Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[Padman]

Protector Update
The Navy’s new Multi-Role Vessel (pictured right), to be named CANTERBURY, has a vehicle capacity for up to 40 NZLAVs (the Army’s new armoured fighting vehicle) along with an embarked force of up to 250 personnel.

The MRV’s commercial design heritage provides a comfortable and flexible level of accommodation for the embarked force, utilising a series of 12 berth cabins (four sets of bunks three deep) which are located in the superstructure on the same level as the flight deck. The ease of movement for fully equipped troops to or from the flight deck has been emphasised within the design criteria. Movement between decks is provided via two wide stair wells or a large centrally located service elevator.

Separate embarked force messing facilities and recreational areas are provided, including:

a gymnasium,
embarked force administration office,
stores areas,
workshops, and
offices for government agency officials.
The embarked force will also have its own armoury and magazine, located forward on the cargo vehicle deck.

As well as the vehicle lanes (total length 403m), CANTERBURY will be able to embark up to thirty three 20 ft ISO containers, of which eight may contain ammunition. Some of the container points are provided with power sockets to allow connection for Reefer Refrigerated containers. There is also space for up to twenty NATO-standard pallets.

In addition, a separate Hazardous Goods Facility is provided, allowing for 2 x 20ft ISO containers, and dedicated paint and petrol stowages. The Army’s LAVs LOVs and Unimogs run on diesel. Petrol is required for only a limited range of Army equipment (motorcycles, Quads and some generators) and so would be embarked for specific purposes only.

Due to the wide range of cargo that may be present in the Vehicle Deck at any one time extensive firefighting systems are being installed, with smoke and flame monitoring as well a Drencher and Sprinkler systems. Four NH90 Utility Helicopters can be carried in addition to the MRV’s own SH-2G helicopter. All of these aviation spaces are afforded AFFF sprinkler fire protection.


Ship - Shore Transfer System
The new CANTERBURY will have a range of methods for moving cargo and personnel from the ship to shore. ‘Cargo’ will generally be either:

vehicles (i.e. LAVs, LOVs, trucks, earthmoving machinery, or trailers with or without ISO 20 ft containers),
separate ISO containers, or
smaller items.
The various methods for ship/shore movement will be:

load/unload Landing Craft Medium (LCM) via stern ramp,
load/unload LCM via the ship’s 60 tonne capacity cranes, with access through hatches in the flight deck,
load/unload MRV via side and or stern ramp on to a wharf,
load/unload MRV via crane through flightdeck hatches direct to a wharf, or
helicopter under-slung loads.
The ship’s two RHIBs can also be used, for small numbers of personnel.

If the ship can’t get alongside, a key aspect for the MRV operations will be the ability to move vehicles and freight across the hydraulic-controlled stern ramp to the Landing Craft.


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.

[contedicavour]

Great extra capability for NZ' Navy. Still, what a shame a 3rd Anzac couldn't be funded... Any NZ deployment will most probably need some escort from the Australians.

cheers

[Whiskyjack]

Great extra capability for NZ' Navy. Still, what a shame a 3rd Anzac couldn't be funded... Any NZ deployment will most probably need some escort from the Australians.

cheers

Depends where the deployment is, within the South Pacific it will not need a Frigate, out side the SP and it will be a multinational deployment anyway.

Still a third, and dear I say a fourth! would be nice.

Something multifunctional like the Danish design or a scaled back LCS, from 2012-2015.

Dreams are free.

[Sea Toby]

The Irish navy wants their government to purchase a MEKO 200 MRV, a 3,600 ton OPV with a vehicle deck instead of a hangar and helicopter deck. Its about half the size of the Danish MRV.

Other small navies are doing their homework on MRVs too. Norway, Belgium, and Portugal. Frankly, I like the New Zealand MRV the best, it has the best tactical sealift with the most vehicle deck space of any MRV. If the New Zealand MRV had a well dock, it might be considered a small LPD.

Here's a link to the Irish MRV:
http://www.irishmilitaryonline.com/board/showthread.php?t=6905

While the New Zealand MRV can carry 40 LAVIIIs, a typical load would be 16 LAVs, 14 LOVs, 7 Unimogs, 2 ambulances, 2 flat bed trucks, 7 LOV trailers, 2 rough terrain fork lifts, and 4 four wheel drive vehicles, plus 33 containers, and 4 NH-90 helicopters stored below and 1 Seasprite helicopter in its hangar, along with 250 troops. The helicopter deck has two landing zones.

[Padman]

The new OPVs have also got room for extra personnel aboard, mainly from civilian agencies. Could this not enable them to provide some support for spec force ops in the Islands, esp if had a 57mm installed to provide a bit more fire power.

[Padman]

Navy names seven new ships
The names and affiliated home ports of the Navy’s seven new Protector ships were announced by Defence Minister Phil Goff on Friday 31 March.

The Chief of Navy, Rear Admiral David Ledson said that the announcement of the ships’ names was another significant milestone in the delivery of 7 new ships under Project Protector. “The names that have been chosen for the new vessels illustrates not only the Navy heritage but the enduring links between the Navy and New Zealand. These are names that the Navy is very happy with and I’m sure the many ex-sailors who served on the original ships will feel exactly the same” he said.

The Navy’s Protector fleet will comprise of seven ships of three different classes; one Multi Role Vessel (MRV), two Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPV) and four Inshore Patrol Vessels (IPV).

All seven ships will be commissioned into operational service for the Royal New Zealand Navy at staged intervals during 2007 with the Multi Role Vessel scheduled for January and the last Inshore Patrol Vessel in December 2007.

MRV - CANTERBURY, Jan 07 (Christchurch/Canterbury)
OPV(1) - OTAGO, Apr 07 (Dunedin/Otago/Southland)
OPV(2) - WELLINGTON, Oct 07 (Wellington)
IPV(1) - ROTOITI, Jan 07 (Napier/Hawkes Bay)
IPV(2) - HAWEA, May 07 (Greymouth/Wesport/West Coast)
IPV(3) - PUKAKI, Sep 07 (Nelson/Marborough)
IPV(4) - TAUPO, Dec 07 (Whangerei/Northland)



Background on the Names
The Multi Role Vessel and two Offshore Patrol Vessels are named after Leander/ Otago Class frigates in commission in the Royal New Zealand Navy from 1966 until 2005. HMNZS CANTERBURY was the last to be decommissioned, on 31 March 2005, after 33 years operational service.

“The Navy has historically enjoyed a strong relationship with the Canterbury District, and we are pleased to be continuing this into the future with our Multi Role Vessel.” said the Chief of Navy. “We look forward to re-establishing connections with our capital city and further south in Dunedin, where regional visibility of the Navy has at times been limited.”

The Multi Role Vessel brings entirely new capabilities of military sealift and amphibious operations to the Royal New Zealand Navy. It will operate as an element of the Naval Support Force, around New Zealand and in the South East Asian region.

The two Offshore Patrol Vessels are designed as versatile vessels capable of multi-agency operations in support of national security tasks, with a secondary capability to operate in support of miscellaneous maritime operations.

The names chosen for the Inshore Patrol Vessels (IPVs) reflect two classes of earlier RNZN ships of the same names. They represent four of the six LOCH Class Frigates that fought in the Korean War between 1951 and 1953. The names were also used for the LAKE Class Patrol Craft that carried out 'resource protection' patrols around New Zealand in the 1970s and 1980s.
Image of Inshore Patrol Vessel at sea
The current IPVs are to fulfil a similar protection role, conducting EEZ patrols of New Zealand’s maritime borders, and working in a multi-agency environment to achieve government outputs.

The four names maintain a geographical balance – Taupo and Rotoiti being North Island lakes, Hawea and Pukaki being South Island lakes.

(Navy records state that while each Island has a Lake Rotoiti the original ROTOITI was named after the North Island lake.)


Regional Affiliation
Each ship is affiliated with a city and region of New Zealand in continuation of current naval practise. Ships traditionally develop a unique and close relationship with their ‘home port’. The locations of affiliated regions were chosen to ensure geographical balance of the Navy’s fleet throughout New Zealand.

Associations are developed between a ship and charities or organisations within their region. The ship may be issued a ‘Freedom of the City’ Charter which allows the officers and sailors onboard the “right and privilege, without further permission being obtained, of marching at all times with "drums beating, bands playing, colours flying, bayonets fixed and swords drawn.”

[Big-E]

Padman-

Please post links to your articles, they must be copyrighted, plus I want to see the pictures.:)

[Sea Toby]

Yes, the two OPVs have the capability to support 30 Special Forces each, carry their boats, and supply them with a sea container. Very handy indeed.

The OPVs can also be used to resupply offshore bases and island dependencies too. Currently New Zealand uses a frigate for such duties. Without any doubt these OPVs will be able to carry out duties locally which will free up the frigates for more important duties abroad.

[Padman]

Here is the link for the two articles posted www.navy.mil.nz

[Sea Toby]

While New Zealand has the capability to move one company of its army's forces, 250 men is enough to handle disaster relief operations, but overtaking an island country such as Fiji or Tonga or Samoa, this isn't enough men. Its simply not enough men. New Zealand would be looking for Australia to join any military operations in the South Pacific.

So why ask the question? New Zealand isn't powerful enough without the Australians, and neither will mount a military operation without the support of the rest of the Pacific forum nations.

[Whiskyjack]

While New Zealand has the capability to move one company of its army's forces, 250 men is enough to handle disaster relief operations, but overtaking an island country such as Fiji or Tonga or Samoa, this isn't enough men. Its simply not enough men. New Zealand would be looking for Australia to join any military operations in the South Pacific.

So why ask the question? New Zealand isn't powerful enough without the Australians, and neither will mount a military operation without the support of the rest of the Pacific forum nations.

Interesting that NZ does not have enough lift to accomplish any mission in the South Pacific that may fall within the national interest.

As a country 5 x larger in population and many times more wealth than Fiji it is a sad state of affairs.

However I am not convinced that NZ could not seize and hold a port or airport if it made use of the mobility and fire power of the LAV, also the tactical lift for a light infantry company e.g. C-130s.

I have been a bit concerned for a number of years now that NZ does not take into account the South Pacific is an ocean into its defence planning.

two 12000-14000 ton LPDs would be much more applicable to NZ defence/emergency interests in the South Pacific than a air strike force. it is also an important niche contribution to UN/Coalition operations. Cost wise, spread over 5-7 years we are not talking a lot of money in terms of the defence budget.

The MRV is a useful ship, but alone it is not what NZ needs to conduct operations that fall within the national interest in the South Pacific region and wider world.

Fiji, Solomon’s and East Timor (where all of Australia’s sea lift assets are now concentrating). Not to mention Papua New Guinea.

Got to love a benign strategic environment like that!

[Big-E]

Does one fully loaded Wasp LHD have more force projection than the entire NZDF?

[Whiskyjack]

Does one fully loaded Wasp LHD have more force projection than the entire NZDF?

By a factor of 10 would be my best guess.

NZ can project 1 x reinforced infantry company and 4-5 helos.

[Big-E]

By a factor of 10 would be my best guess.

NZ can project 1 x reinforced infantry company and 4-5 helos.

If they acquired the two LPDs as you suggest we would be talking about mutiple times the current capability. Is NZ ready to support such vessels?

[Whiskyjack]

If they acquired the two LPDs as you suggest we would be talking about mutiple times the current capability. Is NZ ready to support such vessels?

Yes they could.

My above answer is based on the constraint of the lift not the force behind it.

It would mean building the army into a mix n match force. Eg a LPD could carry, 1 x Motorised/mech coy 1 x light coy 1 x recon and support forces.

IMHO, the NZDF and Govt need to think about using modern tech and fire power as a force multiplier in the South Pacific and wider world in conjunction with allies.

I am not talking about them arriving to morrow, but building a force and force structure in a 5 - 10 year plan.

What we have done is build a force structure that is primarily suited to UN peace deployments, instead of a force that is structured to regional needs with a secondary UN role.

[Rocco_NZ]

Yes they could.

What we have done is build a force structure that is primarily suited to UN peace deployments, instead of a force that is structured to regional needs with a secondary UN role.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. The only force elements we lack is a serious indirect fire support capability. The line companies are pretty well equipped - certainly better than an opposition they are likley to face in a regional scenario.

One thing I have noted on this (and other) board(s) is that people assume things don't exist becase they haven't seen the ministry tendering for them. The threshold for the ministry handling a purchase is $7M. That's actually a hell of a lot of equipment. A companies worth of STANO/NVG kit runs at around $1.5M for example.

[Whiskyjack]

I wouldn't be so sure about that. The only force elements we lack is a serious indirect fire support capability. The line companies are pretty well equipped - certainly better than an opposition they are likley to face in a regional scenario.

One thing I have noted on this (and other) board(s) is that people assume things don't exist becase they haven't seen the ministry tendering for them. The threshold for the ministry handling a purchase is $7M. That's actually a hell of a lot of equipment. A companies worth of STANO/NVG kit runs at around $1.5M for example.

So how do you see what is essentially a mechanised (I have difficulty as seeing the LAV force as Motorised) force operating in the island environment of the South Pacific and South East Asia?

NZ will have the ability to lift one reinforced company on one ship that may or may not be available due to its commitments patrolling. NZ will have 5 upgraded C-130s that do not have the ability to deploy the ground forces main item of equipment.

My point is not that the NZ army is not well equipped (although I contend it is not equipped or organised for the environment and region that NZ interests are anchored in), but given the security situation in the SP and SEA how does NZ propose to employ the army?

Australia has many commitments overseas at the moment, roughly comparable to ours when size is taken into account. It has 800 soldiers on standby for East Timor, NZ has 30.

Originally in the late 90s NZ was to buy 60 APCs and 24 fire support vehicles to support the two infantry battalions. That turned into 105 25mm armed LAVs that are intergrated into 1 battalion (it was supposed to be both but not enough were bought). When was the last time NZ deployed to an operational environment that required a Mech force? Bosnia in the mid 90s and before that WW2!!! Light infantry on the other hand, Malaysia, Borneo, Vietnam, East Timor, Bouganville, Solomon Islands.

Where is NZ most likely to deploy in the National interest?

[Rocco_NZ]

[COLOR=black]So how do you see what is essentially a mechanised (I have difficulty as seeing the LAV force as Motorised) force operating in the island environment of the South Pacific and South East Asia?

Who said motorised infantry was the only option? 2/1 RNZIR is operating in the same light role it always has. If anything there are more options for deploying forces now than there have been. Don't get hung about capacity to transport individual kit. If you want to look at a likley scenario think about achieving a lodgement somewhere like Honiara or a service protected evacuation in the same place. Nothing in that country requires anything like five dozen armoured vehicles to be brough ashore.

[Whiskyjack]

Who said motorised infantry was the only option? 2/1 RNZIR is operating in the same light role it always has. If anything there are more options for deploying forces now than there have been. Don't get hung about capacity to transport individual kit. If you want to look at a likley scenario think about achieving a lodgement somewhere like Honiara or a service protected evacuation in the same place. Nothing in that country requires anything like five dozen armoured vehicles to be brough ashore.

But that is my point with 2 Battalions one is light and one is mech, so how will NZ ever deploy more than a reinforced company? Also the NZ army will have two doctrines for two different types of force. Or pay to train a force that is not suited to its environment?

As an example why not have two battalions based around the Royal Marines, with the QA providing the armoured lift as needed? That means that NZ can deploy one complete battalion and maintain it for a year, without having to re-role a battalion.

With the disbandment of airstrike where is the extra airlift that is needed? Plan on two 12,000 ton enforcer type LPDs and configure the army around them. Members of the NZ army should expect to be spending time on them as a force projection platform, not as an A to B ferry.

NZ has an opportunity with a 10-15 year plan to organise and equip a force that will be well suited to operations in NZs environment and useful in UN/Multinational forces.

Also most importantly, it is affordable!

As another option the NZ Army could keep the structure it has now and base a 'taskforce' around 1 x Mech, 1 x Light with support and recon elements. But it still needs the lift to go with it.

[Rocco_NZ]

But that is my point with 2 Battalions one is light and one is mech, so how will NZ ever deploy more than a reinforced company? Also the NZ army will have two doctrines for two different types of force. Or pay to train a force that is not suited to its environment?


Deploying a battalion for a short duration isn't a problem. Concievably two could be deployed in an emergency. Don't presume that a battalion sized deploymen has to be made up or forces from the same battalion either.

Doctrine isn't really effected. Tactics may change, but they always do according to various vactors. Nothing I have seen or heard suggest that motorised forces couldn't be employed in the pacific. The main islands in Tonga, for example, are easily trafficable by LAV.

[Aussie Digger]

But that is my point with 2 Battalions one is light and one is mech, so how will NZ ever deploy more than a reinforced company? Also the NZ army will have two doctrines for two different types of force. Or pay to train a force that is not suited to its environment?

As an example why not have two battalions based around the Royal Marines, with the QA providing the armoured lift as needed? That means that NZ can deploy one complete battalion and maintain it for a year, without having to re-role a battalion.

With the disbandment of airstrike where is the extra airlift that is needed? Plan on two 12,000 ton enforcer type LPDs and configure the army around them. Members of the NZ army should expect to be spending time on them as a force projection platform, not as an A to B ferry.

NZ has an opportunity with a 10-15 year plan to organise and equip a force that will be well suited to operations in NZs environment and useful in UN/Multinational forces.

Also most importantly, it is affordable!

As another option the NZ Army could keep the structure it has now and base a 'taskforce' around 1 x Mech, 1 x Light with support and recon elements. But it still needs the lift to go with it.

NZ deployed a battlion group in East Timor for an extended period (greater than 12 months) in 99/00.

Just because 1 unit IS equipped with a motorised/mechanised capability does not mean they cannot "re-role" for light infantry operations.

If an extended deployment came along, the light inf battalion would deploy and the other would begin workups for light inf ops. If a deployment came along that required a motorised force to be deployed, the motorised battalion would go and the other would begin workups on the remaining motorised capability and relieve the other battalion "in-situ" and operate their equipment.

The difference between motorised and light infantry ops is not that great. The motorised capability is used to provide a transport and light firepower capability. The bulk of the "fighting" is still done as a light infantry force. It's not a mechanised situation where the vehicles will assault positions WITH the troops...

[Whiskyjack]

Deploying a battalion for a short duration isn't a problem. Concievably two could be deployed in an emergency. Don't presume that a battalion sized deploymen has to be made up or forces from the same battalion either.

Doctrine isn't really effected. Tactics may change, but they always do according to various vactors. Nothing I have seen or heard suggest that motorised forces couldn't be employed in the pacific. The main islands in Tonga, for example, are easily trafficable by LAV.

I don't think we are talking about the same thing here. Well I would have done something different with the Army organisation, it is a workable organisation. The LAV is a good piece of kit and as mentioned above I would like to see task groups based on the light and mech companies.

With the 10 year plan that has been introduced around manpower and enlistment I think that the Army will have more personnel to work with and reediness levels will increase.

The issue I have is that with the exception of the MRV, how do we deploy the Army? To my mind the MRV is a good vessel and leaps and bounds better than nothing. IMO NZ needs 2 ships capable of deploying 500-600 men across a beach, not in an opposed landing, but across the beach in a hostile situation, and support them for at least two weeks. These ships are also floating hospitals, disaster relief and UN/Coalition support ships.

If NZ had to move a task force of 500-600 men made up of units from both battalions and support units in a hurry to Fiji or East Timor, how would it get them there and support them with no close logistics base?

The MRV gives NZ the ability to deploy an LAV company world wide, but it limits the deployment IMO.

[Whiskyjack]

NZ deployed a battlion group in East Timor for an extended period (greater than 12 months) in 99/00.

Just because 1 unit IS equipped with a motorised/mechanised capability does not mean they cannot "re-role" for light infantry operations.

If an extended deployment came along, the light inf battalion would deploy and the other would begin workups for light inf ops. If a deployment came along that required a motorised force to be deployed, the motorised battalion would go and the other would begin workups on the remaining motorised capability and relieve the other battalion "in-situ" and operate their equipment.

The difference between motorised and light infantry ops is not that great. The motorised capability is used to provide a transport and light firepower capability. The bulk of the "fighting" is still done as a light infantry force. It's not a mechanised situation where the vehicles will assault positions WITH the troops...

I disagree that the LAV structure is motorised, from what I can see of motorised units the dismounted unit is an infantry platoon, e.g. Stryker in the US and Saxon in the UK. The LAV in NZ service is structured a cross between, neither Mech or Motorised. The make up of an LAV platoon is more reminiscent of a Warrior or Bradley platoon.

See my comments above as far as deployment goes. I do not agree with the current org, but I can live with it, if it is used to its full potential.

The lack of recon in all its various forms is an issue as well.

[Aussie Digger]

I don't think we are talking about the same thing here. Well I would have done something different with the Army organisation, it is a workable organisation. The LAV is a good piece of kit and as mentioned above I would like to see task groups based on the light and mech companies.

With the 10 year plan that has been introduced around manpower and enlistment I think that the Army will have more personnel to work with and reediness levels will increase.

The issue I have is that with the exception of the MRV, how do we deploy the Army? To my mind the MRV is a good vessel and leaps and bounds better than nothing. IMO NZ needs 2 ships capable of deploying 500-600 men across a beach, not in an opposed landing, but across the beach in a hostile situation, and support them for at least two weeks. These ships are also floating hospitals, disaster relief and UN/Coalition support ships.

If NZ had to move a task force of 500-600 men made up of units from both battalions and support units in a hurry to Fiji or East Timor, how would it get them there and support them with no close logistics base?

The MRV gives NZ the ability to deploy an LAV company world wide, but it limits the deployment IMO.

Chartered civilian ships and RNZAF B-757 aircraft I'd imagine.

The C-130's and MRV would be used for deploying "small elements" of forces to "seize" or secure a beachhead or airport. Civilian modes of transport and the B-757 would have to make up the remainder of the transport capacity, assuming of course that NZ woud "go it alone" and would not utilise Australia's ever increasing transport capability. Afterall Australia has a very high opinion of NZ forces and are always pleased to operate alongside of them.

Perhaps a high speed craft similar to the lease HMAS Jervis Bay that Australia used in 99 should be looked at for NZ?

Such designs are very affordable, offer great carrying capacity at very high speeds over long ranges and have little manning requirements.The bigger vessels can operate in heavy sea states and carry large numbers of troops in relative comfort, but can also carry significant quantities of vehicles and materiel.

Just one of these to support the MRV would make a HUGE difference. HMAS Jervis Bay deployed the bulk of Australia's forces, equipment and supplies singlehandedly in ET... NZ could probably pick one up for less than $50m too...

[Rocco_NZ]

I don't think we are talking about the same thing here. Well I would have done something different with the Army organisation, it is a workable organisation. The LAV is a good piece of kit and as mentioned above I would like to see task groups based on the light and mech companies.[/COLOR]

You seem to be looking for a barracks with 'infantry task force' painted on its door. You're not going to find one.

What you will find is light infantry companies and motorised infantry companies; foot, light and medium reconaissance squadrons and the necessary support units.

Before adding more ships the first step would be to increase the availability of the existing ones. The MRV will only be funded for 90 sea days.

[Rocco_NZ]

The lack of recon in all its various forms is an issue as well.

Explain please.

[Whiskyjack]

Chartered civilian ships and RNZAF B-757 aircraft I'd imagine.

The C-130's and MRV would be used for deploying "small elements" of forces to "seize" or secure a beachhead or airport. Civilian modes of transport and the B-757 would have to make up the remainder of the transport capacity, assuming of course that NZ woud "go it alone" and would not utilise Australia's ever increasing transport capability. Afterall Australia has a very high opinion of NZ forces and are always pleased to operate alongside of them.

Perhaps a high speed craft similar to the lease HMAS Jervis Bay that Australia used in 99 should be looked at for NZ?

Such designs are very affordable, offer great carrying capacity at very high speeds over long ranges and have little manning requirements.The bigger vessels can operate in heavy sea states and carry large numbers of troops in relative comfort, but can also carry significant quantities of vehicles and materiel.

Just one of these to support the MRV would make a HUGE difference. HMAS Jervis Bay deployed the bulk of Australia's forces, equipment and supplies singlehandedly in ET... NZ could probably pick one up for less than $50m too...

Look I am not disagreeing that NZ could go that way. All I am saying is that in a 10 year plan NZ could afford to structure and equip in such a way that it can carry out independent operations or contribute in conjunction with Australia. A LPD type ship (whatever form it takes) operating with an RAN LPH will allow for options for any taskforce commander. The doctrine and technology is there and it is affordable for NZ. I think that the ability to deploy and sustain a task force from one ship is desirable and well within the national interest.

I also happen to think that NZ which is prone to many natural disasters needs such ships to support disaster relief efforts, both local and international.

[Whiskyjack]

You seem to be looking for a barracks with 'infantry task force' painted on its door. You're not going to find one.

What you will find is light infantry companies and motorised infantry companies; foot, light and medium reconaissance squadrons and the necessary support units.

Before adding more ships the first step would be to increase the availability of the existing ones. The MRV will only be funded for 90 sea days.

I am not looking for that, what I am looking for is a command group that has experiance operating with such a force composition, and I have yet to see that happen. The bricks are there it just needs to be built on a more regular basis. If it does not train together on a more regular basis it will not deploy together as well it it could do.

The MRV is a good ship but IMO it is seen as a A to B transport for the Army. I would like to see the MRV used and experimented with to build a force structure in the future that is deployable and able to be deployed.

[Whiskyjack]

Explain please.

NZ is a well educated nation that has the ability to use technology. I would like to see a recon force that can network the army, navy, air force to make a small force more powerful due to situational awareness. What I see now is a bit to traditional given current technology.

[Rocco_NZ]

I am not looking for that, what I am looking for is a command group that has experiance operating with such a force composition, and I have yet to see that happen. The bricks are there it just needs to be built on a more regular basis. If it does not train together on a more regular basis it will not deploy together as well it it could do.

The MRV is a good ship but IMO it is seen as a A to B transport for the Army. I would like to see the MRV used and experimented with to build a force structure in the future that is deployable and able to be deployed.


Can you support those comments? 1 RNZIR has spent the last couple of years operating both light infantry and motorised infantry together. Where to you think that experience goes?

[Rocco_NZ]

NZ is a well educated nation that has the ability to use technology. I would like to see a recon force that can network the army, navy, air force to make a small force more powerful due to situational awareness. What I see now is a bit to traditional given current technology.

You haven't offered anything to suggest that it can't now.

[Whiskyjack]

Guys for the record, I am looking at how I would like to see the CURRENT NZDF evolve in the next 10 years or so. A direction I would like to see it take that is in keeping with the national interests and budget.

[Lucasnz]

Before adding more ships the first step would be to increase the availability of the existing ones. The MRV will only be funded for 90 sea days.

I'm assuming by that you mean 90 Days of Sealift and the rest on Training etc.

Frankly I'm not convinced about the structure of the army in NZ. Is seem to hung up on maintaining obsolete structures like Corps, when its existing personnel could form a standing regular brigade.

I am not looking for that, what I am looking for is a command group that has experiance operating with such a force composition, and I have yet to see that happen

A three Battalion Group Structure (call them regiments) with a single command element controlling all the companies (say 900 people) within the unit, might be better suitted to NZ. Brigade Level assets could be included.

If NZ is to seriously deploy anywhere in the South Pacific (With more than 30 people on standby (re East Timor) - Really what a joke for a country our size), it needs more sea lift. Something like the Singapore Endurance class that brings its own NGS capability.

[Rocco_NZ]

I'm assuming by that you mean 90 Days of Sealift and the rest on Training etc.


Nope. 90 days sea-time total. It will probably increase in subsequent years, but the first year of operation is only 90 days worth.

[Whiskyjack]

You haven't offered anything to suggest that it can't now.

Mate you haven't offered anything that says it can :)

Where is the tactical UAV? will it be able to operate from a ship, what about a UAV like the Mariner that offers regional surveillance? Can the Army get a feed from an upgrades P3? I have not herd any plans in this direction.

[Rocco_NZ]

Mate you haven't offered anything that says it can :)

Where is the tactical UAV? will it be able to operate from a ship, what about a UAV like the Mariner that offers regional surveillance? Can the Army get a feed from an upgrades P3? I have not herd any plans in this direction.

I didn't suggest the current system needed changing either. With modern digital comms gear you can pretty much transmit anything you like. If you wan't to send a video feed from an Orion to a ground station of some kind it shouldn't be difficult.

[Whiskyjack]

Can you support those comments? 1 RNZIR has spent the last couple of years operating both light infantry and motorised infantry together. Where to you think that experience goes?

I am not aware that it is NZ doctrine to fight such groups, I am hoping that it is in the new report that has yet to be released. Also hoping for recon asstes that will operate as force multipliers.

[Whiskyjack]

I didn't suggest the current system needed changing either. With modern digital comms gear you can pretty much transmit anything you like. If you wan't to send a video feed from an Orion to a ground station of some kind it shouldn't be difficult.

Militay project history is littered with phrases like 'it shouldn't be difficult', not to mention the IT industry.

Until it is reality and used all the time it is not operational.

Once again I am talking where NZ needs to be, not where it is.

I am sure that it will move there.

[Whiskyjack]

Hi Rocco, can I ask where you would like to see the NZ army in 10 years in relation to organisation, equipment and the ability to deploy in the Pacific and wider?

I've got to go now but really enjoying discussion, look forward to some more tomorrow.

[Cootamundra]

Frankly I'm not convinced about the structure of the army in NZ. Is seem to hung up on maintaining obsolete structures like Corps, when its existing personnel could form a standing regular brigade.

A three Battalion Group Structure (call them regiments) with a single command element controlling all the companies (say 900 people) within the unit, might be better suitted to NZ. Brigade Level assets could be included.

If NZ is to seriously deploy anywhere in the South Pacific (With more than 30 people on standby (re East Timor) - Really what a joke for a country our size), it needs more sea lift. Something like the Singapore Endurance class that brings its own NGS capability.

Good point re; maintaining obsolete structures. Certainly the AusArmy is taking to the old structure with a knife. Units still belong to the various brigades and corps but in reality the regs and reserves are being re-structured (and in some cases re-roled) to fit into the BattleGroup concept. You're all aware of this I'm sure, but for my mind the US Marine MEU approach to combined arms warfare certainly makes the most sense for most (small to medium) modern armed forces. Certainly with a little reorganisation and some additional lift the NZArmy would be able to replicate the land forces component of a standard BattleGroup. As Lucas suggests re-form into the 3 battlions plus HQ. And then over the next few years procure more C-130 lift (some of the RAAFs H models will do), modern comms, organic air defence and perhaps a larger LPD type ship with onboard C&C facilities. That would leave you with an Army used to working with combined teams, not focused on the old structure and very capable in terms of the regions probable scenarios.

[Aussie Digger]

Good point re; maintaining obsolete structures. Certainly the AusArmy is taking to the old structure with a knife. Units still belong to the various brigades and corps but in reality the regs and reserves are being re-structured (and in some cases re-roled) to fit into the BattleGroup concept. You're all aware of this I'm sure, but for my mind the US Marine MEU approach to combined arms warfare certainly makes the most sense for most (small to medium) modern armed forces. Certainly with a little reorganisation and some additional lift the NZArmy would be able to replicate the land forces component of a standard BattleGroup. As Lucas suggests re-form into the 3 battlions plus HQ. And then over the next few years procure more C-130 lift (some of the RAAFs H models will do), modern comms, organic air defence and perhaps a larger LPD type ship with onboard C&C facilities. That would leave you with an Army used to working with combined teams, not focused on the old structure and very capable in terms of the regions probable scenarios.

I don't have a HUGE problem with NZ's force structure. For all the hype of Australia's re-org, each battalion will have 3x rifle coy's (no battalion has the full 4 at the moment due to manning issues anyway) a support coy an admin coy and RHQ.

Each Coy will still have 3x rifle platoons, a support section and a Coy HQ. Which is what they've always had. The only real difference will be the additional heavy weapons embedded within the platoons IF that happens. A21 was a "sure thing" too, back in the mid 90's...

NZ will maintain 1x air mobile infantry battalion (with lift capacity provided by NH-90) and 1x motorised battalion, equipped with NZLAV. In effect it will be capable of generating 3-4x battlegroups, depending on whether they are infantry or armour/Cavalry heavy for a particular task.

Australia's Al Muthana taskgroup for example is armour heavy with 2x ASLAV Sqn's deployed, but only 1x infantry company...

The Queens Alexandria Regt will provide lift capacity with NZLAV, just as it used to do with M113, for the light inf btn if necessary, and will probably act as a Cavalry/Armoured Recon force (much like Australia's 2nd Cav Regt) when lift is not required for infantry forces.

As to it's reserve forces, I understand they are particularly undermanned. In that case, I'd recommend "mirroring" the regular structure and only maintain 2x reserve battalions, plus a reserve Cav Regt and artillery and combat support units. These could comprise geographically separated rifle Coy's/Squadrons/Bty's as is done in Australia, but combine under a single Battalion/Regimental command for larger exercises.

If an expansion is needed due to a "serious" threat looming on the horizon each individual rifle company in the reserve units, could be used as a base for expansion. That'd provide an extra 6 inf battalions to NZ's order of battle once achieved, giving them 8 in total, which would be the largest force NZ has deployed since WW2.

It is rare even for a regular infantry battalion, for each company to exercise together much. Company level training makes up the maority of training in Australia and New Zealand armies.

I'm not sure what kind of force you are referring to Whiskeyjack, with your "recon force to tie together" all arms of NZDF. Is there a similar force somewhere you could point out, to illustrate this?

NZ already has capable special forces. I'm sure they do this as part of their operations...

[Whiskyjack]

I don't have a HUGE problem with NZ's force structure. For all the hype of Australia's re-org, each battalion will have 3x rifle coy's (no battalion has the full 4 at the moment due to manning issues anyway) a support coy an admin coy and RHQ.

Each Coy will still have 3x rifle platoons, a support section and a Coy HQ. Which is what they've always had. The only real difference will be the additional heavy weapons embedded within the platoons IF that happens. A21 was a "sure thing" too, back in the mid 90's...

NZ will maintain 1x air mobile infantry battalion (with lift capacity provided by NH-90) and 1x motorised battalion, equipped with NZLAV. In effect it will be capable of generating 3-4x battlegroups, depending on whether they are infantry or armour/Cavalry heavy for a particular task.

Australia's Al Muthana taskgroup for example is armour heavy with 2x ASLAV Sqn's deployed, but only 1x infantry company...

The Queens Alexandria Regt will provide lift capacity with NZLAV, just as it used to do with M113, for the light inf btn if necessary, and will probably act as a Cavalry/Armoured Recon force (much like Australia's 2nd Cav Regt) when lift is not required for infantry forces.

As to it's reserve forces, I understand they are particularly undermanned. In that case, I'd recommend "mirroring" the regular structure and only maintain 2x reserve battalions, plus a reserve Cav Regt and artillery and combat support units. These could comprise geographically separated rifle Coy's/Squadrons/Bty's as is done in Australia, but combine under a single Battalion/Regimental command for larger exercises.

If an expansion is needed due to a "serious" threat looming on the horizon each individual rifle company in the reserve units, could be used as a base for expansion. That'd provide an extra 6 inf battalions to NZ's order of battle once achieved, giving them 8 in total, which would be the largest force NZ has deployed since WW2.

It is rare even for a regular infantry battalion, for each company to exercise together much. Company level training makes up the maority of training in Australia and New Zealand armies.

I'm not sure what kind of force you are referring to Whiskeyjack, with your "recon force to tie together" all arms of NZDF. Is there a similar force somewhere you could point out, to illustrate this?

NZ already has capable special forces. I'm sure they do this as part of their operations...

In regards to the recon element I think I should have used the ISTAR company, similar to the force the British are talking about and integrating it into the Battalion structure, I believe the US also use such a force in their Stryker Brigades.

I guess where I am coming from is not so much the army side, as I said above I would have done things differently (the whole LAV purchase smacks of politics both NZDF and Govt, rather than thought out force structure 105 is to much to equip one battalion and to little to equip two, and no specialist LAVs), but I agree that the basic units and equipment are in place. I think I still prefer a more ‘marine’ style emphasis in training and identity, every person a rifleman/women. But I would still use the existing equipment to base this on.

Over the next ten years I would like the NZDF to look at what it wants to achieve (and needs to be able to achieve in the national interest). For this I think it requires more lift and sustainment, hence my idea for two LPD type ships that can lift and support 500-600 troops. The reason I think this is due to the fact that the Pacific and SEA are full of Islands and NZ cannot afford a strategic aircraft lift. It also needs to be able to deploy faster. It is not expensive, for less than what Australia is paying for 1.5 C-17s ($750m Aus) NZ can have 2 such LPDs.

IMO where the west has been a bit light in the past is the ability to deploy its forces rapidly hence the investment we see in this ability form the UK, France, Australia. Canada and other European countries are also heading in this direction.

Back to NZ army I agree with Lucas that 3 battalions are needed, for the flexibility it brings to operations. NZ needs to be able to rapidly deploy a 2 coy force IMO say 450-500 person.

As for one battalion being air mobile I don’t see the required amount of NH90s available for that NZ would need around 16 to be able to deploy one company lift (4 in maintenance, 3 training, 9 deployed to provide 80%-90% availability)

[Rocco_NZ]

The Queens Alexandria Regt will provide lift capacity with NZLAV, just as it used to do with M113, for the light inf btn if necessary, and will probably act as a Cavalry/Armoured Recon force (much like Australia's 2nd Cav Regt) when lift is not required for infantry forces.

QA Squadron is being developed to provide a third manouvre element (cavalry role). It will become a dedicated medium reconaissance unit - APC duties are long gone.
---------

Question: What plans does Army have for a "3rd manoeuvre group," as
mentioned by Colonel Dave Gawn in Issue 350 of the publication Army News?

Portfolio: Defence

Minister: Hon Phil Goff

Date Lodged:26/04/2006

Answer Text: The transition of the Queen Alexandra’s Mounted Rifles
Squadron into the New Zealand Army’s third combat manoeuvre unit with a
cavalry role is intended in part to maintain the Army’s reconnaissance
capability, and to support the growth of the Army under the Defence
Sustainability Initiative. The transition should be complete by December
2010 as part of a programme to create a Network Enabled Force.

Attachment: None

Date Received:09/05/2006
--------

[Sea Toby]

From the New Zealand Defence Force website, to properly patrol offshore the navy needs 400 days at sea, with the two OPVs providing over 300 days and the MRV providing the rest. One may assume that with the larger size of the MRV and its better seakeeping qualities, the MRV is scheduled to patrol the Ross Sea and Southern Ocean areas during the summer months. During the rest of the year the MRV will be at anchor providing much needed shore based training and will be ready to take on its role quickly as a sealift ship.

However, in an emergency she can return from her patrol duties and revert back to her sealift role quickly, depending how far away she is deployed. Since she has a sustained top speed of 19 knots, in 10 hours she can travel 190 nautical miles, in 100 hours she can travel 1900 nautical miles. A hundred hours is a bit more than 4 days. Even when she is anchored at home, it will take the army more than a day, possibly two to four days, to get prepared for a forward deployment, and more days at sea to reach their destinations. Any quicker large deployments can be made by Hercules transports, and with either of the OPVs, a quicker small deployment of 30 troops each can be made if necessary.

Some of the army's exercises can be done while the ship is anchored, and others can be done at a designated beach nearby in New Zealand or further away in an Australian exercise. For its sealift role, I doubt whether the army would need the ship more than 30 days each year to keep sharp, and that's operating the LCMs. With other ships having a helicopter deck, I doubt whether the Air Force and its NH-90 helicopters or the Navy's SeaSprite helicopters need to operate as much off the MRV except for trials.

And since the New Zealand army isn't prepared to quickly send a large number of troops off, the MRV's capacity of 250 men is more than likely more than enough. If more troops are needed, surely New Zealand can lease another merchant vessel to provide the rest of the sealift.

The whole purpose of buying the MRV is its multi-role capabilites. Like many other small nations New Zealand cannot afford to keep an LPD at anchor the entire year, nor can it afford to keep more vessels at anchor either. The ship must have a function at anchor, at sea on patrol, and at sea for army exercises, and be useful as a sealift ship when called upon.

[Whiskyjack]

QA Squadron is being developed to provide a third manouvre element (cavalry role). It will become a dedicated medium reconaissance unit - APC duties are long gone.
---------

Question: What plans does Army have for a "3rd manoeuvre group," as
mentioned by Colonel Dave Gawn in Issue 350 of the publication Army News?

Portfolio: Defence

Minister: Hon Phil Goff

Date Lodged:26/04/2006

Answer Text: The transition of the Queen Alexandra’s Mounted Rifles
Squadron into the New Zealand Army’s third combat manoeuvre unit with a
cavalry role is intended in part to maintain the Army’s reconnaissance
capability, and to support the growth of the Army under the Defence
Sustainability Initiative. The transition should be complete by December
2010 as part of a programme to create a Network Enabled Force.

Attachment: None

Date Received:09/05/2006
--------

This is VERY good to see. Thanks for the info!

Tried to find it but couldn't. But I did find some interesting stats on established and actual strength, not pretty reading e.g

2 land forces group established 2145 actual 1538, 1 NZIR as part of 2LFG est 633 act 506!

3LFG est 905 act 696 2/1 RNZIR est 621 act 469!

I see why there is a 10 year plan.

[Lucasnz]

This is VERY good to see. Thanks for the info!

Tried to find it but couldn't. But I did find some interesting stats on established and actual strength, not pretty reading e.g

2 land forces group established 2145 actual 1538, 1 NZIR as part of 2LFG est 633 act 506!

3LFG est 905 act 696 2/1 RNZIR est 621 act 469!

I see why there is a 10 year plan.


Do the maths on this so total actual for 2 & 3 LFG is 2234 plus say 200 for NZSAS = 2434. The 2005 Annual report states Army strength is 4438, which means just 55% of the Army is assigned to operational units if I'm not mistaken. If that does'nt say that something is seriously wrong with Army structure I don't know what does.

[Whiskyjack]

Do the maths on this so total actual for 2 & 3 LFG is 2234 plus say 200 for NZSAS = 2434. The 2005 Annual report states Army strength is 4438, which means just 55% of the Army is assigned to operational units if I'm not mistaken. If that does'nt say that something is seriously wrong with Army structure I don't know what does.

I'm not so sure I think that that figure is, give or take a few percent, the same as other armies. Australia is looking at 28,000 to support 10 battalion sized units (1 x tank, 2 x cav, 2 x mech, 3 x inf, 1 x cmdo, & 1 x aviation).

Although having said that the British army has 46-50 battalion sized units for 102,500. Larger force efficiencies?

[Rocco_NZ]

Question: What is the maximum authorised and average strength over the
last 5 years of each army unit in 2 Land Force Group?

Portfolio: Defence

Minister: Hon Phil Goff

Date Lodged:26/04/2006

Answer Text: See attachment.

Attachment: PQ 4323 John Carter.doc

Date Received: 17/05/2006

Established strength
Unit 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
16 Field Regiment 344 314 328 295 301
1 RNZIR 680 720 865 687 633
2 Engineer Regiment 433 415 459 408 382
2 Field Hospital 78 117 91 133 123
Headquarters 2 LFG 40 45 45 42 39
2 Logistics Battalion 365 488 385 515 502
2 Signals Squadron 189 211 231 192 164
2,129 2,309 2,403 2,272 2,145

Average strength
Unit 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
16 Field Regiment 157 177 214 210 214
1 RNZIR 297 436 444 485 506
2 Engineer Regiment 246 265 287 247 264
2 Field Hospital 54 80 70 66 61
Headquarters 2 LFG 29 30 38 31 33
2 Logistics Battalion 242 331 299 302 359
2 Signals Squadron 87 127 143 106 100
1,113 1,445 1,495 1,445 1,538

[Rocco_NZ]

Question: What are the terms of reference of the Army Configuration
Review?

Portfolio: Defence

Minister: Hon Phil Goff

Date Lodged:26/04/2006

Answer Text: The Army Configuration Review (ARC) followed from a specific
recommendation of the Defence Capability and Resourcing Review (DCARR)
that a special study should be undertaken "of the current position of the
Army to establish how it should be configured to best maintain its
operational capability during the next few years as it builds towards the
level required by Government policy".This recommendation was noted by Cabinet when it received the DCARR Final
Report.As with all the other DCARR recommendations, the ARC is being undertaken
as a project within the Defence Sustainability Initiative programme and is
expected to be finalised by the end of 2006.

Attachment: None

Date Received:16/05/2006

[Rocco_NZ]

Question: What is the maximum authorised and average strength over the
last 5 years of each army unit in 3 Land Force Group?

Portfolio: Defence

Minister: Hon Phil Goff

Date Lodged:26/04/2006

Answer Text: See attachment.

Attachment: PQ 4324 John Carter.doc

Date Received: 17/05/2006



Established strength
Unit 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
2/1 RNZIR 788 702 698 705 621
Headquarters 3 LFG 23 25 27 26 26
3 Logistics Battalion 233 275 254 269 199
3 Regional Training Unit 32 32 32 22 0
3 Signals Squadron 64 27 25 63 60
1,139 1,061 1,036 1,085 905


Average strength
Unit 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
2/1 RNZIR 376 297 481 457 469
Headquarters 3 LFG 16 21 22 19 23
3 Logistics Battalion 189 211 205 170 156
3 Regional Training Unit 28 27 27 14 0
3 Signals Squadron 42 14 14 51 49
651 571 750 711 696

[Big-E]

Please stick to navy topics, this is Naval forces mind you. :o

[Whiskyjack]

Please stick to navy topics, this is Naval forces mind you. :o

Yes good point.

Any way I would like to see the option of using the navy to enhance NZs expeditionary role in the South Pacific and South East Asia explored more.

[Aussie Digger]

QA Squadron is being developed to provide a third manouvre element (cavalry role). It will become a dedicated medium reconaissance unit - APC duties are long gone.

Tell that to the 2nd Cav Regt...

Anyhoo's Big-E's right, if a little ahead of himself. :D

Let's re-direct this back to naval topics. There's other threads in which NZ's land forces can be discussed...

[Markus40]

Hi Sea Toby, having read through your report, my conclusion is that NZ is heading in the right direction as far as sealift is concerned and i think 250 army personel is a sufficient number to deploy in any immediate theatre of operations. I believe this will be the future if what we see in Fiji or The Solomons or East Timor is concerned.

I think that NZ should be able to operate with its Naval assets and be able to secure areas in the Pacific should the needs arise, however there are still holes in our capability that still need to be filled. What worries me is that there is no defensive ability from either the MRV or OPVS to defend them selves from attack, either from the sea or air. My suggestion is to arm them with a CIWS each. Also the MRV will need the escort of a frigate (ANZAC) if needed to enter a field of operations. I think to have the ability to operate with the Australians with these assets is a giant leap from where we have been, but i have to add that our Navy is stretched. We are in desperate need of a third ANZAC to relieve the other two from their grueling assignments in the Gulf, and with Exercises with the Australians. If our government can come round to this then we have a Navy that can fullfill all its obligations without over commiting itself. Let me know what you think.






From the New Zealand Defence Force website, to properly patrol offshore the navy needs 400 days at sea, with the two OPVs providing over 300 days and the MRV providing the rest. One may assume that with the larger size of the MRV and its better seakeeping qualities, the MRV is scheduled to patrol the Ross Sea and Southern Ocean areas during the summer months. During the rest of the year the MRV will be at anchor providing much needed shore based training and will be ready to take on its role quickly as a sealift ship.

However, in an emergency she can return from her patrol duties and revert back to her sealift role quickly, depending how far away she is deployed. Since she has a sustained top speed of 19 knots, in 10 hours she can travel 190 nautical miles, in 100 hours she can travel 1900 nautical miles. A hundred hours is a bit more than 4 days. Even when she is anchored at home, it will take the army more than a day, possibly two to four days, to get prepared for a forward deployment, and more days at sea to reach their destinations. Any quicker large deployments can be made by Hercules transports, and with either of the OPVs, a quicker small deployment of 30 troops each can be made if necessary.

Some of the army's exercises can be done while the ship is anchored, and others can be done at a designated beach nearby in New Zealand or further away in an Australian exercise. For its sealift role, I doubt whether the army would need the ship more than 30 days each year to keep sharp, and that's operating the LCMs. With other ships having a helicopter deck, I doubt whether the Air Force and its NH-90 helicopters or the Navy's SeaSprite helicopters need to operate as much off the MRV except for trials.

And since the New Zealand army isn't prepared to quickly send a large number of troops off, the MRV's capacity of 250 men is more than likely more than enough. If more troops are needed, surely New Zealand can lease another merchant vessel to provide the rest of the sealift.

The whole purpose of buying the MRV is its multi-role capabilites. Like many other small nations New Zealand cannot afford to keep an LPD at anchor the entire year, nor can it afford to keep more vessels at anchor either. The ship must have a function at anchor, at sea on patrol, and at sea for army exercises, and be useful as a sealift ship when called upon.

[Padman]

.

I think that NZ should be able to operate with its Naval assets and be able to secure areas in the Pacific should the needs arise, however there are still holes in our capability that still need to be filled. What worries me is that there is no defensive ability from either the MRV or OPVS to defend them selves from attack, either from the sea or air. My suggestion is to arm them with a CIWS each. Also the MRV will need the escort of a frigate (ANZAC) if needed to enter a field of operations. I think to have the ability to operate with the Australians with these assets is a giant leap from where we have been, but i have to add that our Navy is stretched. We are in desperate need of a third ANZAC to relieve the other two from their grueling assignments in the Gulf, and with Exercises with the Australians. If our government can come round to this then we have a Navy that can fullfill all its obligations without over commiting itself. Let me know what you think.

I agree. One of the greatest threats to NZs security is our small Pacific neighbours becoming failed states. This could lead to them becoming bases for terrorism and narco crime. NZ needs the ability to provide support for the legal governments of these nations, be it in a military sense or a civilian sense (eg disaster relief, civilian aid). The MRV certainly provides enough lift to provide an initial military force for operations in the Pacific. It would be great to see a third frigate to provide extra firepower for such ops, and to relieve deployment strain on current ANZACs, the later causing personnel retainment problems for NZ Navy. I would also like to see third OPV and all with 57mm, plus training for use as Pacific deployment asset for SAS platoons.

[Padman]

Would it be possible to fit the MRV with a heavier gun, say 76mm?

[Markus40]

Thank you. Yes a 76mm cannon each would do it, however a CIWS might be better for self defense for incoming missiles as well. These days small countries use motor boats to do their damage and we need our OPVs and MRV to protect themselvs from them. The OPV should definetly have it, as they will assist other units of the Navy protecting assets. The MRV most likely will deploy with an ANZAC so at least there is protection. Still, the MRV being a capital ship needs a defensive weopon system.



Would it be possible to fit the MRV with a heavier gun, say 76mm?

[Padman]

As an alternative to extra and upgunned OPVs, maybe we could consider at lest one of the new Danish flexible support ships, its a frigate, its a command ship, its an amphib support vessel all in one. Armed with 127mm, Harpoons and Enhanced Sea Sparrow. Compatiable with ANZAC systems.

[contedicavour]

As an alternative to extra and upgunned OPVs, maybe we could consider at lest one of the new Danish flexible support ships, its a frigate, its a command ship, its an amphib support vessel all in one. Armed with 127mm, Harpoons and Enhanced Sea Sparrow. Compatiable with ANZAC systems.

Very good idea. At least the NZ Navy wouldn't have to choose between sealift capability and escort capability. :)

cheers

[alexsa]

Thank you. Yes a 76mm cannon each would do it, however a CIWS might be better for self defense for incoming missiles as well. These days small countries use motor boats to do their damage and we need our OPVs and MRV to protect themselvs from them. The OPV should definetly have it, as they will assist other units of the Navy protecting assets. The MRV most likely will deploy with an ANZAC so at least there is protection. Still, the MRV being a capital ship needs a defensive weopon system.

Fitting a 76mm gun to a vessel not originally built to take it is not a simple task. The system has deck penitration and requires a shell room below the mount for the ready use rotary magazine. Given the rate of fire addtional rounds would derfinately be requred to refill the rotary magazine stowage. So you would be looking at a shell handling room, main magazine and some sort of handling system for the ammunition transfer. That before we start looking at fire control. This all costs and imposes quite a bit of top weight.

30mm gun based CIWS like goalkeeper also take up considerable space and require deck pentration and housing below the mount. However the Phalanx 20mm gun system or, better still, Sea RAM don't have such a restriction and are self contained in so far as sensors are concerned.

This would appear to be a more realistic option

[gf0012-aust]

30mm gun based CIWS like goalkeeper also take up considerable space and require deck pentration and housing below the mount. However the Phalanx 20mm gun system or, better still, Sea RAM don't have such a restriction and are self contained in so far as sensors are concerned.

This would appear to be a more realistic option

agree completely. the Phalanx and SeaRAM are non intrusive, and thats one of the reasons why they're (Phalanx) still held as war stock. It means that we can basically retrofit them to any vessel that has suitable free deck level real estate.

They're a self contained unit, so literally only require juice and minimal integration once they're in place.

The yanks set up a couple in bagdhad mounted on some semi trailer flatties. they wired them up to artillery radar and used them for anti-mortar work on some land based CIWS trials.

Goalkeeper requires almost one deck level of lower space for fitment issues.

[Markus40]

Sure, however if they thought about a 76mm to begin
with the engineers may have been able to build this option in the design. Makes me wonder how much thought has gone into this and whether there was discussion on this at all. Every Naval designer and Defense force commitee must realise that to build a Navy vessel you need to protect it and build in the costs for supporting such measures. There has been already some misgivings from the ship builders over the design factor of the MRV so nothing surprises me. I just hope we dont have another Charles Upham.

I have stated in previous postings that i have supported a CIWS like Goal keeper.



Fitting a 76mm gun to a vessel not originally built to take it is not a simple task. The system has deck penitration and requires a shell room below the mount for the ready use rotary magazine. Given the rate of fire addtional rounds would derfinately be requred to refill the rotary magazine stowage. So you would be looking at a shell handling room, main magazine and some sort of handling system for the ammunition transfer. That before we start looking at fire control. This all costs and imposes quite a bit of top weight.

30mm gun based CIWS like goalkeeper also take up considerable space and require deck pentration and housing below the mount. However the Phalanx 20mm gun system or, better still, Sea RAM don't have such a restriction and are self contained in so far as sensors are concerned.

This would appear to be a more realistic option

[Padman]

I thought the OPVs were based on the design used by the Irish Navy, a vessel that is equipped with a 76mm cannon. Why did we not keep this aspect of the vessel? Has the design been changed so much that adding a 76mm could not be done during the current building phase, or has the building progressed too far?

[Aussie Digger]

Fitting a 76mm gun to a vessel not originally built to take it is not a simple task. The system has deck penitration and requires a shell room below the mount for the ready use rotary magazine. Given the rate of fire addtional rounds would derfinately be requred to refill the rotary magazine stowage. So you would be looking at a shell handling room, main magazine and some sort of handling system for the ammunition transfer. That before we start looking at fire control. This all costs and imposes quite a bit of top weight.

30mm gun based CIWS like goalkeeper also take up considerable space and require deck pentration and housing below the mount. However the Phalanx 20mm gun system or, better still, Sea RAM don't have such a restriction and are self contained in so far as sensors are concerned.

This would appear to be a more realistic option

The MRV was initially supposed to be fitted with a 76mm gun. Apparently a design change was initiated when NZDF realised it could afford the in-shore patrol vessels if it switched to a 25mm gun system. Perhaps the design still allows the fitting of such a system if necessary? Sort of like the "fitted for but not with" ideal of the ANZAC???

[Markus40]

Will the IPVs be fitted with a 25mm?

[Markus40]

I was visiting an open day recently on board the Te Kaha and the weopons specialist said that the VLS can be loaded with a tomahawk. Does anyone know about that? If you do can someone shed some more light on this statement. If its true then our Navy does have a long hand at our operations than what i was supposed to believe.

[Rocco_NZ]

I thought the OPVs were based on the design used by the Irish Navy, a vessel that is equipped with a 76mm cannon. Why did we not keep this aspect of the vessel? Has the design been changed so much that adding a 76mm could not be done during the current building phase, or has the building progressed too far?


I've seen the plans. There is enough physical space to put in a 127mm turret if so deisred,and if you ignored the fact the superstructure probably couldn't handle the recoil. Any of the standard 76mm turrets would fit in easily, there is ample space in the two decks below.

[Whiskyjack]

I was visiting an open day recently on board the Te Kaha and the weopons specialist said that the VLS can be loaded with a tomahawk. Does anyone know about that? If you do can someone shed some more light on this statement. If its true then our Navy does have a long hand at our operations than what i was supposed to believe.

There are two types of Mk41 Strike and tactical, to the best of my knowledge the ANZACs are equipped with Tactical, so no Tomahawk. But they can load the SM-2. Need the fire control upgraded though.

[Rocco_NZ]

There are two types of Mk41 Strike and tactical, to the best of my knowledge the ANZACs are equipped with Tactical, so no Tomahawk. But they can load the SM-2. Need the fire control upgraded though.

I had an idea that the purchase of the MK41 was for the full-length version (Strike), that tactical length version not being available at the time.

[Whiskyjack]

I had an idea that the purchase of the MK41 was for the full-length version (Strike), that tactical length version not being available at the time.

Might be, that would add a bit of weight to the superstructure, will have to research it a bit more.

[gf0012-aust]

There is enough physical space to put in a 127mm turret if so deisred,and if you ignored the fact the superstructure probably couldn't handle the recoil.

Recoil from a 127mm shouldn't be a show stopper or an engineering difficulty. In rough terms you're looking at between 15 tonnes and 20 tonnes of recoil.

Thats is easily structurally resolved without impeding core design.

[Rocco_NZ]

Recoil from a 127mm shouldn't be a show stopper or an engineering difficulty. In rough terms you're looking at between 15 tonnes and 20 tonnes of recoil.

Thats is easily structurally resolved without impeding core design.

It's also a big cannon for a patrol boat :D

I'll take your word about the recoil. I don't know how crewing or fire control would fit in to the mix. One things for sure, 20 tonnes of recoil seems like a hell of a lot compared to my .308!

[gf0012-aust]

It's also a big cannon for a patrol boat :D

I'll take your word about the recoil.

as an example, and a very broad parallel,. The TDS-120 SP mortar puts out 15 tonnes of recoil, the M-777 155mm puts out 27 tonnes. One of the other posters (artyengineer) can give more accurate numbers on the 777.

thats also "felt recoil" only, so I'm not including the other two types of recoil that are also generated.

[alexsa]

Space is one issue. Weight is another. The mount and assocaited supporting structure for the gun and feed system, not to mention recoil and the fire control system (including operator stations) will impose quite a bit of weight on the design set quite high up. This will need to be compensated for and may restrict your operations depending on the load out.

It would not appear to be a 'cheap' fit and spedning the money fitting a decent CIWS (say Sea RAM) would appear to be better option. I wouel appear reasonable to assume that the vessel would be escorted by an ANZAC should it be in a situation where such fire power was required.

[Lucasnz]

It would not appear to be a 'cheap' fit and spedning the money fitting a decent CIWS (say Sea RAM) would appear to be better option. I wouel appear reasonable to assume that the vessel would be escorted by an ANZAC should it be in a situation where such fire power was required.

A 76mm would provide for an limited NGS capability on the MRV and air defence, using the existing optical fire control. There's no way you would fit a 127mm, without serious space issues below deck. On the MRV once you fitted a 76mm there are very few spaces left for a CIWS that would provide a suitable firing arc. Acquiring the naval version of Mistral seems to offer a low level of air defence suitable for the South Pacific, that is compatible with the army (one of the reasons the 25mm was fitted). Dito for the OPV.

Operating in a medium intensity environment is going to require an escort, but then thats the same for any LPD or like.

[Whiskyjack]

A 76mm would provide for an limited NGS capability on the MRV and air defence, using the existing optical fire control. There's no way you would fit a 127mm, without serious space issues below deck. On the MRV once you fitted a 76mm there are very few spaces left for a CIWS that would provide a suitable firing arc. Acquiring the naval version of Mistral seems to offer a low level of air defence suitable for the South Pacific, that is compatible with the army (one of the reasons the 25mm was fitted). Dito for the OPV.

Operating in a medium intensity environment is going to require an escort, but then thats the same for any LPD or like.

I don't want to belabour the point but something like the NLOS-LS might be a consideration. Better range and precision strike to avoid collateral damage. Also a system that is iner-operable with the army.

Something to consider anyway.

[Rocco_NZ]

I don't want to belabour the point but something like the NLOS-LS might be a consideration. Better range and precision strike to avoid collateral damage. Also a system that is iner-operable with the army.

Something to consider anyway.

True. I only see the OPV being armed with something more substantial as providing anothe training platform. Frigates are scarce assets and FO parties don't have enough platforms to train with as it is.

[Whiskyjack]

True. I only see the OPV being armed with something more substantial as providing anothe training platform. Frigates are scarce assets and FO parties don't have enough platforms to train with as it is.

I guess the problem is this, if for some reason you have to fire on a trawler, because they decide not to stop, after the warning shots, do you put a 76mm into the bridge or a single/burst 25mm?

I have no doubt that they will both do the job but one is a bit overkill I think.

Some sort of joint FO training with the Aussies?

[Rocco_NZ]

I guess the problem is this, if for some reason you have to fire on a trawler, because they decide not to stop, after the warning shots, do you put a 76mm into the bridge or a single/burst 25mm?

I have no doubt that they will both do the job but one is a bit overkill I think.

Some sort of joint FO training with the Aussies?

25mm is a substantial round itself. 76mm would make a decent hole, but remember that presumably the .50 cal systems would be retained as well.

The Australians are probably in the same position regarding FO training we are in. I don't we can reasonably expect them to train us on both naval gunfire observing and close air support! To a certain extent the skills for calling fire from a land-based battery and a ship are similar. Plotting the fire mission is a different story all together.

[Whiskyjack]

25mm is a substantial round itself. 76mm would make a decent hole, but remember that presumably the .50 cal systems would be retained as well.

The Australians are probably in the same position regarding FO training we are in. I don't we can reasonably expect them to train us on both naval gunfire observing and close air support! To a certain extent the skills for calling fire from a land-based battery and a ship are similar. Plotting the fire mission is a different story all together.

I wonder then, if Aus and NZ were to equip a barge with a 5inch and have a combined School funded by both countries, combine land and air as well and cover all areas.

Not overly convinced myself, but it could be an idea to be explored. would help interoperability.

[gf0012-aust]

I guess the problem is this, if for some reason you have to fire on a trawler, because they decide not to stop, after the warning shots, do you put a 76mm into the bridge or a single/burst 25mm?

What are the Kiwi SOPs re this?

normally it's a progressive order of bangs:

single shot forward of bow
.50cal/20mm burst shot forward of bow
stern or engine block shot
wheelhouse

[alexsa]

A 76mm would provide for an limited NGS capability on the MRV and air defence, using the existing optical fire control. There's no way you would fit a 127mm, without serious space issues below deck. On the MRV once you fitted a 76mm there are very few spaces left for a CIWS that would provide a suitable firing arc. Acquiring the naval version of Mistral seems to offer a low level of air defence suitable for the South Pacific, that is compatible with the army (one of the reasons the 25mm was fitted). Dito for the OPV.

Operating in a medium intensity environment is going to require an escort, but then thats the same for any LPD or like.

Why would you fit an 76mm with an optical sight with all the operational and weight penalaties at the exclusion of something like SeaRAM and give the vessel a credible ASMD? The 25mm is enough for stoping FFV's.

[Whiskyjack]

I guess the issue is what sort of threat environments are the RNZN going to be operating the OPVs in? With the exception of the French and Australians they are more heavily armed than any other ship in the South Pacific and are mainly for resource protection, SAR and showinh the flag.

[Lucasnz]

I guess the issue is what sort of threat environments are the RNZN going to be operating the OPVs in? With the exception of the French and Australians they are more heavily armed than any other ship in the South Pacific and are mainly for resource protection, SAR and showinh the flag

I see the need for NZ to be able to conduct low level military operations in the South Pacific. Operational experience such like Bouginville saw a need for a show the gun and the flag in the early stages. As a result Canterbury, with an NGS capability was deployed in support of the army. The same can also be said of East Timor - Show the gun with the flag. I concede the early operations in East Timor are considered medium level ops.

Why would you fit an 76mm with an optical sight with all the operational and weight penalaties at the exclusion of something like SeaRAM and give the vessel a credible ASMD? The 25mm is enough for stoping FFV's.

I'm looking beyond just chasing FFV's. With only two ANZAC's the navy cannot guarantee an NGS capability for operations in the South Pacific. Sea RAM would be nice, but its limited to Air Defence and a limited surface warfare role - which Mistral can do.

I need to look into NLOS-LS as a viable alternative for the 76mm .

[Whiskyjack]

I see the need for NZ to be able to conduct low level military operations in the South Pacific. Operational experience such like Bouginville saw a need for a show the gun and the flag in the early stages. As a result Canterbury, with an NGS capability was deployed in support of the army. The same can also be said of East Timor - Show the gun with the flag. I concede the early operations in East Timor are considered medium level ops.



I don't disagree. The only issue is that the OPV design NZ has is not for want of a better word 'military' it is military operated coast gaurd ship IMO.

Something like a LCS would be more appropriate for military duties, but that comes at a cost.

[Lucasnz]

I don't disagree. The only issue is that the OPV design NZ has is not for want of a better word 'military' it is military operated coast gaurd ship IMO.

Something like a LCS would be more appropriate for military duties, but that comes at a cost.


Agreed, but most nations are no longer building low level op ships to full mil-spec. Areas like the magazines are still at milspec but the rest is to civilian standard. The French Floreal, Danish SF3000 and SF3500 are examples.

[alexsa]

I don't disagree. The only issue is that the OPV design NZ has is not for want of a better word 'military' it is military operated coast gaurd ship IMO.

Something like a LCS would be more appropriate for military duties, but that comes at a cost.

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.

[Whiskyjack]

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.

Probably more accurate to say the Austal design Trimaran, with armament to suit local conditions. Patrol, amphibious, capable of ASW and ASuW upgrades etc..

Small crew low costs.

Sorry I should have expanded.

[alexsa]

Probably more accurate to say the Austal design Trimaran, with armament to suit local conditions. Patrol, amphibious, capable of ASW and ASuW upgrades etc..

Small crew low costs.

Sorry I should have expanded.

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.

[Sea Toby]

I don't think New Zealand would commit to any military operations in the South Pacific without any military support from Australia, nor without the support of the South Pacific Forum nations either. However I do see a humanitarian mission undertaken alone by New Zealand, if and when the Australians are overstretched in other military or humanitarian missions elsewhere. New Zealand forces are very capable of doing this very low threat level of operations.

While I would prefer to have a 57-mm or 75-mm gun on both the MRV and OPVs, and the 25-mm gun on the IPVs, having the 25-mm gun on the larger ships and small arms on the IPVs is adequate for patrol missions these ships were designed and equipped for. New Zealand needs new IPVs as much as they needed the MRV and OPVs, therefore I accept and understand the compromise of the smaller arms. The currrent partol boats New Zealand has are inadequate and need to be replaced ASAP, the new IPVs can do every job the old patrol boats could do and are better ships for other missions.

The new Project Protector ships are needed, and their potential missions have been well thought out by the government agencies involved. Nevertheless, New Zealand still needs at least a third frigate in my opinion for forward deployments, the two don't provide sustainability past six months. Since New Zealand missed the opportunity to build the third frigate of the same class, it would be best to commission two frigates of a newer class at the mid-life point of the Anzac class frigates, bring the total to four frigates. Doing so will stretch out the acquisition costs allowing for sustainability and most importantly avoid block obsolescence.

New Zealand should be able to afford a new small replenishment ship, a hydrographic ship, and a diving tender when the former ships wear out, these ships are cheap compared to frigates. Since the MRV will most likely see only 100 days at sea annually, its life should and could last over 40 years, whereas the OPVs and IPVs will wear out before 30 years.

I know a few Kiwis who think the frigates should be replaced by OPVs, which are not in my opinion warships, nor can they ever be. They were not designed to military standards, therefore won't last in a war. I would prefer to build another two frigates than upgrade the OPVs with SAMs or SSMs. The whole purpose of acquiring the OPVs is to free up the frigates for forward deployments. While the OPV can replace a frigate in a show the flag visit, they are not designed for combat.

[Whiskyjack]

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.

Fair enough, thanks for the insight.

[Rocco_NZ]

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.

As far as I can tell most of this comes from the 1987 report on frigate options that stated 76mm was the minimum caliber practical for NGS. Technology has moved on from then and smaller calibers can still achieve a lot. Air-burst 57mm is still not going to be a pleasant experience for anyone on the recieving end, much like a 60mm mortar round is still lethal if it explodes close enough. There are issues about range and penetration that only a larger round can achieve, but that isn't to say 57mm is too small to be useful.

As an aside the RAN felt the need to increase the magazine capacity on the ANZACs. The ANZACs were originally designed for a 76mm gun and the magazine size reflects this.

[contedicavour]

As far as I can tell most of this comes from the 1987 report on frigate options that stated 76mm was the minimum caliber practical for NGS. Technology has moved on from then and smaller calibers can still achieve a lot. Air-burst 57mm is still not going to be a pleasant experience for anyone on the recieving end, much like a 60mm mortar round is still lethal if it explodes close enough. There are issues about range and penetration that only a larger round can achieve, but that isn't to say 57mm is too small to be useful.

As an aside the RAN felt the need to increase the magazine capacity on the ANZACs. The ANZACs were originally designed for a 76mm gun and the magazine size reflects this.

Has Bofors prepared any guided ammunition for their 57mm ? If it hasn't, the 76mm of Oto Melara/Finmeccanica is unbeatable with its new guided ammunition vulcano/strales programme. We're talking about shooting a guided ammo to 35km range... with the ability to correct the trajectory until the very last moment. This could be useful against fast moving boats or onshore targets... and much cheaper than using missiles.

cheers

[Sea Toby]

Yes, Bofors has developed a longer range 57-mm round. The new Visby class guided missile patrol combatant has the SAk 57 Mk3 57-mm single-barrel automatic gunmount. The mount holds 120 rounds onboard, wth 40 ready to fire and uses casettes to reduce reload time to 8 seconds. The 3P Prefragmented, Programmable, Proximity-fused round weights 2.4 kg, wit 2,400 tungsten pellets and .46 kg Octol explosive as payload. The HCER-BB High Capacity Extended Range Base Bleed round, has a range of 21 km and muzzle velocity of 950 m/sec The older shells for the SAK Mk 2 and Mk 1 gunmounts have a range of 14 km. Source Combat Fleets of the World.

You'll also notice that the Americans are developing a larger range 127-mm shell too.

[NZLAV]

MRV and Landing Craft
The Navy’s new Multi-Role Vessel =to be named CANTERBURY, has a vehicle capacity for up to 40 NZLAVs (the Army’s new armoured fighting vehicle) along with an embarked force of up to 250 personnel.

The MRV’s commercial design heritage provides a comfortable and flexible level of accommodation for the embarked force, utilising a series of 12 berth cabins (four sets of bunks three deep) which are located in the superstructure on the same level as the flight deck. The ease of movement for fully equipped troops to or from the flight deck has been emphasised within the design criteria. Movement between decks is provided via two wide stair wells or a large centrally located service elevator.

Separate embarked force messing facilities and recreational areas are provided, including:

a gymnasium,

embarked force administration office,

stores areas,

workshops, and

offices for government agency officials.

The embarked force will also have its own armoury and magazine, located forward on the cargo vehicle deck.

As well as the vehicle lanes (total length 403m), CANTERBURY will be able to embark up to thirty three 20 ft ISO containers, of which eight may contain ammunition. Some of the container points are provided with power sockets to allow connection for Reefer Refrigerated containers. There is also space for up to twenty NATO-standard pallets.

In addition, a separate Hazardous Goods Facility is provided, allowing for 2 x 20ft ISO containers, and dedicated paint and petrol stowages. The Army’s LAVs LOVs and Unimogs run on diesel. Petrol is required for only a limited range of Army equipment (motorcycles, Quads and some generators) and so would be embarked for specific purposes only.

Due to the wide range of cargo that may be present in the Vehicle Deck at any one time extensive firefighting systems are being installed, with smoke and flame monitoring as well a Drencher and Sprinkler systems. Four NH90 Utility Helicopters can be carried in addition to the MRV’s own SH-2G helicopter. All of these aviation spaces are afforded AFFF sprinkler fire protection.


Two LCM's back to back on the water
Ship - Shore Transfer System
The new CANTERBURY will have a range of methods for moving cargo and personnel from the ship to shore. ‘Cargo’ will generally be either:

vehicles (i.e. LAVs, LOVs, trucks, earthmoving machinery, or trailers with or without ISO 20 ft containers),
separate ISO containers, or
smaller items.
The various methods for ship/shore movement will be:

load/unload Landing Craft Medium (LCM) via stern ramp,
load/unload LCM via the ship’s 60 tonne capacity cranes, with access through hatches in the flight deck,
load/unload MRV via side and or stern ramp on to a wharf,
load/unload MRV via crane through flightdeck hatches direct to a wharf, or
helicopter under-slung loads.
The ship’s two RHIBs can also be used, for small numbers of personnel.

If the ship can’t get alongside, a key aspect for the MRV operations will be the ability to move vehicles and freight across the hydraulic-controlled stern ramp to the Landing Craft.
Side-on view of LCM
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.

The names and affiliated home ports of the Navy’s seven new Protector ships were announced by Defence Minister Phil Goff on Friday 31 March.

The Chief of Navy, Rear Admiral David Ledson said that the announcement of the ships’ names was another significant milestone in the delivery of 7 new ships under Project Protector. “The names that have been chosen for the new vessels illustrates not only the Navy heritage but the enduring links between the Navy and New Zealand. These are names that the Navy is very happy with and I’m sure the many ex-sailors who served on the original ships will feel exactly the same” he said.

The Navy’s Protector fleet will comprise of seven ships of three different classes; one Multi Role Vessel (MRV), two Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPV) and four Inshore Patrol Vessels (IPV).

All seven ships will be commissioned into operational service for the Royal New Zealand Navy at staged intervals during 2007 with the Multi Role Vessel scheduled for January and the last Inshore Patrol Vessel in December 2007.

MRV - CANTERBURY, Jan 07 (Christchurch/Canterbury)
OPV(1) - OTAGO, Apr 07 (Dunedin/Otago/Southland)
OPV(2) - WELLINGTON, Oct 07 (Wellington)
IPV(1) - ROTOITI, Jan 07 (Napier/Hawkes Bay)
IPV(2) - HAWEA, May 07 (Greymouth/Wesport/West Coast)
IPV(3) - PUKAKI, Sep 07 (Nelson/Marborough)
IPV(4) - TAUPO, Dec 07 (Whangerei/Northland)

Sorce: www.navy.mil.nz

[Sea Toby]

I read that the MRV, L 421 Canterbury, should be fitted out by Merwede by the end of June, with sea trials scheduled for the month of July. She should be on her way to Tenix by the end of July. It won't be long before we hear how sea worthy she is!

[NZLAV]

Yea that will be great. I think it will be a great asset because the NZDF can now ship around their 105 LAV's.

[Aussie Digger]

I read that the MRV, L 421 Canterbury, should be fitted out by Merwede by the end of June, with sea trials scheduled for the month of July. She should be on her way to Tenix by the end of July. It won't be long before we hear how sea worthy she is!

Does anyone know if RNZN personnel will sail HMNZS Cantebury from the Netherlands to Australia for final fitouts?

It'd be a fairly important training opportunity to miss out on if they didn't...

[Sea Toby]

I can't imagine civilians will be sailing her to Melbourne. I suspect a skeleton crew will sail her to Australia, she has been fitting out alongside Merwede now for 4 months. Surely her bridge and navigational equipment have been installed, along with her accomodations and galley. She is also supposed to do sea trails before sailing.

I have read her final fitting out in Melbourne will consist of the weapons and fire control systems, military communications, and intercept equipment which should take a few months to accomplish. If she reaches Tenix by early September, there is no reason why she shouldn't be ready for more trials in December with delivery in January. While she is getting good systems, they aren't what I consider stretching the outside of an envelope. All of the other Project Protector ships are getting the same electronics as the MRV.

I would love to download the webcam picture of her sailing through the Suez Canal. But I will need to know the approximate time and day to do so. Hopefully the New Zealand press will accomodate and publish a picture of her going through Suez.

[Pusser01]

How does the MRV compare to the ex-Charles Upham if she had udergone her full conversion? I realise the MRV has a far superior patrol capability. What I would like to know is in terms of capacity ie lane metres, troops & helos carried etc.
Cheers