Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[Waylander]

Ah, should have read it more carefully.

 

[kato]

What is the idea behind having a split level helicopter deck instead of a one level flattop?

The second flight deck also allows to keep a SAR, ASW or other ready helo while not affecting operations on the main flight deck. Given that the main flight deck isn't wide enough to accomodate a position for that off to the side (like on carriers) you simply push that one level lower on the same flightline.

The concept "might" have been... scratch that, was stolen from the French who used the rear, lower separate second flight deck of their TCDs similarly, i.e. either for separate helo operations (with different approach paths) or to stuff that open deck with cargo.

Yes, it does seem remarkably large. 3 & 5 transposed?

134 instead of 534 would sound reasonable. MEKO MESHD and before that MRD-2000, i.e. the previous near-identical designs and "semi-civilian standards", were cited at 94 and 160 core crew respectively a couple years ago.

 

[ngatimozart]

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.

Ah so the poms ARE part of Europe now are they? I thought that they voted to leave. If you read what I wrote I used the term "I think" clearly stating that I was unsure if I was correct or not in the assertion.

I am aware of the RDN Iver Huitfeld crewing level and the reasons why it is what it is - automation and Danish innovation. I should of mentioned that. My bad. However if you look at OPVs etc you find that some European ones have crews of 60 - 80 for some reason. Mostly it's down to different navies having different cultures and ways of doing things.

 

[ngatimozart]

The second flight deck also allows to keep a SAR, ASW or other ready helo while not affecting operations on the main flight deck. Given that the main flight deck isn't wide enough to accomodate a position for that off to the side (like on carriers) you simply push that one level lower on the same flightline.

The concept "might" have been... scratch that, was stolen from the French who used the rear, lower separate second flight deck of their TCDs similarly, i.e. either for separate helo operations (with different approach paths) or to stuff that open deck with cargo.


134 instead of 534 would sound reasonable. MEKO MESHD and before that MRD-2000, i.e. the previous near-identical designs and "semi-civilian standards", were cited at 94 and 160 core crew respectively a couple years ago.

It does look like a typo on the brochure. 150 including (what I presume is) helicopter crew is cited by Globalsecurity

 

[40 deg south]

Another question I have about the Endeavour replacement is 'Why so big?'.

I had assumed the size of the vessel would allow for significant dry stores, medical facilities and perhaps a command centre suitable for leading low-level multinational ops (e.g. anti-piracy task force). But there isn't any evidence of this in the material released to date, and most of it is expressly ruled out (dry stores, medical).

What we are getting is a floating 24,000 tonne fuel tank. But why so much fuel, given the modest size of the NZ fleet? And are the OPVs even equipped for refuelling at sea?

I don't think the desire to replenish Antarctic bases is a driver of the vessel size - it is more of an opportunistic add-on (and PR opportunity). Cabinet papers earlier this year (released relating to the C-17 decision) make it seem likely that a final decision to ice-strengthen the vessel wasn't made until the second quarter of this year, when the approximate size was already fixed.

The most likely reason for a large fuel capacity (including aviation fuel) is to enable NZ to slot this vessel into an Australian amphibious task force, providing equivalent capability to Australia's Navantia tankers. If this is the case (and it seems exceedingly likely), I wonder under what circumstances Australia wouldn't be able to call on one of their own tankers?

The potential self-defence capability also suggests the government want the option of deploying the new Endeavour further afield, presumably in support of coalition-style operations in the northern hemisphere. It will be interesting to see if she is every used for that purpose, or whether the self-defence capability will remain theoretical.

 

[swerve]

Ah so the poms ARE part of Europe now are they? I thought that they voted to leave.

The Little Englanders can't change geography, however much they might want to. You can see France from the coast of England (I've often done so), & get on a train in England or France & get off 45 minutes later in the other country. England was shelled from France by German guns in WW2.

I note that you didn't mention Norway. The Norwegians voted not to join the EU, but I've never heard it suggested that Norway's not a European country, any more than anyone says that Switzerland's not in Europe.

I don't understand this talk of the UK leaving Europe. Geographical impossibility.

 

[CJohn]

The most likely reason for a large fuel capacity (including aviation fuel) is to enable NZ to slot this vessel into an Australian amphibious task force, providing equivalent capability to Australia's Navantia tankers. If this is the case (and it seems exceedingly likely), I wonder under what circumstances Australia wouldn't be able to call on one of their own tankers?

The potential self-defence capability also suggests the government want the option of deploying the new Endeavour further afield, presumably in support of coalition-style operations in the northern hemisphere. It will be interesting to see if she is every used for that purpose, or whether the self-defence capability will remain theoretical.

This would seem a reasonable assumption of the Governments intensions, from mermory the original RFI stated the same diesel and aviation fuel capacities that have now been confirmed.

The self defence capability has grown from "an appropriate number of MG's" to the phalanx, mini-typhoon option now confirmed.

 

[ngatimozart]

Another question I have about the Endeavour replacement is 'Why so big?'.

I had assumed the size of the vessel would allow for significant dry stores, medical facilities and perhaps a command centre suitable for leading low-level multinational ops (e.g. anti-piracy task force). But there isn't any evidence of this in the material released to date, and most of it is expressly ruled out (dry stores, medical).

What we are getting is a floating 24,000 tonne fuel tank. But why so much fuel, given the modest size of the NZ fleet? And are the OPVs even equipped for refuelling at sea?

I don't think the desire to replenish Antarctic bases is a driver of the vessel size - it is more of an opportunistic add-on (and PR opportunity). Cabinet papers earlier this year (released relating to the C-17 decision) make it seem likely that a final decision to ice-strengthen the vessel wasn't made until the second quarter of this year, when the approximate size was already fixed.

The most likely reason for a large fuel capacity (including aviation fuel) is to enable NZ to slot this vessel into an Australian amphibious task force, providing equivalent capability to Australia's Navantia tankers. If this is the case (and it seems exceedingly likely), I wonder under what circumstances Australia wouldn't be able to call on one of their own tankers?

The potential self-defence capability also suggests the government want the option of deploying the new Endeavour further afield, presumably in support of coalition-style operations in the northern hemisphere. It will be interesting to see if she is every used for that purpose, or whether the self-defence capability will remain theoretical.

The original RFI released three years ago stated the requirements. this from a post I did around the time (20/4/2013):

RNZN Maritime Projection and Sustainment Capability (MPSC).
The RFI calls for:
- carrying a minimum of 8,000 tons of ship fuel and a minimum of 1,700 tons of aviation fuel,
- a requirement for operating medium-sized helicopters (such as New Zealand’s SH-2G Seasprites and recently introduced NH90) and a costed option for operating a CH-47 Chinook,
- the capability for lift on/lift off operations (up to and including 25 tons) to transfer embarked cargo and provision for upper deck stowage of embarked vehicles and a minimum of 12 shipping containers,
- a minimum of 260 lane meters for vehicles and the MPSC also is required to operate two 65-ton landing craft,
- a minimum 8,000 nautical mile-range at 16 knots, with a top speed of 18 knots, - a nominal ship’s company of 70, plus up to 50 passengers, - a minimum service life of 25 years,
- the maximum fully laden design draft is not to exceed 26.2 feet,
- it should be able to operate (from December to March) in Antarctic waters as far south as the McMurdo Sounds,
- armament includes “an appropriate number” of manually laid 0.5-inch machine guns and/or space and weight for a close in weapon system such as Phalanx.

Note that the vehicle stowage and landing craft requirements were dropped later. This from a later post (28/4/2013):

I just went through and added up the weights they wanted plus chucked in 500 tonnes for dry stores.

Item Tonnes
Diesel -------------------------------------------------8,000
Kerosene ---------------------------------------------1,700
12 x 20ft TEU @ 20 tonne / TEU -----------------2,400
26 x 10m vehicles @ 26 tonne / vehicle --------2,600
Landing Craft 2 x 65 tonne --------------------------130
Dry storage ---------------------------------------------500
Total --------------------------------------------------15,330 tonnes

So they must be looking at a 22 - 25,000 tonne fully laden ship at least.

From the RFI documentation the Antarctic tasking requirements were present right from the start of the process and not a later add on as you suggest, so it is not a PR stunt. What was dropped was the vehicle and landing craft requirements, however I think that the ability to lillypad Chooks may have been retained. The C17 acquisition was an opportunistic undertaking which unfortunately crashed and burned.

 

[ASSAIL]

Another question I have about the Endeavour replacement is 'Why so big?'.

I had assumed the size of the vessel would allow for significant dry stores, medical facilities and perhaps a command centre suitable for leading low-level multinational ops (e.g. anti-piracy task force). But there isn't any evidence of this in the material released to date, and most of it is expressly ruled out (dry stores, medical).

What we are getting is a floating 24,000 tonne fuel tank. But why so much fuel, given the modest size of the NZ fleet? And are the OPVs even equipped for refuelling at sea?

I don't think the desire to replenish Antarctic bases is a driver of the vessel size - it is more of an opportunistic add-on (and PR opportunity). Cabinet papers earlier this year (released relating to the C-17 decision) make it seem likely that a final decision to ice-strengthen the vessel wasn't made until the second quarter of this year, when the approximate size was already fixed.

The most likely reason for a large fuel capacity (including aviation fuel) is to enable NZ to slot this vessel into an Australian amphibious task force, providing equivalent capability to Australia's Navantia tankers. If this is the case (and it seems exceedingly likely), I wonder under what circumstances Australia wouldn't be able to call on one of their own tankers?

The potential self-defence capability also suggests the government want the option of deploying the new Endeavour further afield, presumably in support of coalition-style operations in the northern hemisphere. It will be interesting to see if she is every used for that purpose, or whether the self-defence capability will remain theoretical.

I think the new capability gained by Endeavour's replacement in an ideal complement to ANZAC ops.
The only real difference between the Cantabrias is a diminution of dangerous goods/ammunition stowage (4 X TEU 20s) and dry goods (8 X TEU 20s) c.f. A combined 750 tonnes internal stowage.
She's a bit slower by 4 kts, has 500 tonnes less kero and has a much smaller compliment but will fit in seamlessly.
Well done NZ, a quantum improvement.

 

[40 deg south]

I think the new capability gained by Endeavour's replacement in an ideal complement to ANZAC ops.
The only real difference between the Cantabrias is a diminution of dangerous goods/ammunition stowage (4 X TEU 20s) and dry goods (8 X TEU 20s) c.f. A combined 750 tonnes internal stowage.
She's a bit slower by 4 kts, has 500 tonnes less kero and has a much smaller compliment but will fit in seamlessly.
Well done NZ, a quantum improvement.

Good point re the much smaller crew size - that would have been an attractive selling point for the NZ government. Over a 25+ year life, running costs are going to exceed purchase costs, and the crew will be a significant part of that. The current Endeavour runs with 50, and the new one increases that by just 14 for a doubling in vessel size.

What crew size has been announced for the Navantia AORs? I recollect the Cantabria is around 120, will the Australian vessels be the same?

No question that both sides of the Tasman are getting a big upgrade in capability once the new vessels enter service.

 

[40 deg south]

The original RFI released three years ago stated the requirements. this from a post I did around the time (20/4/2013):....

From the RFI documentation the Antarctic tasking requirements were present right from the start of the process and not a later add on as you suggest, so it is not a PR stunt. What was dropped was the vehicle and landing craft requirements, however I think that the ability to lillypad Chooks may have been retained. The C17 acquisition was an opportunistic undertaking which unfortunately crashed and burned.

Ngati
Interesting looking at those old posts, and well done on picking the vessel size so accurately from the initial RFI.

My point, which I didn't express well, is that the size of the new ship wasn't driven by the requirement to carry out Antarctic re-supply. The ability to resupply Scott Base is an additional role to the existing tanker functions, albeit one the navy will probably have stressed to government as part of the pitch for a larger more capable vessel. It ties in nicely with the 'whole-of-government' approach beloved of the current administration.

The government, in turn, has emphasised the Antarctic role in PR around the new acquisition, to the point where Joe Public probably believes it is the primary function of the new vessel. This may be a shrewd move from a media management point of view, but doesn't in any way reflect the actual taskings the vessel will carry out.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

So now that the MSC is sorted out and an order placed with HHI can we start to discuss the LOSC in more detail?

A look to potential options was announced by government but I have found no public reference to the final submissions from industry. Could this fact finding mission have actually provided government planners with options for existing vessels that can be modified for less than the cost of new build. Given the downturn in the offshore oil and gas industry there are lots of under utilized new assets available. As has been stated before the RAN have taken advantage of this market and have made good use of the assets they acquired.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABFC_Ocean_Shield

Although bigger than what NZ is looking for she is tasked with operating and patrolling in the southern ocean. Since the MSC failed to have the LOLO and vehicle capability included in the final design the increase in ship size and addition of supplemental transport capacity could overcome the deficit. These are very capable vessels and can provide great flexibility to a platform challenged navy like NZ.

Let's remember this is not intended to be a war fighter yet its presence and ability to carry CB90 like boats and accommodations for 50 extra bodies could provide an interdiction ability in pirate areas or for armed boarding of a suspect vessel.

Its capacity to offer a base of operations in a HADR scenario is also an advantage as the higher value Canterbury could be busy elsewhere or in refit. I recognize the 16 kt top speed isn't ideal but it's economical and very capable once it gets where it's needed.

 

[ngatimozart]

So now that the MSC is sorted out and an order placed with HHI can we start to discuss the LOSC in more detail?

A look to potential options was announced by government but I have found no public reference to the final submissions from industry. Could this fact finding mission have actually provided government planners with options for existing vessels that can be modified for less than the cost of new build. Given the downturn in the offshore oil and gas industry there are lots of under utilized new assets available. As has been stated before the RAN have taken advantage of this market and have made good use of the assets they acquired.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABFC_Ocean_Shield

Although bigger than what NZ is looking for she is tasked with operating and patrolling in the southern ocean. Since the MSC failed to have the LOLO and vehicle capability included in the final design the increase in ship size and addition of supplemental transport capacity could overcome the deficit. These are very capable vessels and can provide great flexibility to a platform challenged navy like NZ.

Let's remember this is not intended to be a war fighter yet its presence and ability to carry CB90 like boats and accommodations for 50 extra bodies could provide an interdiction ability in pirate areas or for armed boarding of a suspect vessel.

Its capacity to offer a base of operations in a HADR scenario is also an advantage as the higher value Canterbury could be busy elsewhere or in refit. I recognize the 16 kt top speed isn't ideal but it's economical and very capable once it gets where it's needed.

Nope, not for the LOSC. The LOSC is the Littoral Warfare vessel and that is not what is needed. However something like that is being looked at as the SOPV (Southern Ocean Patrol Vessel) but no details have been released yet. This is the much vaunted third OPV and we are hoping that it may be something similar to a Svalbard class design.

There have been three RFIs released so far for the LOSC; two regarding the vessel itself and a third regarding the systems to be fitted to it. Much like the MSC this is a project that has a long gestation. IIRC, from what has been released in the two RFIs for the vessel, they may possibly be looking at something around the 2,000 - 3,000 tonne displacement mark.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

With the current vessels what level of sea time are they achieving annually? As discussed a couple of months back there was a possibility that civilian charter time was also being considered to supplement NIWA. Is this still being considered?

 

[40 deg south]

So now that the MSC is sorted out and an order placed with HHI can we start to discuss the LOSC in more detail?

A look to potential options was announced by government but I have found no public reference to the final submissions from industry. Could this fact finding mission have actually provided government planners with options for existing vessels that can be modified for less than the cost of new build.
...

Its capacity to offer a base of operations in a HADR scenario is also an advantage as the higher value Canterbury could be busy elsewhere or in refit. I recognize the 16 kt top speed isn't ideal but it's economical and very capable once it gets where it's needed.

Good post.

After two RFI's for the vessel (update - had missed the third one for systems Ngati mentioned) I certainly hope the actual tender (or RFP, in the jargon) isn't too far away. The current Navy Strategic Plan 2015-2020 has the new tanker, the LOSC and the third OPV all in service by the end of 2020. Basic requirements can be found, courtesy of Ngati, 100 pages back in this thread. As you will see, they are contemplating a sizeable vessel.

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/navy-maritime/royal-new-zealand-navy-discussions-updates-4854-214/

The second RFI was around the middle of last year, justified by 'changes in the ship-building sector'. I suspect that is code for 'Collapse of offshore oil sector, making yards hungry for work'. Some commentary from this forum on the second RFI here
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/navy-maritime/royal-new-zealand-navy-discussions-updates-4854-265/

and here.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/navy-maritime/royal-new-zealand-navy-discussions-updates-4854-267/

Given that the navy has managed to get a new-build tanker over the line, my guess is that we will be looking at new-builds for the LOSC and third OPV as well. While there are certainly deals to be had on used/partially-built offshore support vessels, there are also a lot of yards bidding for work at cost (or lower) just to generate cash flow and keep staff employed until the oil market eventually picks up.

My main concern is around timing. The MSC took (from memory) over a year from release of tender to contract award, and the tender release itself was delayed by about six months from an earlier estimate.

NZ is due to hold an election in the latter half of next year, with October/November being the likely months. Unless the tender goes out in the next month or so, and the assessment period is shorter than for he MSC, we aren't going to get a decision this side of the election. Even if the same government is returned, there will possibly be a change of minister, and undoubted procedural delays. If the government changes, potentially the whole project could be dumped or at least severely modified.

NZ Ministry of Defence has been on a (mini) hiring spree lately for acquisition staff, but the acquisition division is still extremely small (staff number in the dozens rather than hundreds). I just hope the new resources mean they can manage the LOSC acquisition more quickly than the MSC.

Update

Forgot to mention an interesting comment from within Defence at the time the tanker contract was awarded. The media pointed out that the Antarctic resupply missions would tie up the new tanker right in the middle of the Pacific cyclone season, when HADR responses are most likely. Someone (the Minister?) in a radio interview stated that would be taken into account when designing the LOSC. There was subsequently some speculation that the LOSC might be able to embark a helicopter, rather than just lilypad one as the existing spec requires.
It will be an impressive piece of political maneuvering if the Navy pulls it off - firstly to convince the government to spend big on ice-strengthening the tanker, then use that spending to justify a more capable LOSC. Sir Humphrey would be proud!

 

[Novascotiaboy]

I reviewed a number of posts and websites tonight and noted that the transport of personnel and material was also to be a part of the mission of the LOSC. Could the second RFI been a way of slowing the process in order to refresh the bid documents so a bigger more capable hull could fulfill the requirements. If a fixed hangar is to be a possibility and an embarked helo is available then lets look at what else could be available.

I am a great fan of the offshore supply vessel as I have experience in this field. The Thinkdefence UK blog had an article about using the basic hull form of the offshore supply vessel for the very needs specified by NZ.

This is the Atlantic Condor an offshore supply boat built by Irving to support the Sable gas field off Nova Scotia. She is 74 m and 2400 tons and is a very adaptable ship. A little small for a chopper but the design is scalable.

https://img1.fleetmon.com/thumbnails/atlantic-condor_9558335_746084.570x1140.jpg

If secondary HADR response is to be amongst the LOSC's abilities then these types of ships offer everything that could be required once a final design is approved. I really hope this option is the direction the RNZN is headed as I believe that you will get a great platform that hopefully becomes a set of twins.

 

[vonnoobie]

I do recall some members being well versed in working out the rough s ize of a ship based on the requirements so a ship operating in the South able to transport personnel (Im imagining to Antartica) and have an embarked helicopter.. what sort of size would that entail?

The ABFC used by Australia in the South is around 8,368 ton but can carry upto 120 people including crew, Probably larger then what NZ needs though space could be taken up by hanger for an embarked helo etc.

I guess one of the key factors is, What is the smallest ship size that can be safely and effectively operated in the South?

 

[ngatimozart]

I do recall some members being well versed in working out the rough s ize of a ship based on the requirements so a ship operating in the South able to transport personnel (Im imagining to Antartica) and have an embarked helicopter.. what sort of size would that entail?

Haha. Thanks for the compliment and it was more by luck than skill - what I label a guesstimate.

The ABFC used by Australia in the South is around 8,368 ton but can carry upto 120 people including crew, Probably larger then what NZ needs though space could be taken up by hanger for an embarked helo etc.

I guess one of the key factors is, What is the smallest ship size that can be safely and effectively operated in the South?

The current OPVs are 1900 tonnes and operate down to the ice fields. They are ice strengthened to Class 1C. Civilian yachts are sailed down to the Ice during the summer, however I believe that is more towards the Antarctic Peninsula. Like any ship the size is dependant upon capability requirements set by the owner. With regard to the LOSC, IMHO my guesstimate is that they are looking at something with a displacement of 2,500 - 3,000 tonnes. IIRC, the RFIs did not call for it to be ice strengthened.

 

[Rob c]

Haha. Thanks for the compliment and it was more by luck than skill - what I label a guesstimate.

The current OPVs are 1900 tonnes and operate down to the ice fields. They are ice strengthened to Class 1C. Civilian yachts are sailed down to the Ice during the summer, however I believe that is more towards the Antarctic Peninsula. Like any ship the size is dependant upon capability requirements set by the owner. With regard to the LOSC, IMHO my guesstimate is that they are looking at something with a displacement of 2,500 - 3,000 tonnes. IIRC, the RFIs did not call for it to be ice strengthened.

I seem to remember that somewhere there was a requirement for it to be capable of operating in a medium threat area. If so I would expect an increase in internal strength for damage control reasons, plus the possible fitment for weapons or provision for them.

 

[ngatimozart]

The Cabinet have given approval for a RFT to be released for the the LOSC.