = 21.5 meters
-Flight deck with two runways and landing pads for heavy-lift helicopters(I don’t see a hanger) in the extremities and 30-ton lift in the central part of the deck
-The power plant includes two diesel engines Wärtsilä 12V32 rated at 6000 kW -The maximum speed = 20 knots -Cruising range = 11,265 km
 
ngatimozart

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
t68 said:
I came across this debate about RO-RO ships being turned into naval Maritime Support Vessel’s on another site and was thinking would this be suitable for NZ as an eventual replacement for Canterbury?, albeit using more modified design using a Point Class RO-RO as its basis. I have had a bit of a search but have not seen any recent information on it. Now I have not seen any visuals on how MSC are changing the MV Gragside. But I was wondering if this idea was feasible in a RNZN context.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/th...operations-mothership-12801da6f353#.xqg64sn78

If we were to increase the freeboard to the height of the cover bow section, that would enclose the container deck. Increase the height of the bridge area to make a hanger below, forward of the bridge area should be in theory enough for 4 helicopter spots for NH-90 and rated for Chinook. Utilising the aft section behind the bridge/hanger structure with a heave compensated crane it could in theory become a mounting location for 2x LCU MK10. The stern would have to be modified to accept a stern gate marriage between it and the LCU and we need a starboard ramp for vehicle loading. Being 62m longer and 3m wider should in theory give NZN a greater capability overall and with greater capacity to move heavier or larger groups ashore.

I realise I am adding a substantial amount of weight and it may need a plug to increase its length, but looking at the Canadian conversion of MV Asterix to AOR seems to be adding considerable weight as well, I’m not a naval architect
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-dv0sbyZUcdA/ViWhSI3dKpI/AAAAAAAALSQ/2_9QZK3avbc/s1600/Resolve-SM2.jpg

Or should NZ go MOTS with 2x Kalaat Beni Abbes (474) an improved Italian San Giorgio class,

Italian shipyard Fincantieri delivered amphibious ship Kalaat Beni-Abbes to Algerian Navy

This new amphibious vessel can accommodate 3 Landing Craft Mechanized (LCM) + 3 small Landing Craft Vehicle Personnel (LCVP) + 1 large Landing Craft Personnel (LCP) + 2 semi-rigid boats. The hangar can accommodate up to 15 armoured vehicles. The crew will consist in 150 sailors while the ship may accommodate a landing force of 440 soldiers.

A weapons suite: - MBDA SAAM-ESD (Aster missiles + A50 launcher Sylver) behind the island superstructure - 1x OTO Melara Super Rapid76-mm/62 at the bow - 2x 25mm remote weapon stations

Basic Specifications: -Total displacement = 9000 tons -Length = 142.9 meters -Width = 21.5 meters
-Flight deck with two runways and landing pads for heavy-lift helicopters(I don’t see a hanger) in the extremities and 30-ton lift in the central part of the deck
-The power plant includes two diesel engines Wärtsilä 12V32 rated at 6000 kW -The maximum speed = 20 knots -Cruising range = 11,265 km
Click to expand...
A purposely designed vessel would be a better option than converting a container ship or a RO-RO. We already have done the RO-RO option with the MRV Canterbury which, whilst it has introduced a new capability, also has limitations that restrict its operation.

The Algerian variant if the San Giorgio class looks interesting and could be a good start point. The lack of an aircraft hangar could be rectified by the addition of a deck, which is not silly. Place the heavy vehicle deck on the same deck as the well dock. I like the armament although I would replace the 76m with a 127mm / 5in gun and replace the Aster 15s with SeaCeptor which is the Aster 15 replacement anyway. Aster 30, whilst nice to have would be better placed on the frigates, if we ever acquired the missile.

The idea of placing such armament on such vessels is something that the USN is pursuing with a doctrine, Distributed Lethality which basically means placing offensive and defensive systems on amphibious and logistics ships as a cost effective way of increasing the firepower of the fleet. It is quite a practical idea because it negates the need to procure new platforms for the fleet to achieve the same increase in firepower. This is something that small navies such as the RAN and niche navies such as the RNZN need to seriously investigate. This doesn't replace combat vessels such as frigates, but it compliments them.
 
t68

t68

Well-Known Member
ngatimozart said:
A purposely designed vessel would be a better option than converting a container ship or a RO-RO. We already have done the RO-RO option with the MRV Canterbury which, whilst it has introduced a new capability, also has limitations that restrict its operation.

The Algerian variant if the San Giorgio class looks interesting and could be a good start point. The lack of an aircraft hangar could be rectified by the addition of a deck, which is not silly. Place the heavy vehicle deck on the same deck as the well dock. I like the armament although I would replace the 76m with a 127mm / 5in gun and replace the Aster 15s with SeaCeptor which is the Aster 15 replacement anyway. Aster 30, whilst nice to have would be better placed on the frigates, if we ever acquired the missile.

The idea of placing such armament on such vessels is something that the USN is pursuing with a doctrine, Distributed Lethality which basically means placing offensive and defensive systems on amphibious and logistics ships as a cost effective way of increasing the firepower of the fleet. It is quite a practical idea because it negates the need to procure new platforms for the fleet to achieve the same increase in firepower. This is something that small navies such as the RAN and niche navies such as the RNZN need to seriously investigate. This doesn't replace combat vessels such as frigates, but it compliments them.
Click to expand...
ngatimozart,

You have some valid points their it being another COTS ship and no self protection but would suspect that these could be fitted just a matter of where.

I cant remember if you are replacing MK41 on the Anzac for the lighter Sylver launcher for Sea Ceptor as I seem to recall MK41is heavier. But if not would be interesting to see if it could put an 8 cell MK41 in its place on the LPD, but then if your adding an extra deck it may need a plug.

But then also I just remembered that Italy have a new LHD in the pipe up to around the 22000t mark 4x helicopter spots and room for 4x LCM plus all the other add on, is 2 smaller ships better than 1 larger that's the next question.
 
RobWilliams

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
t68 said:
I cant remember if you are replacing MK41 on the Anzac for the lighter Sylver launcher for Sea Ceptor as I seem to recall MK41is heavier. But if not would be interesting to see if it could put an 8 cell MK41 in its place on the LPD, but then if your adding an extra deck it may need a plug.
Click to expand...
Sea Ceptor will be in its bespoke canisters, the small lightweight ones which eject the missile into the air and the motor ignites. The Sylver series (found on Type 45 and FREMM) are the same as Mk41. Various lengths, all designed to deal with hot exhaust gases etc.
 
ngatimozart

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
t68 said:
ngatimozart,

You have some valid points their it being another COTS ship and no self protection but would suspect that these could be fitted just a matter of where.

I cant remember if you are replacing MK41 on the Anzac for the lighter Sylver launcher for Sea Ceptor as I seem to recall MK41is heavier. But if not would be interesting to see if it could put an 8 cell MK41 in its place on the LPD, but then if your adding an extra deck it may need a plug.
Click to expand...
Apparently the Mk41 VLS are being removed and the Sylver launcher installed in their place.
But then also I just remembered that Italy have a new LHD in the pipe up to around the 22000t mark 4x helicopter spots and room for 4x LCM plus all the other add on, is 2 smaller ships better than 1 larger that's the next question.
Click to expand...
Navantia have a 13,500 tonne variant of their LHD that the Canberra class are based on, so that probably would be a less risky option. Plus it's a known platform and it offers better interoperability with the ADF. The question is would that be too much ship for NZDF? If we return to the Italian option, there would have to be some changes to the design and Volk would be able to provide informed comments about whether or not the hull would have to be lengthened if a new deck was inserted. It definitely affects the stability by raising the centre of gravity, however that can be mitigated to a certain degree by the use of ballast.

Another area that the RNZN would be keen to alter, would be the crewing, so they would certainly want a reasonable amount of automation to reduce the crew numbers. Whilst I see the basic wisdom of having two of these ships, the Treasury and pollies here would not accept that logic, especially Treasury. Anyway it's just another possible contender.
 
V

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
As mentioned by ngatimozart crewing is an issue, Especially when 1 for 1 at current the crews are 180 to 70 then there is the issue of cost, People keep mentioning to get x amount of assets for NZ and usually mentioned asset's are larger, costlier and wanted in double the numbers that are currently in use, This will not happen, You either get multiple less capable ships or a single larger more capable ship.

A more suitable option for NZ would be the Endurance class LDP used by Singapore, Or possible the Enurance-160 that has been put forth.

Crewing wise the Endurance is already in NZ's number's, It is in use by regional allies so better able to be supported, And it is a hell of a lot cheaper to acquire.

The BDSL purchased by Algeria cost 400m Euro, Or just under $635m NZ at current exchange rate.
The Endurance LPD purchased by Thailand in 2008 (Delivered 2011) cost just over $207m NZ at current exchange rate.

At less then a third of the cost and able to deliver mostly what NZ needs I'd say that is the more appropriate option when being realistic. You don't pay a massive amount for it, You dont have issues with modifying the design so much that it could become an orphan class, Its already tried, proven and within budget. If you choose to enlarge it you are not likely to be going it alone as Singapore it's self is interested in enlarging it.
 
S

swerve

Super Moderator
ngatimozart said:
The Algerian variant if the San Giorgio class looks interesting and could be a good start point. The lack of an aircraft hangar could be rectified by the addition of a deck, which is not silly.
Click to expand...
The third of the Santi, San Giusto, is slightly bigger than the first two & has a lift capable of taking an AB-212 from the flight deck to the vehicle deck. In effect, she has as much hangar space as you're willing to give up vehicle deck for, but limited to small helicopters. The Algerian variant is a bit bigger again (10 metres longer, i metre more beam). It'd be interesting to know how big her deck lift is.
 
ngatimozart

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
vonnoobie said:
As mentioned by ngatimozart crewing is an issue, Especially when 1 for 1 at current the crews are 180 to 70 then there is the issue of cost, People keep mentioning to get x amount of assets for NZ and usually mentioned asset's are larger, costlier and wanted in double the numbers that are currently in use, This will not happen, You either get multiple less capable ships or a single larger more capable ship.

A more suitable option for NZ would be the Endurance class LDP used by Singapore, Or possible the Enurance-160 that has been put forth.

Crewing wise the Endurance is already in NZ's number's, It is in use by regional allies so better able to be supported, And it is a hell of a lot cheaper to acquire.

The BDSL purchased by Algeria cost 400m Euro, Or just under $635m NZ at current exchange rate.
The Endurance LPD purchased by Thailand in 2008 (Delivered 2011) cost just over $207m NZ at current exchange rate.

At less then a third of the cost and able to deliver mostly what NZ needs I'd say that is the more appropriate option when being realistic. You don't pay a massive amount for it, You dont have issues with modifying the design so much that it could become an orphan class, Its already tried, proven and within budget. If you choose to enlarge it you are not likely to be going it alone as Singapore it's self is interested in enlarging it.
Click to expand...
Yes, the Endurance 160 looks like a good contender. It appears to tick most if not all the boxes, and it has the armament capabilities that IMHO should be included. I'd swap the Mistral for the SeaCeptor and the 76mm for a 127mm / 5in gun. The USN Distributed Lethality concept and discussion posits placing Tomahawk and / or Harpoon missiles on their LHDs / LPAs / LPDs etc., for the purpose of attacking onshore difficult targets that NGS can't reach or is unable to deal with. In a NZ context, Tomahawk is not an option, however Harpoon (if it can be VLS launched) or similar should be an option. The problem is the Treasury and the pollies.
 
R

RegR

Well-Known Member
I read a story on RNZ abit back that stated customs had not met their target at sea hours for the year due to the unavailability of the navy IPCs for their use in inshore work. I was then wondering how this would ultimately be affected in the long term if navy traded 2 IPCs for the envisaged 3rd OPV, better/worse/no change(from current)?

Whilst they do have their own vessel (Hawk) they still rely heavily on naval assets to assist in acheiving their full coverage, hours, operations etc, which is part of navy mandate and in turn funding (or portion of). If it was down to manning could customs possibly take over the 2 IPCs outright or would they be deemed to complex/costly/cumbersome for the civis? I think customs were supposed to get sister builds to the police launchs from a planned total of 4 with 2 already funded and in police hands and therefore 2 to go in class (customs, shared, another agency alltogether?) dependant on funding of course. I would assume these would be basic in comparison with slightly different parameters but surely not obviously so?

Since we already have them paid for, built and in service doing the job anyway seems like an obvious destination for the 2 'extras' rather than complete loss of hulls although I still prefer re-instating the Wellington and Christchurch reserves and keeping them navy, better to use them than loose them.
 
4

40 deg south

Well-Known Member
While browsing the Shephard Media site (an alternative to the better-established Janes group), I can across this intriguing snippet. I don't have access to read any more.

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/mil-log/nz-explores-support-ship-options/

It makes me wonder if a lease is being considered to cover the gap between the Manawanui retiring and the new Littoral Operations Support Capability (hope I have the current acronym) vessel being delivered. Bear in mind that NZ is probably 1-2 years away from placing an order, and the Manawanui isn't getting any younger.

Can anyone else shed any light on the matter?
 
K

kiwipatriot69

Active Member
From what ive read navy today site, Hyundai Industries and Daewoo are on the short list for both that and the Endeavour replacement, and tenders went out mid 2015? The Manuwanui wont be compliant by Maritime standards by 2018 any way, just like HMNZ Endevour.
 
R

RegR

Well-Known Member
kiwipatriot69 said:
From what ive read navy today site, Hyundai Industries and Daewoo are on the short list for both that and the Endeavour replacement, and tenders went out mid 2015? The Manuwanui wont be compliant by Maritime standards by 2018 any way, just like HMNZ Endevour.
Click to expand...
Manawanui compliance?? Understand the tanker compliance but what standard does the Man have to adhere to? I thought she was just old but when has that stopped the NZDF.
 
4

40 deg south

Well-Known Member
As previously posted on this site, RNZN considers getting a third OPV to be a realistic option, part-funded by retiring two IPVs. Some comments suggest it could be optimised for southern ocean patrol.

This suggest (to me, at least) that it is unlikely to be built to the same design as the existing OPVs, as I doubt that it could take much more ice-strengthening while remaining afloat. I'd be very interested if any of the more knowledgeable members here could suggest a design direction.

Purely out of interest, here is the Icelandic Coastguards Thor, a modified Offshore Support Vessel design manufactured in Chile.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICGV_Þór

The design is a Rolls Royce UT512 - design brochure below
http://www.rolls-royce.com/~/media/...uments/customers/marine/os-and-s-brochure.pdf

Damen and Vard of Norway similarly have a number of vessels designed for the offshore oil industry that have been offered as coastguard/naval conversions.

VARD 9-SERIES - VARD
Vard, incidentally, has just picked up a Chilean Navy contract to design a 125m icebreaker, to be constructed in-country

Finally, the nation with the greatest experience in ice-hardened vessels has unveiled an interesting multi-purpose patrol vessel. I'm not proposing NZ get one, it's the concept and design that I'm interested in.

Russia lays down first of two new Arctic support ships | IHS Jane's 360
 
ASSAIL

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
40 deg south;305094 Finally said:
Russia lays down first of two new Arctic support ships | IHS Jane's 360[/url]
Click to expand...
There are more than a couple of defpros on here who would agree with the Offshore style ship used as an OPV.

With regards the Russian ship and without knowing their CONOPS for it, it seems remarkable that a ship used in such a challenging environment would not be designed with an integral hanger, maintenance on the aircraft would be a nightmare without one.
 
K

kiwipatriot69

Active Member
Given that The RNZN has expressed a need for helicopter operations on each of its Opvs including the littoral and Endevour replacements, i highly doubt they would go for another Opv but without such capability.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top