Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[Sea Toby]

Yes, I thought a new small Korean tanker could be purchased for less than NZ $100 million, but if New Zealand decided to buy a small multi-role tanker/logistic ship the price could increase significantly.

While Canada's new replenishment oilers/logistic ships are much larger, there are smaller versions being investigated by other NATO navies, including Portugal.

New Zealand could purchase a ship 20 meters longer, and 3 meters wider than the current Endeavour and this ship would still fit into their Caliope drydock at Devenport.

 

[alexsa]

New Zealand only has a population of 4 million, and your wish list of 6 frigates is half of Australia's 12 surface warships, a nation of 20 million. The RNZN is having problems filling the crews of the ships they have now, where do you suppose New Zealand will find more crews to man 4 more frigates? Would you support a draft?

While frigates run in the neighborhood of NZ$500 million or so, operating the 2 Anzacs they have now run NZ$500 million per year. To operate 4 more frigates, New Zealand would need to triple that amount, to NZ$1.5 billion per year. That's a lot of money. Its not so much the original costs, which are significant, but we have to keep in mind operating costs too.

It costs even more to buy and operate fighters. And where are you going to find the crews to fly and maintain the fighters on top of finding the crews to operate the frigates? Would you support a draft?

We are talking a significant increase in personnel and their costs. But yes, there was a NZ$11 billion surplus this year. This does not mean that there will be a similar surplus next year. But with a NZ$11 billion surplus, New Zealand can afford to spend more on defence.

However, there are limits to personnel. Drafting military personnel to fill the ranks takes away from the civilian workforce paying taxes. You'll be surprised how quickly the surplus would disappear.

The population arguement is a bit of a furphy in my view. NZ have operated a larger number of ships with larger crews when the population was smaller. I will not get into the semantics of what NZ can afford but many of the designs now available are cheaper to run (as a weighted figure taking into account CPI) than ships that were previously operated.

It comes down to budget priorities and how much you are willing to spend on the men and equipment. NZ has a growing econmomy but currently defence aquisitions do not appear to be a high priority. On the basis of the longivity of the labour government in NZ it would appear that defence is not a significant issue in regards to elections. Whether this is a result of a weak opposition or the lack of any real desire in the elctorate is not an issue I could comment on.

 

[alexsa]

Sea Toby, you can certainly get a new tanker from Korea for less than $200M.NZD.

The Ran's new tanker purchased from Korea was for $50m.AUD then they spent another $60M on enhancements, this ship was for 37,000 tonnes so a smaller tanker should be less than that.

Cheers.

Cheaper, but not signficantly so. The saying steel is cheap and air is free is almost true. Steel prices are pretty high at the moment and larger ships do cost more but a large proprtion of the cost is absorbed by equipment and systems common to both a larger as smaller vessel (say a 24000 DWT tanker as compared to a 37000 DWT tanker).

Tankers of this size are likley to have a similar size crew (meaning the accomdation fit out will be about the same in cost) and are subject to the same SOLAS/MARPOL convention requirment in respect of Navigation, communicaitons, safety and pollution prevention systems. Main engine size will be be smaller (but not significanty cheaper) but auxillary systems such as generators, boilers, fire and GS pumps, Cargos pumps etc will all be pretty similar.

On this basis the cost of building a larger commercial vessel is not a prorata increase over the smaller option.

Another issue that most commentators fail to mention is that Warships such as Endevour are not requried to be double hull. There is a specific exclusion for warships in the conventions that require the use of double hull tankers so NZ could continue to operate their tanker for as long as they saw fit. (and provided other countries let it into thier ports).

 

[Sea Toby]

While New Zealand could acquire a much larger tanker, its Calliope drydock has a limited size, a size barely able to handle the Endeavour and the new Canterbury. I therefore do not expect New Zealand to buy a larger sized warship until the drydock is enlarged. Considering the footprint of their Devenport Naval Base, I would not expect any enlargement of their drydock in near future.

Of course, there is an alternative, New Zealand could drydock in Australia. But I doubt whether the New Zealand government wishes to supply jobs for Australia and eliminate jobs in New Zealand, no matter what the personnel costs are.

 

[alexsa]

While New Zealand could acquire a much larger tanker, its Calliope drydock has a limited size, a size barely able to handle the Endeavour and the new Canterbury. I therefore do not expect New Zealand to buy a larger sized warship until the drydock is enlarged. Considering the footprint of their Devenport Naval Base, I would not expect any enlargement of their drydock in near future.

Of course, there is an alternative, New Zealand could drydock in Australia. But I doubt whether the New Zealand government wishes to supply jobs for Australia and eliminate jobs in New Zealand, no matter what the personnel costs are.

Or they can do what they did in the past and dock in Singapore. Much cheaper than Australia and entirley suitable for a supply vessel. Even USNS vessels dock in Singapore.

Mind you they still have the military mind set and manage to make the docking cost twice as much as would be the case if run commercially.

 

[Sea Toby]

Well, its the same with building warships in Australia, isn't it? The new LPDs and AWDs could also be built in a foreign nation much cheaper than in Australia and quicker too. There would be no need to build beforehand the needed synco lift or drydock to build the large LHD, which by the way isn't anywhere near Panamax sized. Australia could also send their drydock dollars to other nations, but I don't see that happening much either.

However, I was under the impression that while the Navy owns the drydock, they lease it to a private company which operates it. The lease is subject to renewal and put up for bid among as many shipyard companies that wish to bid for the lease. I wouldn't consider this a blank check.

The Caliope drydock also does civilian work. The Interisland ferries have used this drydock in the past, and more than likely will do so in the future.

Keep in mind that drydocks are usually booked a year or more in advance. Recently the Norwegian Star of Norwegian Cruise Lines had to wait three months to repair the Star's azipod. In a breakdown which requires drydocking, a ship just doesn't move into an unscheduled drydock when the drydock is already occupied. Most navies have a drydock for a reason.

 

[alexsa]

Well, its the same with building warships in Australia, isn't it? The new LPDs and AWDs could also be built in a foreign nation much cheaper than in Australia and quicker too. There would be no need to build beforehand the needed synco lift or drydock to build the large LHD, which by the way isn't anywhere near Panamax sized. Australia could also send their drydock dollars to other nations, but I don't see that happening much either.

However, I was under the impression that while the Navy owns the drydock, they lease it to a private company which operates it. The lease is subject to renewal and put up for bid among as many shipyard companies that wish to bid for the lease. I wouldn't consider this a blank check.

The Caliope drydock also does civilian work. The Interisland ferries have used this drydock in the past, and more than likely will do so in the future.

Keep in mind that drydocks are usually booked a year or more in advance. Recently the Norwegian Star of Norwegian Cruise Lines had to wait three months to repair the Star's azipod. In a breakdown which requires drydocking, a ship just doesn't move into an unscheduled drydock when the drydock is already occupied. Most navies have a drydock for a reason.

You are taking me out of context. I stated that overseas dockings are

entirley suitable for a supply vessel

In other words vessels such and Endevour and Sirius. You would not put a warship such as an AWD or even an ANZAC in a standard commercial yard. I believe the AWD should be built in our own facility as it gives and ongoind support facility for ongoing maintenance and upgrade. As for the LHD we would be better to build the hulls overseas (hopefully at Navantia) and fit out here on the basis of cost and time as thye are already building two of these vessels.

The suggestion that all docks are booked out a year in advance is just plain wrong. It depends a great deal on where you are in the world and the size of your vessel. You can get a 2500 TEU box boat or handymax tanker into Singapore on about 4 to 6 weeks notice now. Floating docks add a considerable degree of flexibility in this regard. The star cruise vessels are quite broad in the beam and this limits which docks they can get into. In addition pod work is still quite specialised and not all yards will handle it, hence the problems.

The Captain Cook Dock is nominally capable of 100000 tonnes (nominally as ship dimensins are not alwyas wihting given tonnages) and is operated by ADI (now French). The government can reclaim the yard quite quickly if required but the RAN does not"have a dry dock" as such. It is operated as a commecial enterprise. Given the operating structure of the yard it is much more expensive than other regional yards in respect of merchant ship work but it does do some.

 

[icelord]

As Alexa stated, the LHD has been specualted that it may be built in sections in Europe, as the Mistral was built across France, and the sent to Australia for Assembly.

The AWD is to be built in Australia, this has been stated by both bidders, and the reason there is debate over a 4th AWD, designate Melbourne IV, is that this would allow the Australian shipyards to keep its experienced Engineers and workers till the Adelaide class replacement is to be started, i think this is around 2020. If we were to get them built overseas, not only would jobs be lost, but a wealth of experience and talent would be lost.

As for repairs to a damaged ship, The floating Dock Forgacs in Newcastle can be called upon at any time to repair damaged ships on short notice, and have them up in 2-3 weeks tops. If i recall, when a RN vessel rammed the rocks on an island off the East Coast, the Vessel was towed(backwards mind you:shudder ) into Newcastle for maintanence to allow it to be sent to UK for full Repairs. this took little over 2 weeks to be towed and up in dock. There are several Dry docks in Aus. available at any one time for such an event.

 

[Norm]

OPV Launch

Video clip on the TVNZ.co.nz site.

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/news_index_skin/news_index_group

Scroll thru Video entitled new navy ship off the docks(2:04) unfortunately pictures of the OPV are forward with no views of the superstructure.

 

[Aussie Digger]

At a large cost and only a 57mm gun. Given the fixation with 76mm or greater this would seem counter to some of the opinions given.

The Swedish Bofors 57mm gun is a capable anti-air/anti-surface weapon system though. It can be fitted onto vessels of greater than 150t, unlike the 76mm Oto Melara gun and yet can fire with "standard" ammunition to over 17k's, with excellent "on target" effects.

For an OPV type vessel it would seem to be a reasonable compromise between combat capability and overall size and complexity of the weapon system. At the very least it far outstrips the 25mm Bushmaster in the naval role...

A video of it firing can be view here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_okvBRnVCfw

 

[Lucasnz]

The Swedish Bofors 57mm gun is a capable anti-air/anti-surface weapon system though. It can be fitted onto vessels of greater than 150t, unlike the 76mm Oto Melara gun and yet can fire with "standard" ammunition to over 17k's, with excellent "on target" effects.

For an OPV type vessel it would seem to be a reasonable compromise between combat capability and overall size and complexity of the weapon system. At the very least it far outstrips the 25mm Bushmaster in the naval role...

A video of it firing can be view here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_okvBRnVCfw

Nice Video!

I still think the 76m would still be more useful, ignoring the installation issues in providing an NGS capability on the OPV, for low level Pacific Ops.

I understand the 57mm doesn't have the traditional bull ring. Can someone tell me how ammunition is supplied to the turrent for the 57mm Bofors.

 

[stryker NZ]

new pics of the Otago after being launched

http://www.navy.mil.nz/

http://www.navy.mil.nz/nr/rdonlyres/c06c0a80-6784-489f-883f-1e8e83015d40/0/otagoslipwaytn.jpg

http://www.navy.mil.nz/nr/rdonlyres/48079cff-36c1-4864-9c63-1e5a7947104a/0/otagobutchertn.jpg

 

[Norm]

Thanks for the post.She looks fantastic.I'm old enough to know Navy personal who served on the Frigate Otago.To this day they still say she should never of been scraped.!It went faster than it should , did more than it was designed to do etc etc.The OPV looks like a worthy name sake replacement.Looking at the photo's I swear it could take a 5" gun forward.
This thread has come up with a lot of good suggestions on weapons fit. Mates still in the Navy seem unconcerned, happy to get the boat(s)! One step at a time I guess.

My view on the OPV weapon fit is that the current Govt wants to present an enforcement profile if it encounters say fishing boats in the EEZ from contries we may well have "friendly relations with"eg South American Countries,Russia,Japan even USA" that is more policing than a "warship Profile".

It would be nice if they could buy and store a weapons fit ,76mm etc plus ammo, as we will be well down the food chain if trouble at mill happens. The Govt has been surprised that having approved a refit of the SAS , its taking longer then expected to receive the ordered items , what if there was a real crisis underway.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Nice Video!

I still think the 76m would still be more useful, ignoring the installation issues in providing an NGS capability on the OPV, for low level Pacific Ops.

But you can't. If you could ignore the installation issues, why wouldn't you look at a Mk 45 Mod 2, as fitted to the ANZAC's? It's more capable than the 76mm gun and offers commonality benefits. If you have no spare room that allows for a weapon system to have a high level of deck penetration than it's pointless speculating about it isn't it?

Here's a couple of images that show why in reality the Bofors MkIII 57mm gun appear's more useful...

http://www.otomelara.it/Products/Images/76c_dett.jpg

http://www.baesystems.se/bofors/Images/57_Mk3_1.jpg

 

[stryker NZ]

hey Norm did you used to serve with the RNZN?

 

[RubiconNZ]

Is it possible for the OPV to be fitted if needed with a 57mm, Sea Ram and Harpoons/NSM? If operations needed it eg wartime is it structurally possible, its supposedly are shrunken Anzac, but still 86 metres long IIRC, would it possible along with the nescesarry radars etc?

 

[Sea Toby]

Yes, I'm sure its possible to install all. However, by the time its done, you will have spent as much on these three new weapons systems as you did for the OPV. And after this expenditure, these OPVs would still be too slow to be useful in an escorting role. I do have doubts whether their electric plant is large enough to provide the juice to these weapon system though.

They were bought to fill a patrol role, not a warfighting role. If New Zealand wished to have corvettes, they should have bought corvettes with the speed to keep up with frigates. But doing so would have cost twice as much, if not more.

However, these OPVs will be great patrol ships, even the Irish are jealous.

Its the same with the NZ LAVs. While a larger turret can be installed in place of the 25mm Bushmaster gun, they are not infantry fighting vehicles or tanks. They are armored personnel carriers, and they will be great for that role.

While I support the acquisition of a third frigate, or better two more smaller frigates, I also support the purchase of the OPVs. There is the need for nations, even New Zealand, to patrol and police their fisheries and EEZ. Otherwise, expect your fisheries to be raped. Its the same with speeding, without any police presence everyone would speed.

 

[KH-12]

Is it possible for the OPV to be fitted if needed with a 57mm, Sea Ram and Harpoons/NSM? If operations needed it eg wartime is it structurally possible, its supposedly are shrunken Anzac, but still 86 metres long IIRC, would it possible along with the nescesarry radars etc?

I read somewhere that the OPV's were designed to handle a bigger gun than the 25mm but budget was a major reason for the smaller weapon being fitted (probably more palatable to a Labour gov also if it did'nt look like a frigate). Something like the 57mm would look damn smart even if it did'nt get used , they look abit anaemic with the 25mm.

 

[stryker NZ]

budget the programs supposed to be running in under budget and besides how much could a couple of 57mm mounts really cost.

 

[Whiskyjack]

budget the programs supposed to be running in under budget and besides how much could a couple of 57mm mounts really cost.

Systems, actual gun mounts ammunition etc $5-10 million? Maybe more I guess.

The canadians bought 6 M777s for around $10 million each including ammo. I think that was in canadian dollars.