Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[Todjaeger]

I am beginning to think New Zealand has never in the past built ships independently and are going through a natural period of time of learning the ropes, so to speak. It appears from the new completion schedule the IPVs will be commissioned practically on time, whereas the OPVs and the MRV will be commissioned somewhat later.

On top of these items, the computers systems aboard the new Project Protector vessels are twenty years newer than the Endeavour, and ten years newer than the Anzacs frigates.

In conclusion, while these ships are high tech to most nations, they are a challenge for the very small nation and navy of New Zealand. This project is also a challenge in growth numbers, and finding the right number of personnel with the required training to fit out the ship with the right personnel.

As I understand it, the OPVs and the MRV are not in fact being constructed in NZ. The MRV was assembled & launched from Merwede (sp?) and had sufficient work completed that it sailed from Europe to Australia for final fitout. Not being someone in a nautical/maritime industry or navy, I can't state this as fact, but I think it reasonable to assume that if a vessel can voyage halfway around the world under it's own power without difficulties, then it is, at least regarding being a ship or not, completed. Being specifically fitted out for whatever planned role is somewhat different.

From what I understand, the onboard electronics for the MRV & OPV won't be as sophisticated as that used by the Anzac frigates, which is one of the reasons why the Project Protector vessels will cost less that similarly sized warships. Also, I would consider Tenix to have experience fitting out vessels with complex electronic systems, given the work done on the Australian built Adelaide FFG, and the present & ongoing work on the Anzacs.

As WJ said though, manning the vessels once completed may well prove to be something of a challenge though.

-Cheers

 

[Norm]

Word on the steet is that post the Anzac builds, the contractors workforce has reduced naturally as a result of this .Coupled with some of the remaining skilled workers leaving for new opportunities has lead to them struggling to stay on the time lines in Melbourne particularly the fit out of the MRV.

 

[Norm]

Saturdays Wellington paper ,"the Dominion Post", February 10,2007 has an update.The MRV originally scheduled ,for commission in DEC 2006 is now expected to enter service in April/May 07(not yet finalised as there are delays in some equipment,spares etc).Once a delivery date was settled,officials would sit down with the ship builder Tenix to discuss what constituted excusable delays.The Defence Ministry had also caused some of the delays when it required extra stiffening to the bow, after a similar sized Cook Strait Ferry(travel Wellington-Picton South Island and back) suffered damage to its bow in heavy sea's crossing the Cook Strait.

The first OPV, HMNZS Otago, is scheduled for delivery October/Nov 07.The second OPV, HMNZS Wellington, will be launched late 2007.

The IPV's are running a couple of months behind.The first IPV, HMNZS Rotoiti will launch August or September.

Sorry cannot send you a link to the article which I have here in front of me.Tried ,perhaps a more computer savy member can?

 

[Tasman]

Saturdays Wellington paper ,"the Dominion Post", February 10,2007 has an update.The MRV originally scheduled ,for commission in DEC 2006 is now expected to enter service in April/May 07(not yet finalised as there are delays in some equipment,spares etc).Once a delivery date was settled,officials would sit down with the ship builder Tenix to discuss what constituted excusable delays.The Defence Ministry had also caused some of the delays when it required extra stiffening to the bow, after a similar sized Cook Strait Ferry(travel Wellington-Picton South Island and back) suffered damage to its bow in heavy sea's crossing the Cook Strait.

The first OPV, HMNZS Otago, is scheduled for delivery October/Nov 07.The second OPV, HMNZS Wellington, will be launched late 2007.

The IPV's are running a couple of months behind.The first IPV, HMNZS Rotoiti will launch August or September.

Sorry cannot send you a link to the article which I have here in front of me.Tried ,perhaps a more computer savy member can?

I couldn't find the link tio the article you refer to but I did find the following in the The NZ Herald :

Possible delays to ships being investigated
9:43AM Friday December 08, 2006

Defence Minister Phil Goff is seeking information about possible delays to ships being built under the $500 million Project Protector programme.

A spokesman for Mr Goff said he had asked the Defence Ministry to seek an explanation from contractor Tenix Defence over reported delays.

Last month Mr Goff attended the launch of New Zealand's first offshore patrol vessel, HMNZS Otago, in Melbourne.

The vessel remained in Australia for fitting out, trials and crew training and was due to be delivered and commissioned into service with the Royal New Zealand Navy in the second half of next year.

HMNZS Canterbury was launched in the Netherlands where it was built and was due to arrive in New Zealand in the first half of 2007.

However there had been some reports of delays which the Mr Goff's spokesman said needed to be clarified.

Mr Goff told National Radio he hoped there was no delay.

"Obviously we'd like to have the ships sooner rather than later but so far the project has been on time in terms of the construction and launching of those ships. The problem seems to be the final fitout and the training are taking a little longer than was originally anticipated."


Chief of Navy, Rear Admiral David Ledson said certainty was needed because of staffing issues.

"When we get these ships we will have a navy of 13 ships so we need to have the people for 13 ships and as a general rule on any one day 30 per cent of the uniformed people in the navy are under training, 30 per cent are ashore doing jobs and 30 per cent of them are at sea," he told National Radio.

"We know when we get these ships we have to get them to sea not to be able to do that is not really an option."

Under Project Protector the Navy will get seven new ships.

- NZPA

http://subs.nzherald.co.nz/organisation/story.cfm?o_id=439&objectid=10414429

I suspect there is nothing here, though, that we did not already know.

Cheers

 

[Sea Toby]

Yes, the usual last minute requests for the first ship of a class which causes delays for the rest of the ships. In this case, we are discussing three ship classes all at once.

 

[stryker NZ]

I couldn't find the link tio the article you refer to but I did find the following in the The NZ Herald :


http://subs.nzherald.co.nz/organisation/story.cfm?o_id=439&objectid=10414429

I suspect there is nothing here, though, that we did not already know.

Cheers

no but for some strange reason there is a detailed article on how the Australian Wedgetail early warning aircraft is running into trouble. It was a good article and had a huge color picture to, i was just wondering as to why our national paper has a story on the australian military when it hardly does anything on our own.

 

[Gibbo]

no but for some strange reason there is a detailed article on how the Australian Wedgetail early warning aircraft is running into trouble. It was a good article and had a huge color picture to, i was just wondering as to why our national paper has a story on the australian military when it hardly does anything on our own.

The wedgetail story was no doubt an 'official' press release out of Aussie. I certainly haven't seen any press releases on NZDF, Navy or MinDef websites about delays or otherwise to Project Protector - wonder who the Dominion Post source was!?! I guess a few months extra for the vessels won't impact RNZN too significantly.

IMHO the NZ Herald is pretty pathetic when it comes to providing balanced discussion of defence (or many topics for that matter).

But then again if they're bad - TVNZ are complete crettons! Last Friday morning the 'breakfast' show (fronted by a pair who defy description) showed a clip supposedly of an Iranian missile that mis-fired. It was actually a view of a missile perfectly taking out another inbound missile.

The presenters had absolutely no idea of what they were watching and simply presented it as a laughable mis-fire and stated we therefore have nothing to fear from Iran as their missiles can't even fly straight!

Of course what we were actually seeing was the defensive missile oscillating as it perfectly targetted the inbound hostile - which means that the Iranians in fact have some seriously dangerous kit.

But alas, sigh, this sort of nonsense is the closest we get to defence debate in this country. No wonder the NZDF is where it is now!

 

[Tasman]

Whenever I get really depressed about apparent mismanagement of defence procurement in Australia I can always make myself feel better by reading through the NZ thread!

I think Australia also has an under informed media in relation to defence matters but I do think it is an area that the government and the defence department is trying to address. The ADF site has a fairly good (IMO) media section with regular releases, along with a good image gallery. The minister also makes a regular emailed newsletter available on request (via the website).

http://www.defence.gov.au/index.htm

Cheers

 

[stryker NZ]

there was a report on 3 news last night as to why the MRV will be delivered late according to the report one of the ships rudders was damaged in sea trials and cracks have been found in the rear loading ramp. Now to repair the problem tenix said it is sending the ship to an indonesian drydock, i would have thought there was one at the tenix shipyards or at least in Australia.

 

[Sea Toby]

The problem with drydocks is that they are usually busy. Most ships schedule their drydocks months in advance. I would assume if Tenix is using an Indonesian drydock, its probably the closest one available at the earliest time. Fixing the rudder will require a drydock, but the aft lift should be able to be fixed alongside a pier. That is if the TV 3 story is correct.

Any delay shouldn't be long. I believe the RNZN isn't in any hurry to get any of these ships commissioned. A six month delay in the long run isn't the end of the world.

 

[Sea Toby]

From Phil Goff, responding to the Dr. Mapp recent releases:

Media statements released by National Defence spokesman Dr Wayne Mapp over the last three days are factually wrong, says Defence Minister Phil Goff.

"In a statement released on 12 February, Dr Mapp claimed that 'seven new ships are supposed to be delivered in the next two and a half years'. In fact all seven ships are on target to be delivered by the middle of next year, that is within the next eighteen months", Mr Goff said.

"Dr Mapp claims that delays in delivering ships 'are likely to mean an increased dollar tag'. In fact the total cost of the seven new ships which will be commissioned by next year will come within the $500 million budget.

"Sea trials are held for each vessel before delivery to determine what if any defects need to be remedied.

"The expense of any remedial work required prior to ship delivery is met by the manufacturer, under contract, not the purchaser. There will be no additional cost to New Zealand.

"In his statement of February 14, Dr Mapp refers to cracks in the bow door of the Canterbury, as there is no bow door Dr Mapp's claims are clearly wrong, he also refers to an accident involving the vessel. The vessel has not been involved in any accident. A problem relating to the rudder function disclosed in the sea trial is being repaired at the expense of the contractor involved.

"Dr Mapp repeats claims about budget blow outs and New Zealand taxpayers picking up the tab in todays press statement. He is simply repeating what he knows to be untrue and damages his own credibility", Mr Goff said.

 

[Tasman]

"In his statement of February 14, Dr Mapp refers to cracks in the bow door of the Canterbury, as there is no bow door Dr Mapp's claims are clearly wrong, he also refers to an accident involving the vessel. The vessel has not been involved in any accident. A problem relating to the rudder function disclosed in the sea trial is being repaired at the expense of the contractor involved.

I thought the news reports referred to cracks in the rear loading ramp. It sounds like Dr Mapp doesn't know the difference between the bow and stern of a ship or between a door and a ramp which is a bit of a worry for a defence spokesman from any party! I just wish though, that the Defence Minister could have just addressed the issue without seeking to make political capital out of it, but I guess that that would be impossible for any politician!

IMO, the sorts of problems experienced by Cantebury are not unusual in a new vessel which should be a welcome addition to the NZ Defence Force.

Cheers

 

[Sea Toby]

I agree, its not the end of the world that these ships will be commissioned into the fleet up to six months late. However, the government should be more informative about why. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, while the ships are not by any means state of the art, the navy is building three different classes of ships at the same time. Maybe a bit too much for New Zealand's small navy.

How can the people of New Zealand understand defence matters intelligently when the news media print falsehoods as facts? And when the minister of defence fails to answer simple questions without tossing dirt to score political points?

All we want are simple truthful answers to the delay, not misinformed gossip.

 

[Gibbo]

I agree, its not the end of the world that these ships will be commissioned into the fleet up to six months late. However, the government should be more informative about why. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, while the ships are not by any means state of the art, the navy is building three different classes of ships at the same time. Maybe a bit too much for New Zealand's small navy.

Yes agree - having the vessels a little later may in fact be a blessing as there's been concerns quietly expressed within the RNZN that they wont be able to man all new vessels in the short-term. Certainly the Govt could be more open - none of the issues so far appear major ones and can't be pinned on them anyway!

[/QUOTE]
How can the people of New Zealand understand defence matters intelligently when the news media print falsehoods as facts? And when the minister of defence fails to answer simple questions without tossing dirt to score political points?

All we want are simple truthful answers to the delay, not misinformed gossip.[/QUOTE]

Exactly the point I've been making for years! We have an indifferent media and politicians who only show an interest if there's votes or political capital to be gained. Then again many NZer's show an amazing lack of interest in defence matters, however that seems to be slowing changing - especially since the tempo of NZDF operations has stepped considerably in the last decade. It's almost as if finally the NZDF has found it's place, and the public are starting to come round.

 

[Gibbo]

Hadn't seen this - makes interesting reading (follow the link)...

http://www.navy.mil.nz/know-your-navy/official-documents/strat.htm

Shows a Navy trying to rebuild & refocus - and the obviously significant challenges they are facing with the introduction of the Protector fleet. Also has more recent delivery schedules for those 7 vessels.

Makes a vague reference to replacement of HMNZS Endeavour by 2013, but there's not a detailed analysis of any platform capability or upgrade planning.

One thing I get out of it is that it is clear the RNZN won't see a 3rd surface combatants any time soon (if ever!) - no surprises there though! The thing that does astound me though is the lack of urgency around CIWS upgrade for FIAC defence (ie: Phalanx Block1B upgrade) & still no mention of torpedo replacement. Guess it just isn't a vote winner!

 

[Lucasnz]

Hadn't seen this - makes interesting reading (follow the link)...

http://www.navy.mil.nz/know-your-navy/official-documents/strat.htm

Shows a Navy trying to rebuild & refocus - and the obviously significant challenges they are facing with the introduction of the Protector fleet. Also has more recent delivery schedules for those 7 vessels.

Makes a vague reference to replacement of HMNZS Endeavour by 2013, but there's not a detailed analysis of any platform capability or upgrade planning.

One thing I get out of it is that it is clear the RNZN won't see a 3rd surface combatants any time soon (if ever!) - no surprises there though! The thing that does astound me though is the lack of urgency around CIWS upgrade for FIAC defence (ie: Phalanx Block1B upgrade) & still no mention of torpedo replacement. Guess it just isn't a vote winner!

The LTDP gives a better idea of the future naval projects

- Typhoon contract has been signed for the 12.7mm.http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/news.aspx?FolderID=192

-The LTDP highlights the CIWS upgrade as a priority, noting it should begin ASAP at a cost of 20-25million.

-Torpedos are of a concern, stating the need to replace them ASAP, but that the funding will not be available for until 2012-2015.

I'm hoping National will look upon a couple of corvettes with favournfloorl:

 

[Sea Toby]

Yes, the replenishment oiler Endeavour is approaching 20 years in age, and in the next decade will have to be replaced. While it is still to early to see her replacement in the LTDP, it will be within five years. The diving tender will most likely appear soon afterwards. Hopefully, a true minehunter useful as a divng tender will be acquired

Since there are crew restraints, its my opinion to improve capabilities, New Zealand's navy needs to acquire better vessels to replace older ships, if necessarily via multi-role ships.

 

[Gibbo]

Yes, the replenishment oiler Endeavour is approaching 20 years in age, and in the next decade will have to be replaced. While it is still to early to see her replacement in the LTDP, it will be within five years. The diving tender will most likely appear soon afterwards. Hopefully, a true minehunter useful as a divng tender will be acquired.

Since there are crew restraints, its my opinion to improve capabilities, New Zealand's navy needs to acquire better vessels to replace older ships, if necessarily via multi-role ships.

Totally agree with the concept of multi-role types - no small Navy can afford to have too many specialist types - excepting combatants perhaps.

Govt & RNZN need to consider replacing Endeavour with not just an oiler, but a replenishment vessel capable of transporting a dozen or so vehicles & 2-3 choppers, to support deployment rotations and aid type missions that doesn't require the MRV capacity. It also needs a faster vessel!

MCMV designed for suitable dive support is a must in my book.

 

[Tasman]

Totally agree with the concept of multi-role types - no small Navy can afford to have too many specialist types - excepting combatants perhaps.

Govt & RNZN need to consider replacing Endeavour with not just an oiler, but a replenishment vessel capable of transporting a dozen or so vehicles & 2-3 choppers, to support deployment rotations and aid type missions that doesn't require the MRV capacity. It also needs a faster vessel!

MCMV designed for suitable dive support is a must in my book.

Both of your suggestions make a lot of sense Gibbo.

A MCMV can also double as a patrol vessel. The RAN has two of its six MCMVs permanently deployed for patrol work but they would be quickly available for minewarfare if needed.

I guess a multi role replenishment ship would cost more to buy and operate (larger crew for example) than a straight tanker but the benefits would be enormous. A vessel like this could operate without the helos and vehicles most of the time to keep crewing at minimal levels. I also think ships like this should be fitted with defensive weapons, over and above the 0.5" MGs presently carried in this type of vessel by the RNZN, even if they are not mounted in normal peacetime service. The RAN's Success, for example, is fitted to carry 2 x Phalanx CIWS, but they are not mounted when she is not deployed to a hotspot. It would be interesting to look around to see what type of vessel currently being built might meet the requirements you describe.

Cheers

 

[Gibbo]

.........

I guess a multi role replenishment ship would cost more to buy and operate (larger crew for example) than a straight tanker but the benefits would be enormous. A vessel like this could operate without the helos and vehicles most of the time to keep crewing at minimal levels. I also think ships like this should be fitted with defensive weapons, over and above the 0.5" MGs presently carried in this type of vessel by the RNZN, even if they are not mounted in normal peacetime service. The RAN's Success, for example, is fitted to carry 2 x Phalanx CIWS, but they are not mounted when she is not deployed to a hotspot. It would be interesting to look around to see what type of vessel currently being built might meet the requirements you describe.

Cheers

Yes size & cost would be more but it'd be nice to think the Govt would realise the divident of doing so = flexibility! Trouble is it's always more about the money - it dominates NZ Defence policy!

'Fitted for but without' CIWS would be ideal IMHO - even RWs 25mm & 12.75mm would be a useful advance.

Just to clarify with regard to choppers - I suggest ability to transport 2-3 choppers rather than as a full operating platform for them. Ie: single landing spot & full width (beam) hangar. That way during longer deploymenst you can rotate (excuse the pun) choppers between NZ & operations for heavier maintenance etc

Same concept for the vehicles - don't need amphib capability - more thinking ro-ro or lo-lo for dockside operation.