There are strict ROE and if it gets to that it goes up the command chain very quickly to the top.
Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
August 2016 Navy Today out
The latest RNZN Navy Today is out, including a feature on the new tanker. Unfortunately, most of my fears confirmed. It's an AO with containers, not an AOR. I've got to wonder what the point of the helo is (Note than even a USN Henry J. Kaiser class AO has better solid stores transfer than this ship, and fore-goes a helo)
http://www.navy.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/navy-today/nt202.pdf
Interesting points:
1. Crew: 64 core + 34 mission team (14 trainees, 1 VIP, 8 mission crew + 11 flight support)
2. Fitted for but not with armament
3. Only ship in RNZN able to operate & maintain NH90 (huh?)
4. 8000t F76 + 1550t F44, 250t fresh water
5. Dry cargo: up to 12 containers normally (8 standard, 4 ammo capable). Possible to add 8 more.
6. Ice strengthening added 1600t to displacement, and $64m to cost
7. Delivery January 2020.
8. Winterisation = heated side ballast tanks & heat-trace on flightdeck, enhanced crane, mooring equipment & propulsion. Polar class 6.
---
From the opening editorial, it seems reports in main-stream media of a Penguin test at RIMPAC were incorrect (or it failed to occur for some reason). They did fire 4 (surely a record!) Sea Sparrow (must be expired or they really really want to get rid of them).
---
Te Kaha's SH-2G(I) is apparently named Thor. :smash Wonder if there is a pattern (Odin, Loki, or perhaps Iron Man, Capt America & The Hulk).
---
Seeing as the new tanker has little stores capability, should NZDF look to acquire a serious break-bulk stores / ammo ship? Perhaps such a ship could be operated by the reserve. HMNZS Canterbury can carry a reinforced infantry company & it's transport but not much else. I've been reading Maj. Gen. Julian Thompson's excellent Lifeblood of War book on logistics, which has a chapter on the Falklands campaign (for me, it seems nearest to a NZDF scenario). The 30-day war maintenance reserve for 3 Commando Brigade (essentially 3 light infantry battalions, with artillery, engineer & logistics regts, plus recon, light helicopter & HQ elements) was some 9000t (and that was before they were reinforced with 2 Para battalions, a couple of armoured recon troops, or 5 Infantry Brigade was added; and there was little vehicle transport taken). Scaling that down for a NZ-size operation would be approx 3000t for a reinforced infantry battalion or 1000t per reinforced company. Thompson also says that they seriously underestimated the ammunition expenditure rate in that figure as well. A 30-day reserve is already pretty light (60- and 90- days seems a more typical planning figure). If our JATF is expected to actually fight when it gets to where it's going (especially if using artillery), we seem to be very underdone in our sealift capacity. Australia also seems to be very short in it's capacity as well (HMAS Choules I think can carry about of 200t of ammo). In a major operation such a ship would be very handy to a coalition taskgroup (carrying ammo), or a useful support to HMNZS Canterbury in a disaster relief mission (carrying dry stores & food).
The latest RNZN Navy Today is out, including a feature on the new tanker. Unfortunately, most of my fears confirmed. It's an AO with containers, not an AOR. I've got to wonder what the point of the helo is (Note than even a USN Henry J. Kaiser class AO has better solid stores transfer than this ship, and fore-goes a helo)
http://www.navy.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/navy-today/nt202.pdf
Interesting points:
1. Crew: 64 core + 34 mission team (14 trainees, 1 VIP, 8 mission crew + 11 flight support)
2. Fitted for but not with armament
3. Only ship in RNZN able to operate & maintain NH90 (huh?)
4. 8000t F76 + 1550t F44, 250t fresh water
5. Dry cargo: up to 12 containers normally (8 standard, 4 ammo capable). Possible to add 8 more.
6. Ice strengthening added 1600t to displacement, and $64m to cost
7. Delivery January 2020.
8. Winterisation = heated side ballast tanks & heat-trace on flightdeck, enhanced crane, mooring equipment & propulsion. Polar class 6.
---
From the opening editorial, it seems reports in main-stream media of a Penguin test at RIMPAC were incorrect (or it failed to occur for some reason). They did fire 4 (surely a record!) Sea Sparrow (must be expired or they really really want to get rid of them).
---
Te Kaha's SH-2G(I) is apparently named Thor. :smash Wonder if there is a pattern (Odin, Loki, or perhaps Iron Man, Capt America & The Hulk).
---
Seeing as the new tanker has little stores capability, should NZDF look to acquire a serious break-bulk stores / ammo ship? Perhaps such a ship could be operated by the reserve. HMNZS Canterbury can carry a reinforced infantry company & it's transport but not much else. I've been reading Maj. Gen. Julian Thompson's excellent Lifeblood of War book on logistics, which has a chapter on the Falklands campaign (for me, it seems nearest to a NZDF scenario). The 30-day war maintenance reserve for 3 Commando Brigade (essentially 3 light infantry battalions, with artillery, engineer & logistics regts, plus recon, light helicopter & HQ elements) was some 9000t (and that was before they were reinforced with 2 Para battalions, a couple of armoured recon troops, or 5 Infantry Brigade was added; and there was little vehicle transport taken). Scaling that down for a NZ-size operation would be approx 3000t for a reinforced infantry battalion or 1000t per reinforced company. Thompson also says that they seriously underestimated the ammunition expenditure rate in that figure as well. A 30-day reserve is already pretty light (60- and 90- days seems a more typical planning figure). If our JATF is expected to actually fight when it gets to where it's going (especially if using artillery), we seem to be very underdone in our sealift capacity. Australia also seems to be very short in it's capacity as well (HMAS Choules I think can carry about of 200t of ammo). In a major operation such a ship would be very handy to a coalition taskgroup (carrying ammo), or a useful support to HMNZS Canterbury in a disaster relief mission (carrying dry stores & food).
Last edited:
While not sounding like a great deal you need to look at it in the context of NZ politics in which case they are lucky to get that.
NZ for the most part look's at there position globaly as being to far away from any one to matter. There key area's of concern are the home waters, Antartica and Oceania in which case this ship is suitable for the task.
I don't see them acquiring a dedicated support ship for break bulk/store items, The ability to transport and sustain a force by sea over a fair distance just does not appear to be of major concern to them, That being said for NZ to ake part in a conflict requiring such ship's would mean Australia is also involved in which case we would pick up the tab so to speak.
As it is NZ deploying a whopping 250 men from Canterbury would not be such a hard force to supply. Based off of this https://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com.au/2015/06/supply-flow-demands-and-logistical.html article such a sized force would need around 60 - 75 ton a day and that is assuming they use as much as the US, an amount that could be covered by a single C-17 loaned out by the RAAF.
As for Australia, Yes the Choules only has a cargo capacity of 200 ton but that is for the section of the ship dedicated for cargo. It does not include the lane meters that can be used by either military combat vehicles or even trucks loaded with cargo.
While on a narrow vision appearance the Choules appears to be unable to support the 700 max troops it can hold you need to look at the grander picture. Between 3 ships (Choules and 2 Canberra's) Australia has the capacity to deploy 3,900 troops of which we have no where near that amount. Each deck on the Canberra's if still similar to the Juan Carlos can carry around 6,000 tons. Then you take into account an air fleet with a combined max transport capacity of just under 850 tons though I would take the payload capacity of the Hercs under advisement as the RAAF back in Cyclone Tracy I do recall from a book I read the flew a genny up there but because of time constraints didnt find out it's weight, Only after did they find out it weighed close to 25 ton. In any case Australia is more then set to sustain a reasonable force over seas.
NZ for the most part look's at there position globaly as being to far away from any one to matter. There key area's of concern are the home waters, Antartica and Oceania in which case this ship is suitable for the task.
I don't see them acquiring a dedicated support ship for break bulk/store items, The ability to transport and sustain a force by sea over a fair distance just does not appear to be of major concern to them, That being said for NZ to ake part in a conflict requiring such ship's would mean Australia is also involved in which case we would pick up the tab so to speak.
As it is NZ deploying a whopping 250 men from Canterbury would not be such a hard force to supply. Based off of this https://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com.au/2015/06/supply-flow-demands-and-logistical.html article such a sized force would need around 60 - 75 ton a day and that is assuming they use as much as the US, an amount that could be covered by a single C-17 loaned out by the RAAF.
As for Australia, Yes the Choules only has a cargo capacity of 200 ton but that is for the section of the ship dedicated for cargo. It does not include the lane meters that can be used by either military combat vehicles or even trucks loaded with cargo.
While on a narrow vision appearance the Choules appears to be unable to support the 700 max troops it can hold you need to look at the grander picture. Between 3 ships (Choules and 2 Canberra's) Australia has the capacity to deploy 3,900 troops of which we have no where near that amount. Each deck on the Canberra's if still similar to the Juan Carlos can carry around 6,000 tons. Then you take into account an air fleet with a combined max transport capacity of just under 850 tons though I would take the payload capacity of the Hercs under advisement as the RAAF back in Cyclone Tracy I do recall from a book I read the flew a genny up there but because of time constraints didnt find out it's weight, Only after did they find out it weighed close to 25 ton. In any case Australia is more then set to sustain a reasonable force over seas.
I would not be to harsh on it at all. I actually think your criticism is a bit harsh - we are not the USN, RN or the RAN. The idea is to supply fuels, water and dry stores. 12 x 20ft TEU containers = 240 tonnes of dry stores including ammo. That is still significant. It will carry far more than any previous tanker that we have had. I actually think that it is a well thought out design and meets all the requirements set in the RFIs and RFPs. It is definitely larger than I envisaged and I did not think that they would go with ice strengthening. So it is a great addition in capability to the fleet.
I have been looking at the seaborne logistics support role for a while. Contrary to popular belief and what knucks will tell you, large battles, campaigns and wars are actually won by logistics, for without good logistical support, the fighters at the front will not have the tools that they need to do the job on the enemy.
What I have been looking at is a LHD / LPD combination to replace Canterbury. The LHD as the main amphib warfare ship with the LPD as its backup and support vessel - a similar role to the RFA Bay Class. Thyssen Krupp Marine System have a design, the MHD 150 / MRD-150: Amphibious and Sealift Ship utilising modular systems similar to the MEKO ships. I am not advocating one of them for the RNZN because it would be to expensive. However it does have interesting features and one of them is the ability to be able to carry 54 x 20ft TEU containers in the RO/RO vehicle deck which is the deck below the hangar deck. My suggestion would be to have a LHD and LPD designed and built in South Korea with the inclusion of such features, as the ability mentioned above, in the appropriate ship.
Last edited:
kiwi in exile
Active Member
#2. Article states "designed to have a Phalanx on the bow"- see my earlier comment about sharing the ANZACs Phalanx.
cheaper not toequip our fighting forces to fight i guess# 3. I found this odd too. What about Canterbury?
Pleased about the dedicated (yet limited) medical space.
Generally pleased with the design, although more TEU (ala Berlin class of similar size) would've been good, as would capacity for some non-TEU stores & maybe 6 or so trucks... but basically it's a spec'ed up Endeavour replacement, not much more, which will still be a very valuable asset.#2. Article states "designed to have a Phalanx on the bow"- see my earlier comment about sharing the ANZACs Phalanx.
# 3. I found this odd too. What about Canterbury?
Pleased about the dedicated (yet limited) medical space.
https://www.thyssenkrupp-marinesystems.com/en/berlin-class-combat-support-ship.html
As regards to the medical facilities - almost too small to even bother mentioning!
That old chestnut 'fitted for (but without)' bugs me... not even the mini-typhoon to be added!?! :bum Wonder if there'll be any manually operated .50 cal HMG's (not listed though).
The thing with 'fitted for' is you can't just decide the next Op is going to be fractious and so add the Phalanx & mini-typhoon. Unless crew are familiar with the weapons systems & all SOP's are in hand then they weapons can't be used, certainly not effectively anyhow. Unless they start actually transfering those weapons systems over to the new vessel on a regular basis (there'll usually be a ANZAC tied-up that could provide same) then it'll effectively be unarmed. :smash
Last edited:
This is the current TKMS page - Blohm+Voss LHD
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Swerve
Nice find. Although a crew of 534 must surely be a typo?
The White Paper and various budget documents have the existing Canterbury serving until 2030 or thereabouts, so the operating environment them may be very different to what it is today.
Addendum
Looking at the RNZN as a whole, they have three new vessels planned for delivery by around 2020/21; the new tanker, the Littoral Operations vessel and the southern OPV. In exchange, they lose either two or (more probably) all four of the IPVs. This represents a big step up in capability.
As well, the two ANZACs will have their Canadian mid-life refit completed around 2019. After this burst of expenditure, I think the government will have a strong focus or renewal in the Air Force, so I doubt there will be much appetite for naval expenditure through the mid-2020s. It will only be after the Orion and Hercules fleets are replaced they will consider the eventual ANZAC replacements in the late 2020s.
Last edited:
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
RNZN Endeavour Replacement Tanker Specifications
24,000 tonnes displacement (according to NT, up from the previous 23,000t).
166 meters length
24.5 meters beam
8.5 meter draft
Polar Class 6 (adding 1600 tonnes of steel and $64 million to cost)
16 knot speed
CODLAD (combined diesel-electric and diesel) propulsion system
Electric Replenishment/Fuelling-at-sea system
8000 tonnes diesel
1500 tonnes aviation fuel
250 tonnes water
100 tonnes/day desalination capability
25 tonne crane capacity
4 x TEU dangerous goods storage
8 x TEU dry goods (with potential for an additional 8 TEU)
2 x RHIBs
Deck and hangar for helicopter up to NH90-size (11 tonne)
1 x bow-mounted Phalanx and 2 x mini-Typhoons, fitted for but not with
64 crew
34 embarked others (incl. 11 flight crew)
2-berth sick bay (!)
http://navy.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/navy-today/nt202.pdf
HHI gets logistics support vessel order | Naval Today
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_class
24,000 tonnes displacement (according to NT, up from the previous 23,000t).
166 meters length
24.5 meters beam
8.5 meter draft
Polar Class 6 (adding 1600 tonnes of steel and $64 million to cost)
16 knot speed
CODLAD (combined diesel-electric and diesel) propulsion system
Electric Replenishment/Fuelling-at-sea system
8000 tonnes diesel
1500 tonnes aviation fuel
250 tonnes water
100 tonnes/day desalination capability
25 tonne crane capacity
4 x TEU dangerous goods storage
8 x TEU dry goods (with potential for an additional 8 TEU)
2 x RHIBs
Deck and hangar for helicopter up to NH90-size (11 tonne)
1 x bow-mounted Phalanx and 2 x mini-Typhoons, fitted for but not with
64 crew
34 embarked others (incl. 11 flight crew)
2-berth sick bay (!)
http://navy.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/navy-today/nt202.pdf
HHI gets logistics support vessel order | Naval Today
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_class
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Just thought I would combine everything that has been published about the new design in a single post for future reference.
Chis73 - thanks for heads-up about new issue of Navy Today.
Looking at the specs. I'm torn between two feelings:
1) This is a huge step up in capability for RNZN, and we should be thankful
vs.
2) It really is just a bigger version of the current Endeavour, and a little more money/less focus on Antarctica could have given NZ a more versatile vessel.
With reference to 2) above, the under-construction Norwegian AOR Maude (the BMT/Daewoo design that lost out to HHI for the NZ contract) boasts a 40-bed hospital and significant built-in dry stores capability. That makes a two-bed sick bay and 12 containers on deck look pretty modest.
In the end I guess it comes down to government priorities - Antarctica is clearly a big focus for the present NZ government, so presumably other capabilities were traded off against the ice-hardening costs. On the positive side, that focus might have helped deflect any public concern about spending on the new ship (which has been remarkably quiet by NZ standards).
Chis73 - thanks for heads-up about new issue of Navy Today.
Looking at the specs. I'm torn between two feelings:
1) This is a huge step up in capability for RNZN, and we should be thankful
vs.
2) It really is just a bigger version of the current Endeavour, and a little more money/less focus on Antarctica could have given NZ a more versatile vessel.
With reference to 2) above, the under-construction Norwegian AOR Maude (the BMT/Daewoo design that lost out to HHI for the NZ contract) boasts a 40-bed hospital and significant built-in dry stores capability. That makes a two-bed sick bay and 12 containers on deck look pretty modest.
In the end I guess it comes down to government priorities - Antarctica is clearly a big focus for the present NZ government, so presumably other capabilities were traded off against the ice-hardening costs. On the positive side, that focus might have helped deflect any public concern about spending on the new ship (which has been remarkably quiet by NZ standards).
Yes, it does seem remarkably large. 3 & 5 transposed?
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Hmmm. Could be, but even that seems pretty high.
I'd say that is the crew when the ship has it's full complement of landing craft, troops and air assets aboard.
Crewing all depends on what you want to do with a ship, The Canberra's only have a crew of 358 (293 RAN) compared to the Juan Carlos crew which is set up to grow towards 900 depending on it's air asset make up at the time, We have capacity set aside for 1,600 troops compared to Spains 1,200.
For NZ the 534 would be a lot smaller. That being said wouldn't mind Australia getting a pair of these in the 2030's as part of the future Choules replacement and possible logistics support ship acquisition.
No, the page specifies 900 troops. Anyway with automation the numbers could be cut back significantly and I think that the Europeans tend to crew their ships with higher numbers than Australia - NZ. The size is too large for NZ anyway and IF we looked at something like that, maybe around the 13 - 15,000 tonne fully loaded displacement range. Secondly we'd want it built in South Korea because it would be a darn sight cheaper than in Europe or Australia.
That's the other reason why I've been convinced, by one of my peers, that we should be looking at South Korea for our frigate replacements because we can get far greater bang for buck than we could if we go with our historical sources for frigates. What they label as destroyers we would most likely call frigates and what they label frigates we would most likely call corvettes. They work closely with the USN and we would just have to stipulate the VLS and weapons systems. They are now building the KDX IIA for US$500 - 700 million. These ships will be fitted with the SPY radar and are mini AEGIS ships weighing in at around 5,600 ton.
Their latest frigates are the FFX which are heavily armed, but we could use them as a corvette with some modifications; what Mr C calls an Offshore Patrol Corvette. These are costed at around US$230 million. Just ideas but worth looking at.
What is the idea behind having a split level helicopter deck instead of a one level flattop?
Would be more navy plus air as it should always have an air complement for all missions (therefore more part of the "crew" rather than merely pax) whereas embarked troops would be more on a as required basis, ie will regularly use a helo vs an infantry company whenever she leaves port. Much like a normal aircraft carrier always has aircraft otherwise not very practical.
t68
Well-Known Member
I believe from the brochure it can be converted to carry TEU, she has a central lift for rotary aircraft when used as such.
But for NZ I like to see something MOTS and with the expense of the new tanker things may be looking up for our mates across the ditch, personally i'd like to see the Singaporean's put pen to paper with the Endurance 160 and NZ follow with a couple ( wishfully thinking)
But unless NZ increases the size of the land and air forces don't think they would need anything more bigger than a Galicia Class LPD. On the other hand they may want to go the commercial route again looking at something like MV Cragside, those Point Class Ro-Ro seem to capable of being modified to a degree.
You can still get helicopters into & out of the hangar if there's no lift working.
HMAS Choules has a bigger crew than when she was RFA Largs Bay - about the same as the larger Mistral class. IIRC the Canberra class has a bigger ship crew than Juan Carlos 1. The F310 frigates have smaller crews than the much smaller ANZACs. And so on.
I see no evidence that French, German, Danish, Dutch, Norwegian or British naval ships have bigger crews than RAN or RNZN ships.
