Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[ngatimozart]

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.

I have been having a closer look at Navantias Avante series and in particular the Avante 3000 Patrol. The BAM is a vessel from this category but it has a shorter duration. My next question would be, how difficult and expensive would it be to ice strengthen the the 3000 to Class 1A ice classification? It does have a good range of 8000nm and 30 days which is better than the Protector Class OPVs. The ship is capable of taking a NH90 and has a hangar for such. It has room on the quarterdeck for, I think, three 20ft ISO containers. The armament is a 76mm gun on the fo'c'sle and a 30mm gun above the hangar with two 12.7mm HMGs. I think that these would be ideal for the RNZN. They have a crew if 35 and can take a further 35 sea riders. If they were acquired I would suggest that the only changes be adding the ice strengthening.

 

[RegR]

I have been having a closer look at Navantias Avante series and in particular the Avante 3000 Patrol. The BAM is a vessel from this category but it has a shorter duration. My next question would be, how difficult and expensive would it be to ice strengthen the the 3000 to Class 1A ice classification? It does have a good range of 8000nm and 30 days which is better than the Protector Class OPVs. The ship is capable of taking a NH90 and has a hangar for such. It has room on the quarterdeck for, I think, three 20ft ISO containers. The armament is a 76mm gun on the fo'c'sle and a 30mm gun above the hangar with two 12.7mm HMGs. I think that these would be ideal for the RNZN. They have a crew if 35 and can take a further 35 sea riders. If they were acquired I would suggest that the only changes be adding the ice strengthening.

I always thought this was the BAM? I think we are talking about the same vessel anyway? 76mm main, 2 bushmasters, NH90 capable, similar otago crew etc. This is what I believe we should base the littoral and 3rd OPV on now with the eventual otago class replacements in the future to create a family class for logistical, operational and training purposes.

I think if it was a contender for the RAN OPV project (surely it is) than would be a easier sell to the beans as no doubt they would build them across the ditch and we could even snag some industrial input ala ANZACs.

 

[swerve]

If you look at the Navantia Avante 3000 brochure, it is absolutely explicit that it's the BAM, though not necessarily absolutely identical to the Armada version & no doubt any export customer could have it customised.

 

[Lucasnz]

I always thought this was the BAM? I think we are talking about the same vessel anyway? 76mm main, 2 bushmasters, NH90 capable, similar otago crew etc. This is what I believe we should base the littoral and 3rd OPV on now with the eventual otago class replacements in the future to create a family class for logistical, operational and training purposes.

I think if it was a contender for the RAN OPV project (surely it is) than would be a easier sell to the beans as no doubt they would build them across the ditch and we could even snag some industrial input ala ANZACs.

With regards to the 3rd OPV - One of the things that keeps coming to mind is the comments from the RNZN in the mid to late 1980's. Essentially they said if you want us to operate in the Southern Ocean we need something at least 110m in length. I think naval designs have moved on slightly since then, but given the average sea state down that way is on average at least SS6, then size is a must for deployed helicopter operations, while underway (I note that neither he Danish Knud Rasmussen @ 71m or RN River Batch 2 @ 90m have a hangar). While the BAM design is nice I would not try to modify the design for Ice operations.

Potentially we could look at the Canadian design for an off the shelf design, though I wonder if the Danes are looking at a replacement for the Thetis class. Increasingly my personal view is that NZ needs only a single Ice capable ship, based on recent deployments, that combines the Patrol role with a light logistical capability to support Scott Base. This trend of trying to put an Ice class into every support ship is not cost effective based on current usage and deployments.

 

[RegR]

With regards to the 3rd OPV - One of the things that keeps coming to mind is the comments from the RNZN in the mid to late 1980's. Essentially they said if you want us to operate in the Southern Ocean we need something at least 110m in length. I think naval designs have moved on slightly since then, but given the average sea state down that way is on average at least SS6, then size is a must for deployed helicopter operations, while underway (I note that neither he Danish Knud Rasmussen @ 71m or RN River Batch 2 @ 90m have a hangar). While the BAM design is nice I would not try to modify the design for Ice operations.

Potentially we could look at the Canadian design for an off the shelf design, though I wonder if the Danes are looking at a replacement for the Thetis class. Increasingly my personal view is that NZ needs only a single Ice capable ship, based on recent deployments, that combines the Patrol role with a light logistical capability to support Scott Base. This trend of trying to put an Ice class into every support ship is not cost effective based on current usage and deployments.

Yes totally agree, it seems we are gearing our defence force more for antartic ops at the expense of either options, numbers or even more suitable types in terms of equipment and yes half our navy does not need to get down there. Still not entirely sure why we put this all on the military unless not enough use for a civilian vessel/aircraft to justify?

Agree on the logistic type ship as well as unless illegal fishing fleets have become equivalent ice strengthened and armed as well then just as useful as an OPV and either way what goes down must come back so intercept then if need be and going off the last interception, boarding (or lack of) would be safer further north anyway. I can see the logic to a point for getting down there safely but how far down do they need to go and just how many of our small fleet needs to realistically?

I guess if we had not have messed up the first OPVs then the third would not require it but yes as you say could we just be repeating the past trying to modify an existing OPV? TBH not sure I want to be risking our singular MRV and tanker down there either and for exactly what reason either?

 

[kiwipatriot69]

I always thought this was the BAM? I think we are talking about the same vessel anyway? 76mm main, 2 bushmasters, NH90 capable, similar otago crew etc. This is what I believe we should base the littoral and 3rd OPV on now with the eventual otago class replacements in the future to create a family class for logistical, operational and training purposes.

I think if it was a contender for the RAN OPV project (surely it is) than would be a easier sell to the beans as no doubt they would build them across the ditch and we could even snag some industrial input ala ANZACs.

Actually id prefer we had done joint builds more often with ADF, but the snag is Ice strengthening, Aussies wont be putting that on their ships so ours would be an orphan, possibly even within our own fleet, if it is built to a higher level ice class and entirely different systems.

 

[John Fedup]

With regards to the 3rd OPV - One of the things that keeps coming to mind is the comments from the RNZN in the mid to late 1980's. Essentially they said if you want us to operate in the Southern Ocean we need something at least 110m in length. I think naval designs have moved on slightly since then, but given the average sea state down that way is on average at least SS6, then size is a must for deployed helicopter operations, while underway (I note that neither he Danish Knud Rasmussen @ 71m or RN River Batch 2 @ 90m have a hangar). While the BAM design is nice I would not try to modify the design for Ice operations.

Potentially we could look at the Canadian design for an off the shelf design, though I wonder if the Danes are looking at a replacement for the Thetis class. Increasingly my personal view is that NZ needs only a single Ice capable ship, based on recent deployments, that combines the Patrol role with a light logistical capability to support Scott Base. This trend of trying to put an Ice class into every support ship is not cost effective based on current usage and deployments.

The Canadian AOPS is over 6000 tons and construction has just started. Six are to be built. Suggest NZ sees how it works first before considering.

 

[40 deg south]

The Canadian AOPS is over 6000 tons and construction has just started. Six are to be built. Suggest NZ sees how it works first before considering.

John
Any realistic estimate of when the first of class will be in the water? I know that's a challenging question for any Canadian defence project, but an educated guess is fine!

 

[John Fedup]

John
Any realistic estimate of when the first of class will be in the water? I know that's a challenging question for any Canadian defence project, but an educated guess is fine!

Construction of the first ship began in Sep 2015 and is to be completed in 2018 according to the builder, Irving Shipyard in Halifax. I am assuming the end of 2018 as this is the first major ship build for Irving since the completion of the Halifax frigates.

 

[40 deg south]

Construction of the first ship began in Sep 2015 and is to be completed in 2018 according to the builder, Irving Shipyard in Halifax. I am assuming the end of 2018 as this is the first major ship build for Irving since the completion of the Halifax frigates.

Thanks John. I suspect the ship is a little larger than what NZ would be willing to pay for, but that time line doesn't sound out of the question.

 

[ngatimozart]

With regards to the 3rd OPV - One of the things that keeps coming to mind is the comments from the RNZN in the mid to late 1980's. Essentially they said if you want us to operate in the Southern Ocean we need something at least 110m in length. I think naval designs have moved on slightly since then, but given the average sea state down that way is on average at least SS6, then size is a must for deployed helicopter operations, while underway (I note that neither he Danish Knud Rasmussen @ 71m or RN River Batch 2 @ 90m have a hangar). While the BAM design is nice I would not try to modify the design for Ice operations.

Potentially we could look at the Canadian design for an off the shelf design, though I wonder if the Danes are looking at a replacement for the Thetis class. Increasingly my personal view is that NZ needs only a single Ice capable ship, based on recent deployments, that combines the Patrol role with a light logistical capability to support Scott Base. This trend of trying to put an Ice class into every support ship is not cost effective based on current usage and deployments.

The Avante design isn't a fixed design and whilst the Armada variant is the BAMS, it doesn't mean that we should discount it offhand. It does have more pluses than minuses and IIRC ice strengthening involves the addition of extra ribs to the hull and a harder hull plate. I have a paper somewhere that describes it. The Avante already has basically everything we require in an OPV, hence it would probably be easier to add ice strengthening to this, than try to make many alterations to another vessel, which is already ice strengthened, but doesn't have a hangar or container space etc., nor the right size. This all adds cost, complexity and risk.

 

[gf0012-aust]

There are more than a couple of defpros on here who would agree with the Offshore style ship used as an OPV.

I'm a big supporter of that hull design....

Alexas is the most qualified to speak about the advantages in broad terms, but IIRC one of the unique features of X-Bow hulls is that they don't porpoise at speed in rough seas

there's a video on the web somewhere showing a conventional hull and an X-Bow crossing the same rough patch of sea - whats extraordinary is that the X-Bow stays level all the way while the conventional takes an absolute flogging and porpoises to the point where the bow is constantly getting a bath and seas are washing over the top all the way back to the citadel (or whatever they call it on commercials)

the russian hull is not a full x-bow design, its based on the inverted design though

edit:

correct name for that design is "The Ulstein X-Bow"
http://www.marineinsight.com/naval-architecture/x-bow-hull-design-vs-conventional-hull-design/
http://www.marineinsight.com/future-shipping/features-and-benefits-of-x-bow-ship/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_bow

 

[StingrayOZ]

I'm a big supporter of that hull design....

Alexas is the most qualified to speak about the advantages in broad terms, but IIRC one of the unique features of X-Bow hulls is that they don't porpoise at speed in rough seas

Does the sea axe offer similar advantages? Improved sea keeping? I guess it depends on the sea state.

 

[alexsa]

Does the sea axe offer similar advantages? Improved sea keeping? I guess it depends on the sea state.

The X bows tend to be bluff and are not really intended to run at higher speeds (above economical) in higher sea states, The are very useful for OSVs as they remove the need for a bulbous bow and increases the hull volume forward at the water line. Essentially it wave pieces in moderate seas and the hull is less prone to pitching, slamming and heaving in bigger seas.

Some ships are now looking at hybrid arrangements that have a very fine entry and no flare. It allows the vessel to cut through but does reduce forward buoyancy and but maintain a bulbous bow. These vessel can 'dive in' to big seas but pitch, slam and heave less than flared hulls.

The Sea axe is a very interesting design which in itself is a development of the 'enlarged" ship concept which aimed to have a finer but longer fore body of the ship. This proved to improve sea keeping with the Sea Axe taking it to the next level with improved motion and reductions in water resistance. They claim a 20% fuel burn reduction for the same speed over a conventional hull.

 

[KiwiRob]

there's a video on the web somewhere showing a conventional hull and an X-Bow crossing the same rough patch of sea - whats extraordinary is that the X-Bow stays level all the way while the conventional takes an absolute flogging and porpoises to the point where the bow is constantly getting a bath and seas are washing over the top all the way back to the citadel (or whatever they call it on commercials)

Here's the video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mqcpe5au_7M

 

[StingrayOZ]

The X bows tend to be bluff and are not really intended to run at higher speeds (above economical) in higher sea states, The are very useful for OSVs as they remove the need for a bulbous bow and increases the hull volume forward at the water line. Essentially it wave pieces in moderate seas and the hull is less prone to pitching, slamming and heaving in bigger seas.

Some ships are now looking at hybrid arrangements that have a very fine entry and no flare. It allows the vessel to cut through but does reduce forward buoyancy and but maintain a bulbous bow. These vessel can 'dive in' to big seas but pitch, slam and heave less than flared hulls.

The Sea axe is a very interesting design which in itself is a development of the 'enlarged" ship concept which aimed to have a finer but longer fore body of the ship. This proved to improve sea keeping with the Sea Axe taking it to the next level with improved motion and reductions in water resistance. They claim a 20% fuel burn reduction for the same speed over a conventional hull.

Very interesting, I find GF and your comments very insightful. I assume each is fit for its purpose. Now I have lots of questions.

I would imagine from a naval perspective the low drag, greater range and possibly greater speed would be useful in a patrol type ship where you wanted to intercept something, or move to station quickly, or utilize longer range. Lower drag maybe a quieter platform?

Do X Bow or inverted hulls scale down to smaller sizes? Say sub 3000t?
Are either suitable for ice strengthening?
I notice the Damen Sea axe is only on the 1800t vessel, but I see the 2400 or 2600 being a bit more suitable for blue ocean work with greater endurance etc. Is it worth having on a larger ship? Or are you then better off going with a conventional bulbous bow.

Looking at this stuff then back at Ocean shield I now see its quite different to the x bow designs. More akin to the Russian design posted earlier.

I quite like the Damen designs, I think they look like hardy multi-purpose ships for countries like NZ and Australia that have some big ocean as part of their territories. Even if the RAN and the RNZN were to differ on size requirements, they could still be of the same family, with very similar systems.

 

[40 deg south]

A couple of links to video footage of RNZN Fiji response below.

https://www.facebook.com/RoyalNewZealandNavy/videos/10154676074443009/

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/hmnzs-canterbury-leaves-for-fiji-relief-mission

Footage of Canterbury being loaded.

https://www.facebook.com/RoyalNewZealandNavy/videos/10154680923813009/

Wellington arrives in Fiji and stocks up for trip to outer islands.

 

[40 deg south]

The RNZN facebook page currently has some shots of Endeavour in the Devonport dry dock.

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10154682866523009.1073742892.317342038008&type=3

In the comments, someone asked when she would decommission, and the Navy page administrator replied 'Maybe 2018'.

If that is the case, they are gong to have to choose between Daewoo and Hyundai and order the replacement pretty smartly.

Incidentally, I think Norway's Daewoo-built Aegir 18R was due for completion late this year - has anyone seen any progress reports on the web? That design is a strong contender for the NZ replacement, and the fact that it is already in production must give the procurement team some measure of reassurance.

 

[swerve]

According to this report from the Norwegian Embassy in South Korea, HNoMS Maud should be finished on 30th September 2016.

 

[40 deg south]

According to this report from the Norwegian Embassy in South Korea, HNoMS Maud should be finished on 30th September 2016.

Swerve

Great find, thanks. That's what I love about internet forums - someone somewhere almost always knows the answer to your question.

The Norwegian tanker must be being built simultaneously with the second of the UK's Tide class vessels.