New Zealand awards contract for $500 Million Dollar Project "Protector".

[Aussie Digger]

well according to this man a 25mm cannon can take down a missile...so it can not be rubbish

This man cannot know much about this weapon system as yet. The 1st operational 25mm Typhoon cannon fitted in the world (AFAIK) has been fitted to the first Australian Armidale Class patrol boat which is currently undergoing sea trials. NZ's first ship to be equipped with this weapon system has only just begun to have it's first metal cut.

What he probably meant was, "if this weapon system actually hit an ASM it could destroy it". The chances of it ACTUALLY hitting the ASM are negligible. It as stated earlier, is NOT a close in weapon system due to it's slow firing rate and lack of radar guidance...

It is rather a small calibre cheap weapon system designed for use as a secondary armament on larger ships and primary armament on small vessels NOT designed as primary surface combatants...

 

[Supe]

Just a heads up. The gun system the Kiwis bought is not the Typhoon. It's an MSI DS25M

I amended a previous post to include info on the gun system selected for Project Protector. click

Edit: Fixed link

 

[Aussie Digger]

Supe, it's the MSDI mount with the 25mm Bushmaster gun and Rafael "top-flight" Electro-optical/IR director system. "Typhoon" is the marketing name given to this system by Tenix. Cheers,

 

[Supe]

Typhoon is a Rafael marketing name for their gun system. I read your post on MSI supplying the gun systems for new ships and I don't see any reference to Rafael Toplite Electro-optical/IR director system....

I checked Rafael's corporate site and while it makes mention of RAN Typhoon gun system, it says nothing about a Kiwi buy. Perhaps MSI's solution also includes an Electro-optical/IR director system?

http://www.rafael.co.il/web/rafnew/news.htm

 

[Aussie Digger]

Typhoon is a Rafael marketing name for their gun system. I read your post on MSI supplying the gun systems for new ships and I don't see any reference to Rafael Toplite Electro-optical/IR director system....

I checked Rafael's corporate site and while it makes mention of RAN Typhoon gun system, it says nothing about a Kiwi buy. Perhaps MSI's solution also includes an Electro-optical/IR director system?

http://www.rafael.co.il/web/rafnew/news.htm

Yes you appear to be correct. I was under the impression that the Typhoon mount was based on the MSI mount being used for the NZ ships. They are both using the same gun so I presumed the rest was the same. My bad...

Now we'll have to start a thread arguing which is best, MSI's mount and 25mm Bushmaster gun or 25mm Typhoon? That'll please the mods... :

Being Australian of course, the Typhoon is quite obviously superior... An integral EO/IR director and complete autonomous control wins hands down over the Kiwi's crappy MSI mount and apparently "unguided" weapon...

 

[nz enthusiast]

What the NZ navy site had to say:

"Project Protector: Protecting New Zealand's interests at sea and across the region.

http://%5Bimg%5Dhttp://www.navy.mil.nz/nr/rdonlyres/8292d6f8-1175-47bc-b140-6b71e187dd42/0/protectorfleet.jpg%5B/img%5Dhttp://www.navy.mil.nz/nr/rdonlyres/8292d6f8-1175-47bc-b140-6b71e187dd42/0/protectorfleet.jpg
In April 2004 the Australian firm Tenix Defence Pty Ltd was chosen as the prime contractor for the Project Protector patrol vessels and multi-role vessel for the RNZN. On Thursday 29 July 2004 the Minister of Defence signed the contract with Tenix; they began the final detailed design phase for the new ships, before the first steel was cut early in 2005.

Project Protector fleet requirements were outlined in the 2002 Maritime Forces Review, conducted by Defence in close cooperation with MFAT, the Ministry of Fisheries, Customs, Treasury, the Maritime Safety Authority, and Police among others. In mid-2004 a study was undertaken in conjunction with the Civilian Agencies to decide the number of vessels and fleet mix necessary.

The Project Protector vessels' capabilities include sealift, coastal and offshore patrol, and at-sea training for the RNZN. New Zealand's approach to the Protector ships, that they are designed, built and maintained to commercial standards, is consistent with other contemporary navies.

The Multi Role Vessel (MRV)

http://www.navy.mil.nz/nr/rdonlyres/2d7ea7b1-a68d-4ca1-81ed-e28013d7f335/0/mrvbowon.jpg

The MRV is contracted-out to Merwede Shipyard in the Netherlands, but will be sailed to NZ or Australia for final fit-out. The MRV should be delivered to the RNZN in late 2006.
Tenix's MRV as a design based on a commercial Ro-Ro ship, BEN-MY-CHREE in operation in the Irish Sea. Tenix's existing facilities could handle building the ship, but the Dutch yard offered the best use of the facilities available in order to get the ship to the RNZN as soon as possible.

The MRV will have diesel-electric propulsion and a max speed of 19 knots. The MRV is intended to provide a sealift capability for the transport and deployment of equipment, vehicles and personnel, and to be capable of transferring cargo and personnel ashore when port facilities are not available.

Displacement: 8000 tonnes
Length overall: 131 metres
Beam: 23.4 metres
Speed: 19 knots


Complement: Core ship's company: 53
Flight personnel: 10
Government agencies: 4
Army ship's staff: 7
Trainees: 35
Troops: 250
Total: 360


Propulsion: Diesel engines

Flight deck: Space for two helicopters

Helo

The NH90 helicopter has been selected to replace the RNZAF's Iroquois utility helicopters. It will be able to operate from the MRV carrying Army equipment from the ship to shore.

Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPV)

http://www.navy.mil.nz/nr/rdonlyres/618bbe30-c18d-4015-a0db-ee7ad4fddefb/0/opvicyisland.jpg

Two ships are required to conduct maritime surveillance, in conjunction with maritime air patrol assets to the limit of New Zealand's EEZ, in the South Pacific and in the Southern Ocean for a total of about 420 days annually. Tasks in the southern half of the EEZ are mostly offshore, but activity in the south almost doubles during winter, coinciding with the worst sea states.

The Tenix Offshore Patrol Vessels are based on a design already in service with the Irish Navy. They will be built in Melbourne with modules made in Whangarei, where modules were also built for the 10-ship Anzac frigate project.

Displacement: 1600 tonnes
Length overall: 85 metres
Beam: 14 metres
Speed: 22 knots
Range: 6,000nm

Complement: Core ship's company: 35
Flight personnel: 10
Government agencies: 4
Additional personnel: 30
Total: 79


Inshore Patrol Vessels (IPV)

http://www.navy.mil.nz/nr/rdonlyres/ffddd483-8bed-43d1-86d7-08c2f4d1bdbe/0/ipvatspeed.jpg

Four IPVs will be built and launched at Whangarei, to conduct maritime surveillance in support of civil agencies in the area from the shoreline to approx 24 nautical miles. The total requirement is for about 950 sea days annually. Tasks in the northern half of our EEZ (north of and including the Marlborough Sounds and Tasman Bay) are almost all inshore, with relatively constant levels of activity during the year. The Inshore Patrol Vessels are based on a Tenix-designed Search and Rescue vessel in service with the Philippines Coast Guard.

Displacement: 340 tonnes
Length overall: 55 metres
Beam: 9 metres
Speed: 25 knots
Range: 3,000 nautical miles

Complement: Core ship's company: 20
Government agencies: 4
Additional personnel: 12
Total: 36


The Delivery Schedule

2006
* March Two LCMs for use with the Multi-Role Vessel
* December MRV
2007
* Jan/Feb Inshore Patrol Vessel 1
* April Offshore Patrol Vessel 1
* May/June IPV2
* September IPV3
* October OPV2
* December IPV4

DCN comments:

'By end of 2007 there will be seven new ships in our Navy, with the first of those berthed at Calliope Wharf in less than 2 years. Overall, we will need an extra 245 effective people in Navy by 2008 than there are today.

We need more people to fill our current shortfalls in rank and trade and to allow reasonable breaks from sea, and we will need more people to both support the seven new ships of the Protector fleet and to go to sea in them. We need to bridge the gap in training capacity from the decommissioning of Canterbury in April 2005 until the MRV arrives at the end of 2006.'"

 

[Jason_kiwi]

New Zealands MRV

New Zealands MRV is due in late 2006. It is 131 metres long and is amed with a 25mm rapid cannon and 4-6 50cal mgs.

Does anybody know how many helis and LAV's it can transport?

mod edit: highsea: merged to correct thread. Jason, please post your questions in the appropriate threads rather than opening new ones.

 

[nz enthusiast]

Re: New Zealands MRV

Why don't you do some research for once, finding the information is rather easy. This is talked about in other topics to, have a bit more of a look before you create a new topic.





The Multi Role Vessel (MRV)

The MRV is contracted-out to Merwede Shipyard in the Netherlands, but will be sailed to NZ or Australia for final fit-out. The MRV should be delivered to the RNZN in late 2006.
Tenix's MRV as a design based on a commercial Ro-Ro ship, BEN-MY-CHREE in operation in the Irish Sea. Tenix's existing facilities could handle building the ship, but the Dutch yard offered the best use of the facilities available in order to get the ship to the RNZN as soon as possible.
The MRV will have diesel-electric propulsion and a max speed of 19 knots. The MRV is intended to provide a sealift capability for the transport and deployment of equipment, vehicles and personnel, and to be capable of transferring cargo and personnel ashore when port facilities are not available.
Displacement: 8000 tonnes
Length overall: 131 metres
Beam: 23.4 metres
Speed: 19 knots
Complement: Core ship's company: 53
Flight personnel: 10
Government agencies: 4
Army ship's staff: 7
Trainees: 35
Troops: 250
Total: 360
Propulsion: Diesel engines

Flight deck: Space for two helicopters Helo

The NH90 helicopter has been selected to replace the RNZAF's Iroquois utility helicopters. It will be able to operate from the MRV carrying Army equipment from the ship to shore.

 

[Jason_kiwi]

Re: New Zealands MRV

The problem is, with the web, every page tells you something different. Your telling me they take 2. Another web page(i have posted the link on another thread) tells me they take 5. It's very confusing. I have researches, but I seem to be coming up with different answers.

 

[nz enthusiast]

Re: New Zealands MRV

We won't actually know until the ship is actually in service. Some sites you can trust over others but i understand your point on controdicting web pages. I recko nthey should be another multi purpose vessel than another frigate if they decide to get another blue water combat ship. I like the idea of creating a marines focused navy and army like the US or royal marines.

 

[EnigmaNZ]

Moved from Military Aviation-if NZ was to get new fighters etc

Or we could always just build it ourselves....we do have a growing boat building industry you know...

I would actually prefer another MRV than a frigate, i think New Zealand should just merge the navy, army and air force and create the NZ marines...

Another option is to upgrade the OPV to more of a corvette level of capability to take over some of the frigates roles, eg, 57 or 76mm cannon, RAM or Sadral in front of ther bridge, phalanx, 2 triple tubes, 2 twin boxed harpoons, plus associated sensors and light weapons.
As to the merging of the 3 arms of the defence department, that is a NZF policy.

"New Zealand First will:

• create a new maritime focused Defence Force along the lines of the British Royal Marines and the US Marine Corps that concentrates our Defence Force elements;
• ensure that this Marine Force has fully integrated combat elements including an Air Combat Capability, capable of providing close air support, deploying across sea gaps, and landing ashore in the absence of port facilities;
• maximise efficiencies by streamlining command, control, training, administration and support;
• concentrate Officer training into a single Officer Training facility in order to socialise the core culture of the new organisation into an integrated whole. This will eliminate interservice competition and the likelihood of dysfunctionalism at senior levels;
• refocus the Infantry Battalions into three Marine Battalions (two regular and one territorial) capable of deployment by air, land or sea, by foot or by vehicle with their primary area of operations being the South Pacific and South East Asia but with the ability to operate with Coalition Forces anywhere;
• expand the size of the New Zealand Special Air Service and have them work more closely with British, Australian and US Defence Forces in order to improve their experience base and unit/force interoperability;
• review the purchase, use, maintenance, and viability of light armoured vehicles;
• review the disposal process of the Skyhawks, Air Mackies and the M113s, with a view to the practicalities of tagging them onto refurbishment programmes being undertaken by the Australians; and,
• ensure we have the right vehicles for this new Marine focus."

http://www.nzfirst.org.nz/policies/defence.php

 

[nz enthusiast]

Ok does anyone here not like the NZ first defence policy, because if you are I am a little concerned.
Its a question that has been asked heaps, whether the OPV can carry more than what is it currently going to be armed with. If it can be armed up i doubt labour would, national is more likely to do it.
I do not see anywhere on the strutcure where it can have a S2A missile solo, torpedos in a tube launcher may be possible. I can't see an obvise place for some harpoon missiles, but they could possibly be cramed in.

 

[EnigmaNZ]

Moved from NH90 thread

In answer to questions on the carrying capacity of the MRV.


IIRC the navy site said that 2 NH-90's can operate from the flight deck, I have not seen anything re internal storage of the helo until now, Is the helo storage area combined with, or is it above the LAV level, does more of one mean less of the other. Dam the wait lol.
Okay, just referred back to the model. The LAV deck is a deck lower so maybe it can stow additional helos above it. There isn't a dock and 250 soldiers are only going to need 10 or so LAV's plus LOV, Unimogs and heavy transport. Prosumably the soldiers and crew are housed in the main superstructure so that has to restrict hanger space to some degree. All guess work till someone with the info states it somewhere. Thought prosumably the model maker was given this info in order to accurately model the internal structure.
Just did some searches on the RoRo vessel the MRV is based on. It has 60 cabins, carries up to 500 passengers in day accomodation and has 1200 meters of trailor-lane space 3.1m wide mainly on the main deck (3) with some on the upper vehicle deck (5). If we allow 7m per vehicle then that enough space for 171 vehicles. If the upper vehicle deck has been used for helo storage or other facilties eg hospital, briefing areas etc, and prosuming the lower extends from the rear offloading door to the side loading door, it should still have at least 600m+ of trailorlane that would hold 80+ vehicles. Free height of loading area is 4.5m or 15 feet. If there is a lift to the main flight deck large enough for the NH90, then they could be stowed on the main deck with space for the vehicles for a 250 man contingent. In this case the 5 HN90's would take about 20 vehiclur spaces.
As to accommodation, it has 60 cabins, enough for the permanent crew, plus visitors (customs, fisheries etc) The space for the 500 passengers allows for dormitory spaces for the 250 soldiers / other temporary personel. Amazingly it holds more than I had thought by just guessing, funny that


http://www.kneen.com/Ben-my-Chree.htm

http://www.kneen.com/Manx%20life%20line.htm

 

[EnigmaNZ]

Ok does anyone here not like the NZ first defence policy, because if you are I am a little concerned.
Its a question that has been asked heaps, whether the OPV can carry more than what is it currently going to be armed with. If it can be armed up i doubt labour would, national is more likely to do it.
I do not see anywhere on the strutcure where it can have a S2A missile solo, torpedos in a tube launcher may be possible. I can't see an obvise place for some harpoon missiles, but they could possibly be cramed in.

Stuff it, 3rd time lucky, my fault that time, lol, opened up hotmail and it took this page and wiped my post.

"Ok does anyone here not like the NZ first defence policy, because if you are I am a little concerned".

Unsure as to what you meant here.

As to the OPV, Bofor 57/70 cannon on the foredeck, Phalanx on the raised deck replacing the MSI 25mm, 2 MSI SIGMA Bushmaster 25mm cannon / Mistal Manpad Mounts on port and starboard on the forward end of the flightdeck, 2 Mk 32 lightweight ASW torpedo launching systems port and starboard under the flightdeck, 2 twin Harpoon box launchers in place of one of the RIB on the stern, plus appropiate sensors and processors. Add the Kamen helo and you have a reasonable light frigate.
I'd like the same fitted to the MRV as well as self protection, as it is replacing a frigate and is supposed to take over some of it's roles, and freeing up any escort assigned to it. I am prosuming about $NZ200 million per ship, not cheap even for such a limited capability. Some items could be sourced second hand perhaps, torpedo tubes, Phalanx removed from retired ships, older mk2 Bofors, etc cutting the cost considerably.
As for the IPV, a MSI 25mm Bushmaster on the foredeck will suffice in addition to the existing 2 50 cals.

 

[Jason_kiwi]

Thats a fantastic policy. The options you have said for the OPV would be fantastic.

 

[Jason_kiwi]

Moved from NH90 thread

In answer to questions on the carrying capacity of the MRV.


IIRC the navy site said that 2 NH-90's can operate from the flight deck, I have not seen anything re internal storage of the helo until now, Is the helo storage area combined with, or is it above the LAV level, does more of one mean less of the other. Dam the wait lol.
Okay, just referred back to the model. The LAV deck is a deck lower so maybe it can stow additional helos above it. There isn't a dock and 250 soldiers are only going to need 10 or so LAV's plus LOV, Unimogs and heavy transport. Prosumably the soldiers and crew are housed in the main superstructure so that has to restrict hanger space to some degree. All guess work till someone with the info states it somewhere. Thought prosumably the model maker was given this info in order to accurately model the internal structure.
Just did some searches on the RoRo vessel the MRV is based on. It has 60 cabins, carries up to 500 passengers in day accomodation and has 1200 meters of trailor-lane space 3.1m wide mainly on the main deck (3) with some on the upper vehicle deck (5). If we allow 7m per vehicle then that enough space for 171 vehicles. If the upper vehicle deck has been used for helo storage or other facilties eg hospital, briefing areas etc, and prosuming the lower extends from the rear offloading door to the side loading door, it should still have at least 600m+ of trailorlane that would hold 80+ vehicles. Free height of loading area is 4.5m or 15 feet. If there is a lift to the main flight deck large enough for the NH90, then they could be stowed on the main deck with space for the vehicles for a 250 man contingent. In this case the 5 HN90's would take about 20 vehiclur spaces.
As to accommodation, it has 60 cabins, enough for the permanent crew, plus visitors (customs, fisheries etc) The space for the 500 passengers allows for dormitory spaces for the 250 soldiers / other temporary personel. Amazingly it holds more than I had thought by just guessing, funny that


http://www.kneen.com/Ben-my-Chree.htm

http://www.kneen.com/Manx%20life%20line.htm

So the MRV can take 3 helis
2 NH90
1 Seaspite

 

[alexsa]

As to the OPV, Bofor 57/70 cannon on the foredeck, Phalanx on the raised deck replacing the MSI 25mm, 2 MSI SIGMA Bushmaster 25mm cannon / Mistal Manpad Mounts on port and starboard on the forward end of the flightdeck, 2 Mk 32 lightweight ASW torpedo launching systems port and starboard under the flightdeck, 2 twin Harpoon box launchers in place of one of the RIB on the stern, plus appropiate sensors and processors. Add the Kamen helo and you have a reasonable light frigate.
I'd like the same fitted to the MRV as well as self protection, as it is replacing a frigate and is supposed to take over some of it's roles, and freeing up any escort assigned to it. I am prosuming about $NZ200 million per ship, not cheap even for such a limited capability. Some items could be sourced second hand perhaps, torpedo tubes, Phalanx removed from retired ships, older mk2 Bofors, etc cutting the cost considerably.

Nice idea but there are a few issues with this proposal. The first is all these weapons sytems (except the 50 cals) have to be intergrated with sensors unless there are to be operated with only rudementy fire control. This option really does limit their effectiveness. Given you are proposing ASW torpedo tubes the vessel also require sonar and assocated systems. This adds considerabley to the cost.

Combined with this is the need to have the necesary ancillaries to support such systems (not least of which is power generation capcity) and I suspect an increased number of crew as well as the space and handling arrangements for magazines and so forth. Trying to do this on an existing design is very hard after construction has commenced as it would necessitate considerable reconfiguration of the arrangement of the vessel. This also has considerable cost implications.

Finally there is the weight issue. In regards to the OPV much of this equipement will reside above the transverse centre of gravity reducing the righting lever of the vessel. As this is not a large vessel this could be quite critical. If the righting lever is reduced too much then you either have to add weight down low (permentent ballast etc) and/or have operating restrictions on the vessel (such as a limited number of slack tanks). In either case the opearting mass of the vessel goes up with all the attendent implications. If the vesel has a small block coefficnt at the desgin water line but has signifcant flare above that to increase the reserve of bouyancy any signficant incease in draft can have pretty serious implications on performacne as the block coefficient increases.

Increase draft is less of an issue for the MRV being a mercahnt hull designed to carry laods at a range of drafts however adding top weight still has stability implications that need to be considered.

All in all I think the time to consider such large scale re-equipement of there vessels passed when construction began. This does not mean they could not be fitted with a more effective deck gun and basic fire control equipemnt but equipping them to the standard of a light frigate appears impractical and very expensive.

 

[Aussie Digger]

The OPV's are around the 1800 tonne mark so the equipment fit proposed by EnigmaNZ might be technically possible, particular the Bofors Mk 3 57mm gun and Sigma 25mm/Mistral SAM mounts as both systems offer extremely minimal deck "penetration" and are rated as being suitable for inclusion on vessels of 150 tonnes or more... It would be expensive however...

The 57mm gun would be particularly useful for the OPV's and MRV, given that it provides excellent air defence capabilities at ranges beyond that of VLLAD missiles such as Mistral, but also excellent surface and shore attack capabilities. It also has an effective range of 17k's (roughly equivalent to that of the 76mm guns fitted to the RAN's FFG frigates) but at a rate of fire of 220 rounds per minute...

A a Naval gunnery support weapon it would have immense value. (Which is probably why it has been chosen for the US Navy's littoral combat ship program)...

A more reasonable and cost effective equipment fit might be the inclusion of the Bofors Mk3 57mm gun, 2x SIGMA (25mm gun/Mistral SAM) launchers, plus 1 or 2 4x round Harpoon anti-ship missile launchers.

I wouldn't worry about the sub hunting ability, but include a good defensive capability including decoy's etc due to the cost for these ships. I'd leave that duty to the ANZAC's and upgrade them further.

 

[Supe]

NZDF needs AD to make the case for them on defence procurement matters since they apparently are unable to. They sure could use an advocate. Going by 'soft choice' systems they've been going with in the last few years, it points to a woeful lack of understanding of defence matters and threat environments in which these ships may be sent to.

The current mindset of underarming NZDF forces works only if NZ gov expects other nations to do the hard yards and will only contribute forces when the environment is considered relatively benign. There was a criticism of ADF in years past when it was considered 'hollow' and in some ways represented a similiar situation to the NZDF. A policy of the 'bare minimum' makes perfect sense as an excuse to do the odd bit of tokenism but is otherwise incapable of doing anything of real substance. It's certainly the cheap option. There is probably some irony here that such 'hollow' forces aren't much chop in multilateral arrangements in which NZ sees itself as one of its champions.

 

[Cootamundra]

NZDF needs AD to make the case for them on defence procurement matters since they apparently are unable to. They sure could use an advocate. Going by 'soft choice' systems they've been going with in the last few years, it points to a woeful lack of understanding of defence matters and threat environments in which these ships may be sent to.

The current mindset of underarming NZDF forces works only if NZ gov expects other nations to do the hard yards and will only contribute forces when the environment is considered relatively benign. There was a criticism of ADF in years past when it was considered 'hollow' and in some ways represented a similiar situation to the NZDF. A policy of the 'bare minimum' makes perfect sense as an excuse to do the odd bit of tokenism but is otherwise incapable of doing anything of real substance. It's certainly the cheap option. There is probably some irony here that such 'hollow' forces aren't much chop in multilateral arrangements in which NZ sees itself as one of its champions.

The Australian Labour party was chiefly responsible for 'dumming' down the ADF. I'm mean the ANZACs were a case in point and only now are they starting to get up to speed. One wonders why this approach can get through, we are afterall talking about Defence Forces and it seems to me that history has always shown that those think that they will have time to gear up for some conflict always realise after it is too late.

Moving forward if the intention is for small contributions to multilateral engagements once would think that you would aim to ensure that your forces were well equipped to meet all eventualities (within reason). This doesn't mean spending a ridiculous amount on capabilties that will never be needed rather it means ensuring that for those functions the people of NZ or AUS decide as being appropriate - purchasing equipment that will enable our forces to achieve these aims.

In my opinion and based on the stated objective of the NZDF that means 3 well equipped battalions, an enlarged and well supported NZ SAS, 2 fully functional ANZACs, 8-10 MRH-90s, the OPV(s)? and the multi function vessel along with something to provide 'close in air support'.

Coota