Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[kiwipatriot69]

Thanks for the history lesson Ngati, had no idea we operated ships that size! mind you, it reads HMS New Zealand was decommissioned after only ten/twelve yrs after commisioned ! that i think wouldn't go down well with either Treasury or the public at large these days.

In any case, even a 7,000 ton frigate these days would surely mean a major upgrade at our docks in Devonport, for servicing and upgrades?

 

[ngatimozart]

Thanks for the history lesson Ngati, had no idea we operated ships that size! mind you, it reads HMS New Zealand was decommissioned after only ten/twelve yrs after commisioned ! that i think wouldn't go down well with either Treasury or the public at large these days.

Note that they didn't finish paying for it until 1944 !!!!!! They didn't really have a choice about the decommissioning because of the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty which was similar in intent to the current SALT or Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

In any case, even a 7,000 ton frigate these days would surely mean a major upgrade at our docks in Devonport, for servicing and upgrades?

The drydock at DNB can accommodate vessels up to 170 metres in length and 22.5 metres beam. The Canterbury is larger than any new projected frigate in RNZN service and they have no problem servicing her at DNB. However I believe that she is drydocked across the ditch or further afield.

 

[RegR]

I think the recent issues with the current ANZACs (and OPVs) concerning top weight and buouancy problems/remedials (both Aus and ours) shows just how important size and weight can be in terms of upgrades and future proofing and I doubt we will want to continue the trend if at all possible otherwise we would just face the same problems in the future.

What's the saying, steel is cheap and air is free? Well shortsightedness and bad planning is long term and limiting and inevitably costs more, and we seem to be finding out the hard way recently both in terms of capability and expense.

 

[MrConservative]

The other HMNZS New Zealand that never was:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malta-class_aircraft_carrier

I know it is a wiki link but it is an interesting piece of almost RN history nevertheless.

Evidently the Admiralty were trying to off load excess light carriers post war and inflormally broached idea of the NZ Govt 'buying' an excess Colossus Class to sort out their NZ-UK debt issue. Sensibly rejected by the RNZN, but we picked up a couple of Light Cruisers.

 

[ngatimozart]

The other HMNZS New Zealand that never was:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malta-class_aircraft_carrier

I know it is a wiki link but it is an interesting piece of almost RN history nevertheless.

Evidently the Admiralty were trying to off load excess light carriers post war and inflormally broached idea of the NZ Govt 'buying' an excess Colossus Class to sort out their NZ-UK debt issue. Sensibly rejected by the RNZN, but we picked up a couple of Light Cruisers.

The interesting thing was that unlike the RAN we had a great cohort of experienced RNZN aircrew who served in the RN FAA during the war. In fact the carrier would have been better suited for Pacific conditions than cruisers and instead of flying pommy aircraft we could've used US carrier aircraft because we had plenty of F4U & F4GCorsairs, SBD Dauntless's and TBF Avengers. The RN Seafires (navalised Spitfire} were not good carrier aircraft with a fragile undercart and the nose was to long for adequate vision on approach and landing. Their other carrier aircraft from the period were below par performance and capability wise. So we could have had no trouble crewing a good airwing and we had enough naval personnel after the war to crew the carrier, but it was the expense. The other thing that really killed it was that the pollies were totally enamoured with cruisers and even though the then naval staff said that they were not suited for the Pacific area of operations, the pollies had to have cruisers.

 

[swerve]

The Sea Fury was an excellent British carrier aircraft, but was a bit too late for the war.

 

[ngatimozart]

The Sea Fury was an excellent British carrier aircraft, but was a bit too late for the war.

Yes it was and the fastest piston engined service aircraft in the world. Beloved by the Reno air racing crowd.

 

[40 deg south]

http://www.defence.govt.nz/defence-white-paper-2016.html

Just looking through the main funding paper now up on the DWP page. Numbers are heavily redacted, but still plenty of info if you read between the lines.

One clear statement I found in (para 25):

The increased cost of the Anzac frigate systems upgrade was also offset against a reduction in the scope of the naval tanker.

So it appears we will be getting a straight oiler with some limited cargo capability, rather than a full-blown AOR.

Also lists Canterbury as due for replacement between 2030 and 2034, in another para.

 

[recce.k1]

About the Defence White Paper 2015 [Ministry of Defence NZ]

Just looking through the main funding paper now up on the DWP page. Numbers are heavily redacted, but still plenty of info if you read between the lines.

One clear statement I found in (para 25):


So it appears we will be getting a straight oiler with some limited cargo capability, rather than a full-blown AOR.

Perhaps it means the cutting of some of the "JSS" type add-ons being mooted in the past such as landing craft capabilities (not a biggee for what the vessel's primary purpose is) or perhaps a slight reduction in vessel size?

At the end of the day the new ice-strengthened Maritime Sustainment Vessel will be a vast improvement on the current AOR and give Defence/Govt additional tasking options.

But one issue highlighted in the Capability report here (see para's 30 onwards) is its reduced availability over the summer cyclone season in order to support Antarctic operations.

(Although I don't recall the current AOR Endeavour being tasked with cyclone support over the last decade or so? Perhaps it's been on stand-by in case Canterbury was unavailable perhaps).

But this could be off-set by having an enhanced Littoral Operations Support Vessel which could then supplement HMNZS Canterbury during the Pacific cyclone season, so swings-and-roundabouts etc. It also mentions the LOSV could have an embarked helicopter as well as having self-protection to allow for deployments to low-to-medium security environments. (See para's 35 onwards).

In terms of the ice-strengthened 3rd OPV, the diagram of the proposed vessel appears to be the Harry DeWolf class! Granted it is simply a placeholder image and there would have to be a tender, but at least the good news is the NZDF/NZG is favouring a very robust and highly-capable vessel (rather than some cheap compromise solution a la current OPV's)!

 

[ngatimozart]

About the Defence White Paper 2015 [Ministry of Defence NZ]

Just looking through the main funding paper now up on the DWP page. Numbers are heavily redacted, but still plenty of info if you read between the lines.

One clear statement I found in (para 25):


So it appears we will be getting a straight oiler with some limited cargo capability, rather than a full-blown AOR.

Also lists Canterbury as due for replacement between 2030 and 2034, in another para.

From my reading of it, I think that they have decided to forego the ice strengthening because of the strictures that using it for McMurdo resupply would have on NZDF during the summer period.

... here ... It also mentions the LOSV could have an embarked helicopter as well as having self-protection to allow for deployments to low-to-medium security environments. (See para's 35 onwards).

In terms of the ice-strengthened 3rd OPV, the diagram of the proposed vessel appears to be the Harry DeWolf class! Granted it is simply a placeholder image and there would have to be a tender, but at least the good news is the NZDF/NZG is favouring a very robust and highly-capable vessel (rather than some cheap compromise solution a la current OPV's)!

That does look interesting, but until the RFT is released we won't know what the requirements are.

 

[Gibbo]

From my reading of it, I think that they have decided to forego the ice strengthening because of the strictures that using it for McMurdo resupply would have on NZDF during the summer period...

Were these not the 'input' docs for the DWP? Govt clearly stated the Endeavour replacement will have ice strengthening just 2 weeks ago so I'd expect that is still the case - exactly what has been foregone is open to debate.

 

[MrConservative]

Were these not the 'input' docs for the DWP? Govt clearly stated the Endeavour replacement will have ice strengthening just 2 weeks ago so I'd expect that is still the case - exactly what has been foregone is open to debate.

I think it is highly likely that it will be an Ice strengthened Endeavour replacement is front and centre as it was announced in the main DWP release. These Docs are indeed status of thinking reports that are approaching 12 months old.

I noted in the RNZAF thread that the Antarctic JLP dimension is a significant aspect of our ongoing policy and that there are some emerging reliability risks to NZ's role down in the Ross Sea.

 

[Gibbo]

I think it is highly likely that it will be an Ice strengthened Endeavour replacement is front and centre as it was announced in the main DWP release. These Docs are indeed status of thinking reports that are approaching 12 months old.

I noted in the RNZAF thread that the Antarctic JLP dimension is a significant aspect of our ongoing policy and that there are some emerging reliability risks to NZ's role down in the Ross Sea.

Yeah just added rant to that thread! Govt can moan all it likes about the cost but if they lose the JLP to Hobart the net loss to the Chch economy over 10 years will well & truly dwarf the cost of even a single C17.

Ok appreciate the tanker offers an alternative for a C17 but again it relies on allies (US ice breaker) & removes a valuable asset from the region for a period over summer each year - rob Peter to pay Paul!

I'd be curious to know what a round trip (incl. logistics etc) to the ice would take!?! I assume the Govt would look at 1 trip at start & end of Antarctic season.

Also looks from those discussion docs as if all 4 IPV's will go - still think there's a part for 2 to play - doing the range of tasks they currently do (training; patrol, SAR etc etc).

 

[MrConservative]

In terms of the ice-strengthened 3rd OPV, the diagram of the proposed vessel appears to be the Harry DeWolf class! Granted it is simply a placeholder image and there would have to be a tender, but at least the good news is the NZDF/NZG is favouring a very robust and highly-capable vessel (rather than some cheap compromise solution a la current OPV's)!

The NV Svalbard / Harry DeWolf Class is an ideal SOPV platform for the RNZN.

Have to say she looks quite portly though at 6000 tonnes.

 

[ngatimozart]

The NV Svalbard / Harry DeWolf Class is an ideal SOPV platform for the RNZN.

Have to say she looks quite portly though at 6000 tonnes.

She does look a bit portly, but if we went with the Norwegian design and completely forgot about the Canadian specs, it would be quite attractive.

 

[htbrst]

Just going back a page or two to update a post regarding the budget blowout on the frigate upgrade as I found the details I was asking for...

What are the comparative costs compared with the Australian ASMD upgrade which would already have sorted out the trim & stability issues? I bet the extra $100 million would have gone a long way towards going down that less risky but perhaps pricier path

I can't see that the ASMD upgrade would provide anything but the broadest hints about trim and stability issues given the vastly different scope of works on the RNZN ships.

oldsig

Slight misinterpretation here, I was implying we could have gone with the Australian upgrade itself since it should have been much less risky given it had already been built and tested on Australian ships. Apologies I should have been clearer

Anyway, to answer my own question, the Major project reports 2015 provided a few weeks ago has details specifically comparing the ASMD upgrade to the Canadian one chosen.

http://www.defence.govt.nz/pdfs/reports-publications/mpr-2015-vol-3.pdf

Option 4: Multi-threat Capability (chosen upgrade)

$354-374 million (now expected $472 million)​

Option 5: Australian ASMD upgrade

$411-431 million​

Thus some attempted penny pinching by not going with the Australian programme will now cost more, likely take longer and is (arguably?) less capable.

The same report also lists the platform upgrade undertaken which upgrades the output power available 4.4MW (from 3.2MW) and increases tonnage to 3700t (from 3600t);

 

[ngatimozart]

I see that the Italians have a new ship type which covers the roles of frigates, corvettes and OPVs, Pattugliatori Polivalenti d’Altura (PPA). More details here and here. It is an interesting concept and appears to have synergies that would appeal to a cost constricted navy.

 

[RegR]

Just going back a page or two to update a post regarding the budget blowout on the frigate upgrade as I found the details I was asking for...






Slight misinterpretation here, I was implying we could have gone with the Australian upgrade itself since it should have been much less risky given it had already been built and tested on Australian ships. Apologies I should have been clearer

Anyway, to answer my own question, the Major project reports 2015 provided a few weeks ago has details specifically comparing the ASMD upgrade to the Canadian one chosen.

http://www.defence.govt.nz/pdfs/reports-publications/mpr-2015-vol-3.pdf

Option 4: Multi-threat Capability (chosen upgrade)

$354-374 million (now expected $472 million)​

Option 5: Australian ASMD upgrade

$411-431 million​

Thus some attempted penny pinching by not going with the Australian programme will now cost more, likely take longer and is (arguably?) less capable.

The same report also lists the platform upgrade undertaken which upgrades the output power available 4.4MW (from 3.2MW) and increases tonnage to 3700t (from 3600t);

Irony at its best. Ours possibly would have faired better as well in the weight margin with one less launcher suite and no harpoons. Ah well hindsight is a wonderfull thing we just lack the hindsight for it. Hopefully our chosen system works out now we are commited.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

The current loadout with our VLS missile system onboard our frigates is 8 cells, so with Camm upgrade, what will that give us, will the tubes be quad packed, 4 per cell?

 

[Gibbo]

The current loadout with our VLS missile system onboard our frigates is 8 cells, so with Camm upgrade, what will that give us, will the tubes be quad packed, 4 per cell?

Have been looking but can't find the source - apparently there will be 20 missiles sitting in tubes.

Don't know if they carry extra in magazine & can re-stock tubes at sea!?!