Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[Xthenaki]

Fitting the criteria for a new build would be the "Johann de Witt" . The hull was built in Romania. Designed by Damen Scheldt. Crew of 150 Final cost I understand to be $400M US (2007)

 

[40 deg south]

According to the Wilhelmsen Panama Canal toll calculator a vessel her size would cost approx 25,000 USD to transit.

Thanks for clarifying that, Rob. I hadn't realised there was such a steep variation in costs depending on size.

Looking back through the RNZN Facebook page, I've found a post stating that the average toll that is charged to ships using the Panama Canal is US$450,000. Presumably that is what I was remembering. I guess that reflects the prevalence of 'Panamax' ships designed to be the largest possible hull that can squeeze through the locks.

 

[40 deg south]

Cammell Laird moves RRS Sir David Attenborough out of dock as BBC announces climate change documentary

Given the newly-stated desire for the Southern OPV to be multi-purpose and have the ability to carry out scientific research, should we be looking at something like the original Boaty McBoatyface? 129m long, 10,400 tonnes, probably more research-specific equipment than NZ would want.

Costing somewhere between GBP150-200 million, which may not be competitive with Korea, Japan or the Damen yard in Romania.

 

[Whiplash34]

Both ships are 20 years old and we would likely have to undertake an expensive MLU to get another 15 years out of whichever one we acquired. Also they have a crewing complement of 325 which is basically the combined total of both our ANZAC FFHs. The question would be for short term gain would it be a worthwhile option; i.e., value for money? It would most likely take 3 - 4 years to plan and undertake a MLU, which is about the same time that it would take to tender and build a LPD / LHD from an existing design iif they got their act together. The DCP has a indicated budget of $1 billion for such a vessel, so the money is now budgeted and out of that budget approximately $600 - 700 million will be for the vessel including landing craft, with the remaining $300 - 400 million for other costs such as training, manuals, simulators, maintenance contracts etc. Depending upon the type of vessel chosen, design and fitout, the ships complement could be as low as 150 including permanently drafted (posted to the ship) RNZAF and NZ Army personnel. There is no real reason why such a new build could not be in NZ waters around 2024 - 2025, apart from politics. Personnel are an Operational Expenditure budget output, not a Capital Expenditure budget output.

Ngati, are the San Antonio class LPD’s a consideration for us at all...? Or are they out of our budget?

Would they be worth the stretch, a quick glance shows, on face value very significant capability. And at over 200m in length...that’s a bloody big vessel!

Along with a few others posting here, the Endurance 170 LHD looks like the Tier 1 option....will eat my ballistic helmet if we actually sign on the dotted line for one though....

Interested in your thoughts as I’m out of my lane in this area.

 

[ngatimozart]

I think that we may have to give Helen Clark as some of the credit for the LPD/LHD as she was responsible for HMNZS Canterbury which I think showed how useful such a ship could be but how bad the limitations were if you did not do a proper job of the ship in the first place and took the cheap option.

Actually the Charles Upham was the first attempt and it as a RO / RO and so unsuited for the intended role, that Lt (RN) James Cooks Endeavour would've been a better choice. It was acquired during the 1990s, IIRC when Jim Bolger was PM, and Bolger was so tight, that he's still got his, Ruth Richardson's and Muldoon's bird nesting money. It was such a FUBAR that it is a classic in it's own right; done so cheap that we almost paid the vendor for the privilege of buying it off them. Clark had an absolute field day when in opposition deriding them over that. It was a worse platform for it's intended task than the Brewster Buffalo being used against IJN Zeros.

Fitting the criteria for a new build would be the "Johann de Witt" . The hull was built in Romania. Designed by Damen Scheldt. Crew of 150 Final cost I understand to be $400M US (2007)

LPD or LHD? TBH a LHD would be the better option because it offers a greater number of landing spots on the flight deck. Most LPDs only offer two, whereas with an LHD 5 or more are common. You want to be able to have a Chook / MV 22 and a couple of NH-90 operating on / off the flight deck simultaneously, and you can't do that with a LPD. US$400 million in 2007 is now US$512 million, which is NZ$778 million. On 23 December 2014 HHI signed the contract with the SK DAPA for the second Dokdo LPH worth KRW 417.5 billion which is NZ$536 million. So which platform would be better VfM (Value for Money) and offer the greater benefit to NZDF?

 

[ngatimozart]

Ngati, are the San Antonio class LPD’s a consideration for us at all...? Or are they out of our budget?

Would they be worth the stretch, a quick glance shows, on face value very significant capability. And at over 200m in length...that’s a bloody big vessel!

Along with a few others posting here, the Endurance 170 LHD looks like the Tier 1 option....will eat my ballistic helmet if we actually sign on the dotted line for one though....

Interested in your thoughts as I’m out of my lane in this area.

The San Antonio class are way out of budget at something like US$1.6 billion each and a crew of just under 400 bods. US$1.6 billion is NZ$2.43 billion at the moment I would not be surprised if the E-170 was shortlisted so hope you like vegemite with your ballistic helmet.

 

[Xthenaki]

Actually the Charles Upham was the first attempt and it as a RO / RO and so unsuited for the intended role, that Lt (RN) James Cooks Endeavour would've been a better choice. It was acquired during the 1990s, IIRC when Jim Bolger was PM, and Bolger was so tight, that he's still got his, Ruth Richardson's and Muldoon's bird nesting money. It was such a FUBAR that it is a classic in it's own right; done so cheap that we almost paid the vendor for the privilege of buying it off them. Clark had an absolute field day when in opposition deriding them over that. It was a worse platform for it's intended task than the Brewster Buffalo being used against IJN Zeros.

LPD or LHD? TBH a LHD would be the better option because it offers a greater number of landing spots on the flight deck. Most LPDs only offer two, whereas with an LHD 5 or more are common. You want to be able to have a Chook / MV 22 and a couple of NH-90 operating on / off the flight deck simultaneously, and you can't do that with a LPD. US$400 million in 2007 is now US$512 million, which is NZ$778 million. On 23 December 2014 HHI signed the contract with the SK DAPA for the second Dokdo LPH worth KRW 417.5 billion which is NZ$536 million. So which platform would be better VfM (Value for Money) and offer the greater benefit to NZDF?

Undoubtably the Dokdo and would be available more quickly. Thanks for your information.

 

[CJohn]

Pleasantly surprised by the DCP concerning additional sea lift capacity for the RNZN.

The DCP states, the enhanced sea lift vessel will have greater lift capacity than HMNZS Canterbury. Does this mean more hanger space for NH-90's and landing spots? I hope so.

A LHD like the Dokdo or an Endurance 170 would fit very nicely me thinks.

 

[Rob c]

Actually the Charles Upham was the first attempt and it as a RO / RO and so unsuited for the intended role, that Lt (RN) James Cooks Endeavour would've been a better choice. It was acquired during the 1990s, IIRC when Jim Bolger was PM, and Bolger was so tight, that he's still got his, Ruth Richardson's and Muldoon's bird nesting money. It was such a FUBAR that it is a classic in it's own right; done so cheap that we almost paid the vendor for the privilege of buying it off them. Clark had an absolute field day when in opposition deriding them over that. It was a worse platform for it's intended task than the Brewster Buffalo being used against IJN Zeros.

Agreed, But C.U was only a logistics platform with no landing craft capability, Canterbury was the new build, touted as the multi role do anything ship which in the end promised big but fell short and I did hear at the time that the navy wanted a well deck but were told that the extra money was not available. $750m had been budgeted for the third frigate but H.C. took $250 for other non defence items (some of it probably went to her arts and culture aspirations) and left the navy with $500m for the complete Canterbury and protector program.

 

[hauritz]

Agreed, But C.U was only a logistics platform with no landing craft capability, Canterbury was the new build, touted as the multi role do anything ship which in the end promised big but fell short and I did hear at the time that the navy wanted a well deck but were told that the extra money was not available. $750m had been budgeted for the third frigate but H.C. took $250 for other non defence items (some of it probably went to her arts and culture aspirations) and left the navy with $500m for the complete Canterbury and protector program.

With NZ there always seems to be a disconnect between what they need and what they eventually end up with. They certainly need an extra frigate or two, a large capable LHD and a couple of additional OPVs. As for what they will end up with ... all I can say is that you can't have a champagne diet on a beer budget.

NZ seems to think that it is immune from the deteriorating strategic environment that the rest of the region is finding itself in. NZ needs to ante up and start spending more on defence.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

Ten years to go for the new sealift ship but I think the Singapore 170 is going to be a front runner.

The size is more appropriate IMHO compared to the 200 m contempories like Dokdo or Izumi.

Given the number of helicopters available in the RNZAF i cant see half or more of the resources being deployed at one time. Its size and capabilities particularly its sensors and weapons makes me think this and the Canterbury replacement could end up being the primary capital ships in place of frigates as the Navy expands its OPV fleet with more capable vessels.

Being realistic, the E170 expands upon my previous comments regarding the Algerian LPD as a good choice for NZ. The E170 is 30 m longer and has three additional heli spots.

With the exception of the 5 inch bow gun and the speed of a frigate the multi purpose capability makes sense. As a SP intervention and HADR support vessel the GOTD would have a very powerful capability to promote and support regional stability. With its 76 mm cannon that should be sufficient for NGS if ever required.

The timeline for a hot production line also works.

 

[ngatimozart]

Ten years to go for the new sealift ship but I think the Singapore 170 is going to be a front runner.

The size is more appropriate IMHO compared to the 200 m contempories like Dokdo or Izumi.

Given the number of helicopters available in the RNZAF i cant see half or more of the resources being deployed at one time. Its size and capabilities particularly its sensors and weapons makes me think this and the Canterbury replacement could end up being the primary capital ships in place of frigates as the Navy expands its OPV fleet with more capable vessels.

Being realistic, the E170 expands upon my previous comments regarding the Algerian LPD as a good choice for NZ. The E170 is 30 m longer and has three additional heli spots.

With the exception of the 5 inch bow gun and the speed of a frigate the multi purpose capability makes sense. As a SP intervention and HADR support vessel the GOTD would have a very powerful capability to promote and support regional stability. With its 76 mm cannon that should be sufficient for NGS if ever required.

The timeline for a hot production line also works.

TBH, I don't think we'd go with a large gun on an LHD. However if we did, it wouldn't be a 76 mm because the shell is to light for NGS, and we'd be introducing a new calibre into the RNZN. The 5" would be the gun that would be chosen because of commonality with the frigates and the heavier weight of the shell, plus the fact that the 5" gun now has Excalibur shell options. Personally, I'd replace the large gun mount with a 35 mm Millennium gun, plus another one down aft above the flyco, along with a VLS for Sea Ceptor and SSM.



This is illustration of RNZN E-170 I did a whiles back.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

Yep. The Millenium guns work for me.

Would be a great improvement over the existing 25 mm mounts across the fleet.

What is a realistic embarked force for NZ if providing an intervention force to an unstable or failing SP state to assist local authorities? Canterbury can transport 250 so is a 50% improvement likely? 375 to 500 personnel would provide for two companies plus supporting arms. Is this plausible for NZ even with the extra bodies called for in the DCP?

 

[ngatimozart]

Yep. The Millenium guns work for me.

Would be a great improvement over the existing 25 mm mounts across the fleet.

What is a realistic embarked force for NZ if providing an intervention force to an unstable or failing SP state to assist local authorities? Canterbury can transport 250 so is a 50% improvement likely? 375 to 500 personnel would provide for two companies plus supporting arms. Is this plausible for NZ even with the extra bodies called for in the DCP?

I am unsure, never being part of the green machine. I have always worked on the principle of why live in a hole in the ground when your home can carry you around and give you 3 hot squares (meals) a day

It would depend very much upon the circumstances and what the GOTD deemed necessary. If it was in PNG, Solomon Islands, Fiji, Tonga or Samoa probably at least 3 armoured corps; they're not exactly people you want to be on the wrong side of when they're all fired up and grumpy.

All of them are really nice until you cross them, which you do at your peril; same as us Maori. Tongans, Samoans, Fijians and Maori are Polynesians whilst PNG's and Solomon Islanders are Melanesian. All of these peoples are warrior cultures, especially the Fijian, Samoan, PNG, Tongan and Maori and today that warrior ethos is funnelled either into the armed forces or into sport, but it is always present; some claim that we have the so called warrior gene. There are still tribes in the PNG hinterland who are believed to still practice cannibalism and it was 180 years ago that us Maori were still practising it.

NZ has a different approach to Australia and when we mediated the Bougainville dispute we actually went in with guitars and a Maori cultural group rather than guns and it worked. It was a stroke of genius from I believe a naval officer on HMNZS Endeavour. The sailors at the time were crapping bricks as they went ashore, but the reception they got made it all worth while.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

Understood. I truly appreciate your ancestry and culture. This is something I lack today as a ninth generation Canadian of European ancestry. My ancestors came here on the promise of the British Crown to provide land, food and guns to help colonize the new world which was Nova Scotia and counter and expel the French. Terrible times.

As a small Navy having such a vessel will allow your country a capability we here could only dream of. Even during times of natural disasters here on the east coast the military had to wait for the ferry to get to Newfoundland after a Hurricane. No national ability to deploy the troops by sea.

Consider yourselves fortunate to have commited elected officials like Ron Mark who are truly trying to provide a level of ability through proper kit. I agree fully that the timelines are too far out but maybe those will change as pressures increase.

A fully armed and sensored LPH with even a moderate heldet of 6 to 8 aircraft would be a powerful force for good.

I wonder if CB90 would be considered as a component of the amphibious capacity.

 

[OPSSG]

^^Three cheers for Ron Mark.

I've been considering what kind of sealift vessel NZ might go for following the announcement in the DCP. The document suggests a Landing Platform Dock style vessel equipped with a well dock. They want something larger and more capable than HMNZS Canterbury, which displaces 9000T, but I don't think they'll go all the way out to a helicopter carrier (theres not much need with our small fleet). Something along the lines of the Royal Navy's Albion class seems to fit quite well with their requirements.

Well it turns out these ships might be surplus to the Royal Navy's requirements. They currently alternate between ships with one held in a state of extended readiness while they other gets used. Perhaps the NZ Government should consider making an offer on one of these vessels...

...Both ships are 20 years old and we would likely have to undertake an expensive MLU to get another 15 years out of whichever one we acquired. Also they have a crewing complement of 325 which is basically the combined total of both our ANZAC FFHs....

The DCP has a indicated budget of $1 billion for such a vessel, so the money is now budgeted and out of that budget approximately $600 - 700 million will be for the vessel including landing craft, with the remaining $300 - 400 million for other costs such as training, manuals, simulators, maintenance contracts etc. Depending upon the type of vessel chosen, design and fitout, the ships complement could be as low as 150 including permanently drafted (posted to the ship) RNZAF and NZ Army personnel. There is no real reason why such a new build could not be in NZ waters around 2024 - 2025, apart from politics. Personnel are an Operational Expenditure budget output, not a Capital Expenditure budget output.

Thanks for explaining the key considerations.

Ten years to go for the new sealift ship but I think the Singapore 170 is going to be a front runner.

The size is more appropriate IMHO compared to the 200 m contempories like Dokdo or Izumi....

The timeline for a hot production line also works.

Given the build time frame, one of these designs (Endurance 160 or 170) might be a potential fit for NZDF requirements, under points 69 to 72, in the just released 2019 Defence Capability Plan. Let me extract these points, below for ease of reference:

• Recognising the high value of sealift to humanitarian and disaster relief, and the sustainment of deployed forces, in the mid-2020s an additional sealift vessel will be acquired. Operating alongside HMNZS Canterbury, this acquisition will provide two sealift vessels, and will greatly improve the effectiveness of the Defence Force, and the resilience of the nation, and the region.
• The enhanced sealift vessel will have greater lift capacity than HMNZS Canterbury. The capability will provide a highly flexible military asset, including hospital facilities, planning spaces, and self-defence capabilities. It will also provide support for the deployment of a range of capabilities, including Special Forces, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and NH90 helicopters. The enhanced sealift capability will also improve the New Zealand Defence Force’s amphibious operations. Through the provision of a well dock, it will be able to conduct operations in a wider range of sea conditions, and will have the size and capacity to carry large equipment, and sufficient aviation capacity to allow extended, long duration operations. Its size will also provide for the transport of a larger number of personnel, allowing for the value of the increased size of the New Zealand Army to be realised.
• Collectively, these enhancements will significantly increase our ability to respond to humanitarian and security events in the Pacific region. While a future project will determine detailed requirements for this capability, a Landing Platform Dock is an example of the type of vessel that will be considered.
• Following 2030, HMNZS Canterbury will be withdrawn from service. At this time an investment will be made to further improve the Defence Force’s sealift capability with an additional vessel. Options will be explored against the composition of the fleet, the wider Defence Force and the prevailing strategic environment.

TBH, I don't think we'd go with a large gun on an LHD. However if we did, it wouldn't be a 76 mm because the shell is to light for NGS, and we'd be introducing a new calibre into the RNZN. The 5" would be the gun that would be chosen because of commonality with the frigates and the heavier weight of the shell, plus the fact that the 5" gun now has Excalibur shell options. Personally, I'd replace the large gun mount with a 35 mm Millennium gun, plus another one down aft above the flyco, along with a VLS for Sea Ceptor and SSM.

View attachment 46637

This is illustration of RNZN E-170 I did a whiles back.

Really excited that it is possible for ST Marine to compete and possibly meet this requirement for the NZDF; and to be given an opportunity to deliver further customization according to needs. Thanks for the illustration.

 

[Rob c]

A note of caution, while the latest report promises an improvement in the equipment and abilities of the armed services, I have seen many such government papers in the past and due to changes in the government hardly any have actually come to full fruition, in fact i cannot remember any though one may have snuck past without me noticing it. It is highly unlikely that the current government will not change before a significant portion of these project have had time to mature. For instance if Labour could after the next election govern with only the greens and I would see a significant proportion of the projections going belly up.
The other big problem is that the air force did not get any significant boost and that means that due to low numbers of helicopters, transport aircraft and the lack of an ACF that they would struggle to support a significantly sized army deployment as alluded to in the DCP.

 

[Ocean1Curse]

A note of caution, while the latest report promises an improvement in the equipment and abilities of the armed services, I have seen many such government papers in the past and due to changes in the government hardly any have actually come to full fruition, in fact i cannot remember any though one may have snuck past without me noticing it. It is highly unlikely that the current government will not change before a significant portion of these project have had time to mature. For instance if Labour could after the next election govern with only the greens and I would see a significant proportion of the projections going belly up.
The other big problem is that the air force did not get any significant boost and that means that due to low numbers of helicopters, transport aircraft and the lack of an ACF that they would struggle to support a significantly sized army deployment as alluded to in the DCP.

The $20 billion capital expenditure PR number has so far crossed too successive governments. Although praise can be heaped on Ron Marks, I think even Mr Marks would concede that he is just a spooks person for the defence forces. Because of defence personal having to go above what the equipment they've inherited is capable of achieving, Mr Marks would not have the same level of mana and motivation to speak about important defence issues if the information wasn't bubbling up to top decision makers. With out that ground game then sure, the $20 billion PR figure is just another number.

 

[Stampede]

^^Three cheers for Ron Mark.

Thanks for explaining the key considerations.

Given the build time frame, one of these designs (Endurance 160 or 170) might be a potential fit for NZDF requirements, under points 69 to 72, in the just released 2019 Defence Capability Plan. Let me extract these points, below for ease of reference:

• Recognising the high value of sealift to humanitarian and disaster relief, and the sustainment of deployed forces, in the mid-2020s an additional sealift vessel will be acquired. Operating alongside HMNZS Canterbury, this acquisition will provide two sealift vessels, and will greatly improve the effectiveness of the Defence Force, and the resilience of the nation, and the region.
• The enhanced sealift vessel will have greater lift capacity than HMNZS Canterbury. The capability will provide a highly flexible military asset, including hospital facilities, planning spaces, and self-defence capabilities. It will also provide support for the deployment of a range of capabilities, including Special Forces, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and NH90 helicopters. The enhanced sealift capability will also improve the New Zealand Defence Force’s amphibious operations. Through the provision of a well dock, it will be able to conduct operations in a wider range of sea conditions, and will have the size and capacity to carry large equipment, and sufficient aviation capacity to allow extended, long duration operations. Its size will also provide for the transport of a larger number of personnel, allowing for the value of the increased size of the New Zealand Army to be realised.
• Collectively, these enhancements will significantly increase our ability to respond to humanitarian and security events in the Pacific region. While a future project will determine detailed requirements for this capability, a Landing Platform Dock is an example of the type of vessel that will be considered.
• Following 2030, HMNZS Canterbury will be withdrawn from service. At this time an investment will be made to further improve the Defence Force’s sealift capability with an additional vessel. Options will be explored against the composition of the fleet, the wider Defence Force and the prevailing strategic environment.

Really excited that it is possible for ST Marine to compete and possibly meet this requirement for the NZDF; and to be given an opportunity to deliver further customization according to needs. Thanks for the illustration.

So an additional sea lift vessel to operate with HMNZS Canterbury.
I can certainly see the virtue of a two ship amphibious force.
Maybe prudent to build two ships of the same class and retire Canterbury earlier than the expected timetable.
As appealing as a small LHD is for New Zealand, I feel two smaller appropriate sized landing platform docks would be more appropriate.
Many examples to choose from and all would be a vast improvement on the Canterbury.
Not too big a fan on single ship capabilities so while it always gets down to dollars some long term foresight would see the benefits of training / logistics / maintenance etc of a two ship class of amphibious vessel.

Good decisions lead to good outcomes

Regards s

 

[OPSSG]

Which LDP design would you suggest? Will be an interesting discussion to hear the pros and cons.

So an additional sea lift vessel to operate with HMNZS Canterbury.
As appealing as a small LHD is for New Zealand, I feel two smaller appropriate sized landing platform docks would be more appropriate.
Many examples to choose from and all would be a vast improvement on the Canterbury.

IMO, most other LPDs have a need more than 140 crew for NZDF (whereas a Singapore designed ship, has very lean manning). The Endurance Class at 141m (and a lean crew size of 80), is a little too small to carry what they need. From a hot production line perspective, a SG built mini-LHA would give good value. When compared to the Endurance Class, the JMMS build for NZDF will:

(a) be even more versatile when configured with standardized mission modules to take on a wide spectrum of operations, including additional modules to support search-and-rescue operations or be deployed with unmanned systems for surveillance or mine countermeasure operations;

(b) improve efficiency in logistics and engineering support. In "designing the support", the JMMS' operational readiness will be enhanced as less time will be required for maintenance of the ships;

(c) re-use and improve the sense-making and decision support systems used in other classes of RSN ships, like the LMV or MCRV, and also complemented by the already high levels of automation in Singapore ships. This will enhance situational awareness and accelerate decision making; and

(d) be equipped with an advanced integrated communication and network system that includes tracking of the ship's equipment and logistics status as well as crew movement.​

The Endurance 170 (see: this bare bones ST Marine Fact sheet), as a JMMS has:

• a length of 170 meters, a breadth of 30.80 meters, a draft of 6.60 meters for a full load displacement of 19,000 tons
• crew complement - 140 sailors, and 150 air crew
• the vessel can also accommodate 400 troops.

The design has a maximum speed of 20 knots, a range of 7000 nautical miles at 15 knots and an endurance of 30 days. For HADR missions, heavy vehicles and mechanized equipment can be embarked and disembarked with relative ease. This ship will have an advanced communications suite and it can be used as a command and communications centre for the relief mission. Further, the JMMS will have a 1,000m² medical facility, with three operating theatres, 10 intensive care unit beds and 17 beds in the hospital wards, as integral to the Endurance 170 design. Most importantly, NZDF's helicopters can be deployed from the ship to provide in theatre airlift capabilities when roads and airfields are completely destroyed in major disasters. While little in the way of details of the JMMS design was released, these new vessels should have:

• the capability to launch and recover UAVs and/or USVs;
• sufficient power to meet future growth needs; and
• space for a forward command centre to respond.