Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[MrConservative]

Some of the info was quoted as the sea ceptor, some may have referred to the CAMM air launched version which would have a longer range. the info was from testing which had occurred, sometime around 2014 or 2015 so was definitely not the ER. If the range of the sea ceptor is 25 km at sea level then this could easily give a range of 50 km at high altitude.

What we do know is that MBDE and the RNZN claim for Sea Ceptor an effective defensive envelope of around 1300km² which using basic math would accord to a radius of roughly 22km. That is not to say that the range is longer but where the kill zone is. Which suggests that about where it might be a great idea for the missile to hit what its meant to hit.

 

[Todjaeger]

So... What sort of capabilities do people think would be reasonable and/or likely aboard the replacement frigates?

At a minimum I think all the planned capabilities for the upgraded RNZN ANZAC-class frigates should be retained, with some new additions as well as capability expansions.

For air defence, I think a degree of area air defence would be required, which in turn would require a short to medium-ranged air defence missile capability. I am rather agnostic about what the actual missile would be, apart from preferring that it to be capable and either something the RNZN is already familiar with, or at least in service with one (or more) other 5I's members. There could certainly be value in a long-range air defence capability of the sort later versions of the SM-2, or SM-3/6 have, but I am uncertain whether or not the gov't making the decision would see either the value or be willing to provide the coin required for such a capability.

A CIWS capability would need to be retained, but IMO it would be better to start introducing a larger calibre (than 20 mm) CIWS which effective vs. smallcraft and aerial targets a longer range, which would mean a rapidfire gun in the 30 mm to 40 mm calibre, able to fire some of the newer advanced munitions.

Keep and update the 5"/127 mm gun, but also introduce some of the advanced rounds like Vulcano.

Add an AShM or dual-use AShM/LACM capability.

Expand the ASW capability by adding a VDS and towed sonar arrays.

Expand the ability of the vessel to support flight operations by enabling the vessel to support a pair of manned naval helicopters, or a manned helicopter and naval UAS, or have a reconfigurable mission systems space which can support a 2nd aviation asset or other capability as needed.

Me being me, I would prefer the vessel to both be able to support two aviation assets, and have the reconfigurable mission systems space...

As for the sourcing of the vessels and systems... I am drawn in several different directions, as it appears that the RNZN will have familiarity with systems from Canada and the UK, while the US would likely have the largest supported user base, and Australia would be comparatively nearby.

S. Korea or Japan could be the vessel construction site, but on the systems side I would see greater value in either using systems already familiar to the RNZN, and/or already in 5I's use.

 

[Rob c]

What we do know is that MBDE and the RNZN claim for Sea Ceptor an effective defensive envelope of around 1300km² which using basic math would accord to a radius of roughly 22km. That is not to say that the range is longer but where the kill zone is. Which suggests that about where it might be a great idea for the missile to hit what its meant to hit.

This would tie in with a low level range of 25 km as to be effective I would assume that would be the range of total coverage.

 

[pussertas]

New Zealand to Buy Four P-8A Poseidon Maritime Patrol Aircraft

(Source: New Zealand Minister of Defence; issued July 09, 2018)

The coalition Government has agreed to purchase four Boeing P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft from the United States Government.

The four aircraft will replace the aging six P-3K2 Orion maritime patrol aircraft that have been operated by the Royal New Zealand Air Force since the 1960s. The current Orion fleet will reach the end of their expected operational life in 2025.

No. 5 Squadron, which currently operates the Orions, will shift from Whenuapai to Ohakea air force base to operate the P-8As.

The Government will also consider options for a complementary maritime surveillance capability during the forthcoming Defence Capability Plan review, due to be completed by the end of 2018.

“The complementary capability will consider smaller manned aircraft, remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS) or satellites, for additional maritime surveillance tasks within New Zealand’s Exclusive Economic Zone and near region. This will free up the new P-8A fleet to fly more missions, in the South Pacific and further afield.”

 

[alexsa]

New Zealand to Buy Four P-8A Poseidon Maritime Patrol Aircraft

(Source: New Zealand Minister of Defence; issued July 09, 2018)

The coalition Government has agreed to purchase four Boeing P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft from the United States Government.

The four aircraft will replace the aging six P-3K2 Orion maritime patrol aircraft that have been operated by the Royal New Zealand Air Force since the 1960s. The current Orion fleet will reach the end of their expected operational life in 2025.

No. 5 Squadron, which currently operates the Orions, will shift from Whenuapai to Ohakea air force base to operate the P-8As.

The Government will also consider options for a complementary maritime surveillance capability during the forthcoming Defence Capability Plan review, due to be completed by the end of 2018.

“The complementary capability will consider smaller manned aircraft, remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS) or satellites, for additional maritime surveillance tasks within New Zealand’s Exclusive Economic Zone and near region. This will free up the new P-8A fleet to fly more missions, in the South Pacific and further afield.”

Very good news for NZ. If the RAAF and RNZAF maintain the aircraft upgrades in lockstep with the US it should ensure considerable interoperability and ensure they remain at the forefront of the development spiral.

 

[StingrayOZ]

That is awesome. That is a capable force in our region.

 

[beegee]

If the testing was done around 2014 or 2015, then that indeed could have been CAMM-ER. I have uploaded a CAMM-ER datasheet from MDBA which was archived from 2 April, 2015, meaning that MDBA had made the information public at least as early as that date. The range listed on that datasheet was >45 km, which would tie in with testing done in 2014 or 2015.

In terms of effective missile ranges, I would tend to go with what the manufacturer or operator tends to publish, with the understanding that there could be exceptions and/or circumstances where they could be greater than what is claimed.

While Sea Ceptor might be able to reach out, under the correct set of circumstances, to hit an aerial target 50 km out, I would expect that the system controlling the launch would have inhibitors or restrictions placed on it to prevent wasteful launches and that in most cases, something 50 km out would be stopped because the circumstances would not be correct for a successful hit.

This quote is from a 2015 Jane's article about the CAMM missile (not CAMM-ER): "With an expected operational range of at least 25 km (trials are understood to have shown a capability to travel 60 km) and a maximum missile speed of Mach 3.0..."

 

[Todjaeger]

Does anyone have an idea of what the practical max weight for a vehicle that can be loaded, transport and then unloaded using landing craft from HMNZS Canterbury?

 

[Novascotiaboy]

Its been almost 6 months since Manawanui has been decommisioned and there is still no word on the commercial replacement. Does anyone have an inside track on a timeline or any details?

 

[ngatimozart]

Its been almost 6 months since Manawanui has been decommisioned and there is still no word on the commercial replacement. Does anyone have an inside track on a timeline or any details?

No nothing yet and those who do know don't don't talk.

 

[ngatimozart]

Does anyone have an idea of what the practical max weight for a vehicle that can be loaded, transport and then unloaded using landing craft from HMNZS Canterbury?

I would presume a fully load Unimog, possibly with trailer, but don't quote me. Why I say Unimog was that the Canterbury was built before the current MHOV were probably thought of by NZDF.

 

[Todjaeger]

I would presume a fully load Unimog, possibly with trailer, but don't quote me. Why I say Unimog was that the Canterbury was built before the current MHOV were probably thought of by NZDF.

Interesting, and if that is the case, then those in gov't who originated and/or had oversight of Project Protector be, at a minimum, given a hefty slap upside the head though something more permanent "pour encourager les autres" would be perhaps more appropriate.

From what I have been able to gather, the NZLAV weighs depending on configuration and uparmouring between 19 and 21 metric tons. Now the UL1700L Unimogs that Army had seem to have had an empty weight of ~4 tonnes, but even loaded I strongly suspect they would have been well short of reaching NZLAV weight.

It would also suggest that the NZDF should start planning for the Canterbury replacement now, and be more forward thinking about capabilities. As a related side note, Canterbury was delivered in 2007 and IIRC was designed to have a 20 to 25 year service life, as opposed to the 30+ service life naval warships are often designed for. This means that the Canterbury replacement should likely enter service around the same time, or perhaps even just before the frigate replacements.

 

[recce.k1]

Does anyone have an idea of what the practical max weight for a vehicle that can be loaded, transport and then unloaded using landing craft from HMNZS Canterbury?

Each LCM can carry two LAVIII's and from Naval Technology:

Canterbury uses wide range of methods for moving supplies and troops from the ship to shore. The two 59t landing craft medium (LCM) boats onboard can carry 50t of payload for a range of 250 nautical miles (nmi). LCMs can be loaded or unloaded by crane or via stern ramp.

From a (NZ) Army News PDF the LCM can carry that payload at a speed of 9 knots.

Finally various NZ Army vehicle types trial deploying to/from LCM etc:
NZDF Shakedown of New and Existing Transport Equipment 2017

 

[ngatimozart]

Interesting, and if that is the case, then those in gov't who originated and/or had oversight of Project Protector be, at a minimum, given a hefty slap upside the head though something more permanent "pour encourager les autres" would be perhaps more appropriate.

From what I have been able to gather, the NZLAV weighs depending on configuration and uparmouring between 19 and 21 metric tons. Now the UL1700L Unimogs that Army had seem to have had an empty weight of ~4 tonnes, but even loaded I strongly suspect they would have been well short of reaching NZLAV weight.

It would also suggest that the NZDF should start planning for the Canterbury replacement now, and be more forward thinking about capabilities. As a related side note, Canterbury was delivered in 2007 and IIRC was designed to have a 20 to 25 year service life, as opposed to the 30+ service life naval warships are often designed for. This means that the Canterbury replacement should likely enter service around the same time, or perhaps even just before the frigate replacements.

Before say 2015 NZ defence procurement wasn't exactly what could be best practice. That's wasn't just the system but also the pollies and treasury. Now it's a totally different animal and when Treasury heaps praise on it, you know that it's good. I also think that the pollies now understand that a longer term view needs to be held (he says hopefully).

 

[Todjaeger]

Each LCM can carry two LAVIII's and from Naval Technology:

Canterbury uses wide range of methods for moving supplies and troops from the ship to shore. The two 59t landing craft medium (LCM) boats onboard can carry 50t of payload for a range of 250 nautical miles (nmi). LCMs can be loaded or unloaded by crane or via stern ramp.

From a (NZ) Army News PDF the LCM can carry that payload at a speed of 9 knots.

Finally various NZ Army vehicle types trial deploying to/from LCM etc:
NZDF Shakedown of New and Existing Transport Equipment 2017

Unfortunately, none of that really tells me what I am trying to find out, though it does appear that Canterbury can transport and then land NZLAV which is what I had originally thought.

The reason for my interest in what the max weight an individual vehicle can have and still be transported and landed from Canterbury is that it provides and upper limit for Canterbury's vehicle sealift capability. Using the NZLAV and GDLS Canada's LAV 6.0 as an example, the upgraded LAV 6.0 is ~10,000 kg heavier than an NZLAV and offers some improved capabilities and IMO more importantly improved protection, with protection starting at NATO STANAG 4569 Level 4 vs. Level 3 of the NZLAV, and options exist to increase that further with add-on armour kits. However, if the floor strength of the vehicle deck and ramps aboard Canterbury, and/or the landing craft is not up to handing vehicles with a gross weight of ~28,636 kg, then the LAV 6.0 upgrade would not be practically feasible for the NZLAV.

By the same token, if/when Army replaces the NZLAV with another armoured vehicle of some sort, the vehicle handling capabilities of Canterbury could impose some practical limitations on when, where, and how the NZDF can respond.

Me being me, I would hope that NZ defence planners and decision makers speak with their Australian counterparts, so that any Kiwi sealift replacement is able to land or recover Australian vehicles. While I do not anticipate NZ getting back into operating tanks, I do believe that the ability to move tanks and vehicles of the size and weight of MBT's would be good for any NZ sealift to have.

 

[t68]

Agree a purpose built sealift ship I belive is a must for NZ, interoperability in a coalition for a small defence force is very important.

But unfortunately it’s not looking quite rosy in that department in the future, it appears majority of new build amphibious warfare ships are starting around the 27000t mark RSN dose not appear any closer to build the ideal Canterbury replacement with the Endurance 170, the Navantia Galicia class are a 25 year old design and the last one built 20 years ago, I’d hate to see the RNZN once again have to settle for second best again via a converted commercial design,

 

[Todjaeger]

Agree a purpose built sealift ship I belive is a must for NZ, interoperability in a coalition for a small defence force is very important.

But unfortunately it’s not looking quite rosy in that department in the future, it appears majority of new build amphibious warfare ships are starting around the 27000t mark RSN dose not appear any closer to build the ideal Canterbury replacement with the Endurance 170, the Navantia Galicia class are a 25 year old design and the last one built 20 years ago, I’d hate to see the RNZN once again have to settle for second best again via a converted commercial design,

A Kiwi version of the Makassar-class LPD or one of it's variants could work. Granted the initial design is from around 2000, but there are versions either in service with or under construction for the Indonesian, Peruvian, and Philippine Navies. OTOH some of the design companies like Damen have a number of LPD and similar type vessel designs. The Damen Enforcer LPD series has the 7000, 8000, 9000, 10000, 11000 and 13000 designs, plus others.

At present a range of options exist, though what might actually be viable in the late 2020's to 2030's could be a very different story.

 

[beegee]

Agree a purpose built sealift ship I belive is a must for NZ, interoperability in a coalition for a small defence force is very important.

But unfortunately it’s not looking quite rosy in that department in the future, it appears majority of new build amphibious warfare ships are starting around the 27000t mark RSN dose not appear any closer to build the ideal Canterbury replacement with the Endurance 170, the Navantia Galicia class are a 25 year old design and the last one built 20 years ago, I’d hate to see the RNZN once again have to settle for second best again via a converted commercial design,

A NZ version of the Makassar/Banjarmasin class would work. Probably close to the enlarged version PT PAL submitted for the Malaysian MRSS.

http://www.malaysiandefence.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/MAB_5585.jpg?x80338

Edit: Tod beat me to it.

 

[ngatimozart]

Agree a purpose built sealift ship I belive is a must for NZ, interoperability in a coalition for a small defence force is very important.

But unfortunately it’s not looking quite rosy in that department in the future, it appears majority of new build amphibious warfare ships are starting around the 27000t mark RSN dose not appear any closer to build the ideal Canterbury replacement with the Endurance 170, the Navantia Galicia class are a 25 year old design and the last one built 20 years ago, I’d hate to see the RNZN once again have to settle for second best again via a converted commercial design,

Why not acquire a license for the Endurance 170 design, then it doesn't matter if the Singa's build it or not? As long at the design is given a thorough going over by NZG appointed experts, as part of due diligence, then if any major design issues exist, they should be detected. As far as the Navantia Galacia or the Juan Carlos design goes, it doesn't matter so much if the initial hull design is 25 years old, it is what's fitted in and on that would be up to date. Again NZ can acquire a license for the design and build elsewhere, such as Korea with Navantia fully involved so that they take responsibility for any stuff ups. However IMO, NZ would be better acquiring a LHD of which class the ST Endurance 170 is.

A NZ version of the Makassar/Banjarmasin class would work. Probably close to the enlarged version PT PAL submitted for the Malaysian MRSS.

http://www.malaysiandefence.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/MAB_5585.jpg?x80338

Edit: Tod beat me to it.

Looks nice, but too many bays open to the sea reasonably low down in the hull, which would create significant issues in rough seas. That's the problem Canterbury had initially until the RHIB and LCM alcoves were moved higher up side of the hull. A lot of water was shipped, damaging the RHIBs and LCMs. IIRC a RHIB was swept away.

 

[Todjaeger]

Looks nice, but too many bays open to the sea reasonably low down in the hull, which would create significant issues in rough seas. That's the problem Canterbury had initially until the RHIB and LCM alcoves were moved higher up side of the hull. A lot of water was shipped, damaging the RHIBs and LCMs. IIRC a RHIB was swept away.

I could be mistaken, but I had taken the model to be a cutaway model which showed the internal well dock, vehicle deck and hangar configurations. It would be interesting to see what the specific specs entered for the Malaysian MRSS programme were, though IIRC there should be an announcement being made about that specific programme coming out very soon.