Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[Sea Toby]

While the Canterbury, Endeavour, Resolution, and Manawanui are orphan ships in the RNZN, their machinery aren't worldwide. For example, there are four near sister ferries in Europe, the Endeavour has near sister oilers built by South Korea, including one in Venezuelan service, the US Navy built 16 sister ships of the Resolution including two serving in the Portuguese navy, and there are scores of oil-field support vessels serving worldwide with similar engine plants and propulsion systems.

Its the same with Australia's Success, France built several near sister ships, one now operating in Argentine seas.

 

[ren0312]

Fair enough. My overly optomistic mood (which will probably not last long) still suggests that a third combatant is not out of the question, although the term combatant may be a stretch I guess.

The key to me is a feeling I have that the public are a bit more reasonable when it comes to defence. When the country is making surpluses, unemployment is low and the NZDF can be seen to be doing 'good' things, then the public will always be more supportive, or at least not hostile.

When the last frigates were ordered (late 80s) RNZN frigates had not really seen an operational deployment in a long long time (as far as I know) yet since then they have. Much easier to sell something that can be seen to be used than something that might be used.

Sorry for the ramble.

As for the third ship I think if the logistics can be made to fit the ANZAC footprint, as well as the training then we may get there.

I will like to see the RNZN having more of an expeditionary force makeup, than one that is geared for peacekeeping, in order to be better able to protect the trade routes going to Asia, in coordination with its allies in the region, which is why I think the frigates need to be outfitted with some sort of SSM and CIWS capability, in addition to ASW equiped helos, plus the need to keep a squadron a modern Block 52 F-16s or a combination of F-16s and MB339s, also needs to be considered, I think that considering New Zealand's geographic location, a conflict in the South China Sea involving China seems to pose more of a threat to New Zealand's interest than Islamic fundamentalism, with a population of 4 million, New Zealand hardly seems to be worth the time and resources of Islamic extremists, compared to say, Australia, which has a much larger population and economy.

 

[stryker NZ]

nice picture of the IPV ROTOITI under construction at Whangarei

http://www.navy.mil.nz/nr/rdonlyres/da5b2179-8bfc-44fa-af4c-b36bab5d60d2/0/mc06068601.jpg

 

[miket]

CANTERBURY’s LCMs
The Landing Craft Medium (LCMs) are significant vessels in their own right, being 23m long and displacing approximately 55 tonnes when empty. When loaded with 2 NZLAVs an LCM will displace 100 tonnes. Weight limit on the empty weight of the LCM is to enable them to be embarked using the MRVs 60 Tonne crane. (To appreciate the size of the LCM it is worth comparing them to the IPCs, which are only a little longer at 27m and displace 91 tonnes).



The LCMs will have a crew of 3; the LCMs are designed for beach landings and are fitted with a ballasting system to allow for safe operation when loading and unloading cargo. They also carry a kedge anchor, used to assist hauling the LCM back off the beach.

The Stern Ramp of the MRV has “marriage blocks” that allow the LCM to position itself forward or aft on the ramp and “Flippers” that ensure athwartships alignment. The stern of the LCM will be held in position with steadying lines running to the MRV port and starboard quarters. As can be seen in the photo the LCMs have a near-flat bottom that leads aft to a central fairing with no rudder, but with both azimuth thrusters on either quarter.

Propulsion is by two Azimuth Thrusters, powered by Scania D19 diesels of 235Kw (315hp) driving through z-drives. The LCMs are very maneuverable as the thrust can be directed in 360 degrees from the z-drive thrusters.[/QUOTE]

Does anyone know if the LCMs are armed at all. The LCs would be vunerable if first in, even in humanatarian roles. I know cynical thought

 

[Norm]

The LCms are not armed. but not a biggie to do so!I've always thought such craft should be, WWII Normandy or in the Pacific the flat bottom Infantry Platoon LC's were usually unarmed .When you are getting up close and personal a GPMG/.50 cal etc on a LC would when combined with others have been useful to say the least.I think they relied on offshore warships and closer in armed LC's (never enough). Others may be able to help with the reasoning.

Recently been in Whangarei on business, the first IPV looks pretty impressive (see Strykers posting)being fitted out at Tenix in Port Rd . Alas it will only have 3x .50cals which seemed to excite the previous Minister of Defence given the IPC's only had 1x.50cal as I recall from a press release a few years back.

 

[Sea Toby]

Considering the size of the New Zealand army, I doubt whether any government will allow its forces to be used in any first wave of any opposed landing operation, especially in the South Pacific.

Maybe a few SAS personnel will, but not a large chunk of its very small army.

 

[miket]

Noted, no problems. I don't mean to sound difficult but to include such capability the 127m hull platform based on the Fred Olsen ferry (same hull form used for LCS) is still not going to be cheap. In addition there are very real operating limitations on the lightweight aluminium structure used on this type of vessel in respect of seastate (i.e the great southern ocean) and what loads you can apply to the structure. The LCS itself is limtied to ASMD (RAM), 50 cal HMG, a 57mm gun and sensors. The other capability is provided by mission packages which again add to cost.

Being aware of the classification of the Fred Olsen ferry in respect of its operating limitations (it is built under the HSC code) it would appear it is not a vessel that can sustain operations in all conditions and I doubt it is intended for sustained operations in some of the areas that NZ needs to patrol. There are more cost effective solutions to provide similar capability for the money NZ (and Australia for that matter) can afford.

I know I'm showing my age here but I thought they had stopped using aluminium in naval , coastguard vessels because of fire risk I.E Falklands war?

 

[Grand Danois]

I know I'm showing my age here but I thought they had stopped using aluminium in naval , coastguard vessels because of fire risk I.E Falklands war?

Regarding aluminium and the Falklands War. From Hazegray.org.

Section F.7: Aluminum in warship construction
There are many misconceptions and incorrect stories regarding the use of aluminum in warship construction.

One common story is that HMS Sheffield, a destroyer sunk during the 1982 Falkland War, was lost because her alleged aluminum superstructure made her more vulnerable to damage. This story is completely untrue, because Sheffield's superstructure was not aluminum. Like all ships of her class, her hull and superstructure were entirely steel. Aluminum played no role in her loss.

Two Royal Navy warships lost during the Falklands War did have aluminum superstructures, and their loss is incorrectly attributed to this feature. Ardent was hit by seven 500- and 1000-pound bombs, plus at least two more bombs which failed to detonate, and sank some six hours after the attack. Any warship of her size, regardless of aluminum or steel construction, would likely be sunk by this many bombs, so aluminum cannot be blamed here. Antelope, another aluminum-superstructure ship, was struck by two bombs, which lodged in the ship but failed to explode. Later, while one of the bombs was being defused, it exploded, blowing a major hole in the hull and starting a large fire. The fire eventually reached the magazines, causing these to explode. Again, an aluminum superstructure appears to have little connection to the ship's loss, which was caused by the explosion of the bomb and the magazines.

A related story claims the US Navy and Royal Navy abanonded aluminum superstructures, in favor of steel, as a result of the Falklands war. Since aluminum superstructures played little or no role in the Falkands losses, this story is obviously untrue. The Royal Navy's switch to steel appears to be a result of a 1977 fire in the frigate Amazon. In the US Navy, the switch from aluminum to steel superstructures was a result of the 1975 collision between the carrier John F. Kennedy and the cruiser Belknap. The collision caused major fires aboard the cruiser, and her aluminum superstructure essentially melted; she was reduced to a badly burnt hulk. This incident lead to a decision to adopt steel superstructures in the next new warship class, the Arleigh Burke (DDG 51) class destroyers. This decision had been made prior to the Falkands War.

http://www.hazegray.org/faq/smn6.htm#F7

 

[miket]

Regarding aluminium and the Falklands War. From Hazegray.org.

Thanks that was interesting

 

[alexsa]

I know I'm showing my age here but I thought they had stopped using aluminium in naval , coastguard vessels because of fire risk I.E Falklands war?

As already noted by others the 'some' of the ships in question had aluminium superstructures (T21 frigates and Round table LST's as an example). Even US vessels up until the AB Destroyer shared this feature. The hulls in thes cases were mild or high tensile steel. HT steel has its own problems when used in thin stressed sections as it become brittle above certain loads while mild steel retains a more elastic yeild curve.

Aluminium alloys have their own problems to do with permentant deformation and lower laoding tolerance than most steel strucutres of the same scantling. Have alook at your stndard aluminium boat that ahs done a few years and you will normally see cracking in all the stress load points. Not great when you are bashing into a standing swell.

In addition they start to lose considerable strucutural strenght at about 500 degree C meaning in an uncontained fuel fire (with very good combustion about 1800 degree C) the structure breaks down allow fire to spread.

For light wieght high speed vessels aluminium is the material of choice but it is not being used as extensively as before for warship construction for major surface units.

 

[Sea Toby]

Large frigate and destroyer superstructures should be constructed of steel, with smaller warships I don't think it matters whether their superstructures are built of steel or aluminium. Keep in mind the almost 5,000 ton destroyers of the Sheffield class were sunk with steel superstructures.

The British during the Falklands also had difficulties with their damage control equipment and pumps. I don't think they were properly prepared or designed with the appropriate damage control equipment. Consider the two Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates with almuminium superstructures survived an Exocet hit and a mine.

I think its a mistake, and its my opinion, to have engineering officers deprived of command because they are not line officers. The British set so much importance on operations they forgot everyone aboard the ship should have the primary duty of keeping the ship afloat so it can fight another day.

In the American navy all of the officers are engineers first.

 

[ThePuss]

Hi all first post even though i joined many months ago

I was wonder if the canterbury is going to have a Australian style Ships Army Detachment (S.A.D) to operate the landing craft and manage the embarkment of the deploying force or if they navy is planing to do this in house?. A S.A.D is fully intergrated with a ships company and works well for the RAN.

Also do the OPV's have an Air Weapons Magazine (AWM) for its SeaSprog?. Being able to fire mavericks/ drop torps from a embarked Sprog would give the OPVs a very usfull capability.

On a much earlier post it was asked if the ANZACs have a Strike or Tactical VLS. They have the Strike/full length version (Trust me ive been working the system for the last five years Accomodating TacTom in the VLS would very simply however you would need to install a dedicated fire control system for it. Also if you are going down the TacTom road you would really need to install the second launcher that their is space and weight for.

Of note the FFG's only have Tactical lenght VLS (even though it still needs a two meter high deck house to fit). They didnt install the "Stubby" length launcher because that would mean we would have two diffirent length canisters for the same missile. The extra length of the Strike launcher compared to the length of cainster in use is made up by a simple adaptor or extention.

 

[alexsa]

Large frigate and destroyer superstructures should be constructed of steel, with smaller warships I don't think it matters whether their superstructures are built of steel or aluminium. Keep in mind the almost 5,000 ton destroyers of the Sheffield class were sunk with steel superstructures.

The British during the Falklands also had difficulties with their damage control equipment and pumps. I don't think they were properly prepared or designed with the appropriate damage control equipment. Consider the two Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates with almuminium superstructures survived an Exocet hit and a mine.

I think its a mistake, and its my opinion, to have engineering officers deprived of command because they are not line officers. The British set so much importance on operations they forgot everyone aboard the ship should have the primary duty of keeping the ship afloat so it can fight another day.

In the American navy all of the officers are engineers first.

You need to be careful on this one as you appear tob e suggesting the rest of us are less competant.... big call. Part of the reason for the loss of these vessels was serious problems with the design and armament of the class was highlighted by the loss of Sheffield and Coventry. The Falklands War demonstrated the Type 42 design was vulnerable to low level sea skimming missiles and aircraft. many of these deficiencies were addressed after the event.

The Sheffield was sunk because she was hit in the engine room and lost auxilary power as well. It appears the initial impact of the missile immediately crippled the ship's onboard electricity generating systems and fractured the water main, preventing the anti-fire mechanisms from operating effectively. As a result she has no power for fire fighting. They got the fire out an kept the vesel afloat but the decision was made that getting the vessel out of a war zone in poor weather was an unnecessary laiblity ans she was scuttled by the RN on the 10th of May 1982.

The Coventry was hit by 4 bombs on or near the water line and capsized after 15 minutes duet othe extent of the hull damage. Even a 'great engineer' would be lost in such situations. DC is dependent on good training, robust systems and, to a degree, luch

it is also worht notng a numger of other ships took a signifiant number of hits and surived suggesting the DC was up to the game. The attached potted history of HMS Plymoth is a good example:

She sailed with Tide Class Tanker RFA Tidepool and County Class Destroyer HMS Antrim to South Georgia with Royal Marines and SAS aboard. She then provided naval gunfire bombardment during the retaking of the island and it was in her wardroom that Lieutenant Commander Astiz signed the surrender document on March 20th. Plymouth was then assigned to provide cover for the aircraft carriers and amphibious vessels and was the first vessel to enter San Carlos Water. On May 21st she came to the assistance of the bomb damaged Leander Class Frigate Argonaut. Plymouth was attacked herself on June 8th by five Mirage aircraft. Although she managed to destroy two and damage another two, Plymouth was hit by four bombs and numerous shells. One shell hit her flight deck, detonating a depth charge and starting a fire. Another bomb entered her funnel and failed to explode, whilst the other two destroyed her anti-submarine mortar but also failed to explode. Five men were injured in the attack and Plymouth was assisted in putting the fires out by HMS Avenger. She then underwent emergency repairs from the Stena Seaspread before rejoining the fleet. After the surrender of Stanley, Plymouth was the first ship to enter Stanley Harbour. Plymouth left the Falklands with County Class Destroyer Glamorgan on June 21st, and returned to Rosyth on July 14th where she underwent full repairs. She had steamed 34,000 miles, fired over nine hundred 4.5 inch shells and destroyed five enemy aircraft.

http://www.ibiblio.org/maritime/media/index.php?cat=880


Ships will be lost when circumstances militate against them. I take a particualry degree of umbrage at the suggestion that because RN, RAN, RNZN, RCN and other naval officers don't do engineering they are somehow less competent. There are some areas of tactical flexiblity that the USN could learn form such poor cousines, much as we have things we can learn from the USN.

 

[Sea Toby]

Yes, I read in a Navy Today article recently that L421 Canterbury will have a six man army SDA. They will be the go between the army and the navy, be the loadmasters, and can operate the cranes along with naval personnel.

 

[Lucasnz]

I was wonder if the canterbury is going to have a Australian style Ships Army Detachment (S.A.D) to operate the landing craft and manage the embarkment of the deploying force or if they navy is planing to do this in house?. A S.A.D is fully intergrated with a ships company and works well for the RAN.

The MRV will have a 7 man army movements detachment for loading the MRV. The navy will operate the landing craft.

Also do the OPV's have an Air Weapons Magazine (AWM) for its SeaSprog?. Being able to fire mavericks/ drop torps from a embarked Sprog would give the OPVs a very usfull capability.

There is no air weapons magazine fitted to either the MRV or OPV. The OPV has a spot for a 20ft container, which could carry air weapons (in a very exposed position).

 

[Pusser01]

I think its a mistake, and its my opinion, to have engineering officers deprived of command because they are not line officers. The British set so much importance on operations they forgot everyone aboard the ship should have the primary duty of keeping the ship afloat so it can fight another day.

In the American navy all of the officers are engineers first.

I can assure you that in the RAN we take DC very seriously. An engineering officer takes charge of DC from the DCC during all incidents, leaving command to concentrate on fighting the ship. We rarely go for a day, whether at sea or alongside, where we don't have some sort of DC training organised.
Cheers

 

[Norm]

In respect of the MRV I recall reading that it would take along (3 my pick) Army Mistral Teams if required.Apparently room for an ESSM and CIWS but no provision has been made in the current build ,so it would entail a future refit including more crew accomodation to name one aspect.

 

[Lucasnz]

In respect of the MRV I recall reading that it would take along (3 my pick) Army Mistral Teams if required.Apparently room for an ESSM and CIWS but no provision has been made in the current build ,so it would entail a future refit including more crew accomodation to name one aspect.

I've never heard of ESSM. Mistral teams are pretty simple. The only real place for CIWS is in the place of the 25mm.

The weight of the combined radar, electronics, VLS and missiles would require some serious changes to avoid compromising stability. I can't see ESSM ever happening. CIWS is more likley.

 

[Norm]

ESSM is the longer range Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile which the Australian Navy is refitting its Anzacs with currently.Ships refitted carry 32 RIM -162 ESSM rounds versus current 8 Sea Sparrows carried.

Agree re weight when you look at the MRV, its looks (a) Top heavy and (b) a missile Magnet.Given upgrading the NZ ANZACs has been floating around since 1998 and initial work is only starting in this year it is probably years away before any self defence improvements take place!

Re (a)appearances can be deceiving, caught up with a Navy Mate recently who mentioned on the voyage out, the MRV hit a big storm , big sea's etc and came through with flying colours.Serving Navy personnel you speak to are very happy with how the new boats are shaping up.

As a postscript, Endevours days may be numbered as the new International Port standards require a twin hull ,Endevour has a single hull.Cheers.

 

[Lucasnz]

ESSM is the longer range Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile which the Australian Navy is refitting its Anzacs with currently.Ships refitted carry 32 RIM -162 ESSM rounds versus current 8 Sea Sparrows carried.

Agree re weight when you look at the MRV, its looks (a) Top heavy and (b) a missile Magnet.Given upgrading the NZ ANZACs has been floating around since 1998 and initial work is only starting in this year it is probably years away before any self defence improvements take place!

Re (a)appearances can be deceiving, caught up with a Navy Mate recently who mentioned on the voyage out, the MRV hit a big storm , big sea's etc and came through with flying colours.Serving Navy personnel you speak to are very happy with how the new boats are shaping up.

As a postscript, Endevours days may be numbered as the new International Port standards require a twin hull ,Endevour has a single hull.Cheers.

Sorry, should have been clearer. ESSM on the MRV - It'll never happen.