Oh there is no excitement for starters haha, NZ first is a long way from having any influence on DP atm. Thought it would be a good though provoking exert.
Last edited:
Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
No probs, if anyone likes NZF then go vote for them (but don't do it for their defence policy, they may as well say NZ should get aircraft carriers because whatever they say won't happen. I say that as someone who wasted one of their two votes in '05 to them. Mind you perhaps I shouldn't be so cynical at least Winnie helped improved US-NZ relations in that time, but whether it was for the good of NZ or due to his infactuation with the then US Sec of State ....?
).
One of the issues that came out of the wash post Samoan Tsunami was having the CY being in refit - it was 11 days iirc correctly before she was able to sail - was that the CY would have been able to lift a number of refridgerated containers quickly to the scene to be used as temporary mortuary facilities amongst a range of things. In Samoa's case things were just able to be managed before the CY arrived and that issue which can have dire health consequences post disaster was contained - but potential risk was noted and was of huge concern to medical specialists in the days following the tradegy. This is just one of a number of issues I might add. It was just good fortune that the refit was not greatly advanced at the time that the Tsunami happened in Samoa. It was an effort of Herculean proportions from a range of organisations that the corpse issue was able to be contained in time. There is a hell of a lot more to the context of this subject than narrow views focusing on narrow military objectives such as platoon size niche stuff.
Now we are chasing red herrings. MEU reefer containers! There are probably more empty containers stacked at Tonga's and Samoan ports than what the Canterbury can carry, reefers or not... Transport cargo aircraft can carry them, and helicopters can sling them...
New Zealand did not buy the sea lift ship to lift the entire army at one go... Canterbury was bought to provide NZ's armed forces the training and skills necessary and do sea lift operations, to be the first responder... Unfortunately, there will be times when she isn't available.. .And the government was fully aware of this fact when they purchased her... When Plan A is struck, proceed to Plan B...
Many volunteers spent days packing the aid many organizations raised through donations... That aid was not packed by waving a magic wand... The Canterbury was buttoned up and ready to load by the time that aid was raised and packed...
If reefers were required earlier reefers would have been flown in if necessary...
You miss the point entirely - They were able to be utilised in those particluar locations - however it was noted that only in a few particular built up places in the region was that possible. I had a family member onsite who was involved in that particular issue. And I stress it is only one of a number of issues in this broader context.
I do have concerns about the capabilities in the new ship replacing Endeavour being abit over the top. Specifically Endeavour's main role has being to support the Frigates and now Canterbury, that all consume significantly less fuel have have a greater range than a Leander for which Endeavour was built to support. There are clear benefits for CDR, especially in light of East Timor when Endeavour acted as a fuel supply ship for units in the initial stages (can't remember if it was static or not).
My experience with sending ships into the Pacific Island's in the 1980's consisted on Frigates and the Endeavour clearing lower decks and manually storing stores in every conceivable place. The navy had a ready supply of civil defence equipment, loose, to use in No1 store at NSD in the old stores complex (not sure if they still keep a supply). Everything was landed either alongside if possible or using the ships helicopter and small boats. In considering the Civil Defence role I note that both Otago and Wellington can embark containers on the Quarterdeck for Civil Defence supplies and with additional personnel and with an LUH109 could stand in for Canterbury.
It seems to me that while Endeavour's replacement, and I have no doubt Endeavour needs replaced, could do with some increase in its general ability to support naval operations the increase in fuel tonnage I don't think can be fully justified from anything I've seen. If any thing I think NZ should go down a similar route as Endeavour, though with more storage and an operational flight deck and hangar. The money saved should go towards a more capable Littoral Support Ship (or in my wildest dreams an Absolom).
Last edited:
If they desperately needed refrigerated containers then the current Endeavour would have been able to deploy them as it has slots specifically for them ahead of the bridge and has even moved vehicles on its unused pad, and its not even slightly modified for sealift, heck even the OPVs can take a few containers.
I'm not argueing the point that the new ship does'nt need a sealift capability just the level(and therefore cost), which in my veiw is not to match and rival CY it is just to supplement so no need to go overboard(navy joke). Its obviously not just me as this is what the head shed has stated for in their request.
We seem to keep blowing aqquisitions up to sometimes gigantuan proportions when its quite obvious in our economic climate, which is not getting any better any time soon, is not realistically feasible or even generally warranted ie Hercs to C17s, 1 for 1 NH90s, combat OPVs, fast jet etc. We all understand how cheap our Govt is and yet we assume the best, they will replace capability with a like or slightly improved version not a completely new beast and if we are lucky the numbers aqquired will stay constant but usually is cut back, combined or has options trimmed.
We have to settle for the most basic to do the job effectively not flashy but hey it works and on a budget to boot. I do wish we had the defence attitude of Australia and others(also funding) however it is not so.
t68
Well-Known Member
I believe he referring to the fact that Canterbury is not only there for moving defence around the pacific, but also for humanitarian issue for bulk stores in timely matter after a event has occurred, yeah sure you can fly in small quantities in short notice but the bulk of it will need to be by ship with little or no infrastructure in place on arrival will need shipping capable of forming their own ship to shore connectors, Canterbury cannot be their all the time.
Australia has seen this first hand with the recent events across the country defence did a remarkable job with assets available at the time, but surely missed the capability of the 3 main amphibious shipping and their self sustaining ability.
But in those situations when the Canterbury isn't available, OR WHEN ANY MILITARY ASSET ISN'T AVAILABLE, the government can turn to civilian ships and assets...
Yes sea lift ships are bought to move the army around, but its not the do all and end all of moving the army around. Similar to tankers, whether in the air or on the sea, cargo assets are bought to maintain and develop skills through training without having to cop civilian assets everyday... That doesn't mean a government won't ever have to cop civilian assets...
If the US armed forces with their large fleet of tankers and cargo ships leases civilian assets, there is nothing wrong with New Zealand doing the same... I have seen a train load of army tanks being pulled by civilian diesel locomotives... The army doesn't own any diesel locomotives...
New Zealand needs a new replenishment ship. There is nothing wrong with adding some sea lift capacity of cargo and troops, most likely doing so won't cost much... But New Zealand does not need another sea lift ship the size of Canterbury... If they had such a need, why did the government not buy a ship twice as large in the first place? This answer to this question is very revealing...
Essentially all Im arguing for is that the next Endeavour must exist with sufficent adaptibility to cover the CY in lift capability. I dont actually think the ship will need to have anything greater than what the CY can lift - that is in regards to equipment not permanent facilities for the transportation of personnel. However I do have the caveat that it should be able to accommodate on a temporary-short term basis something more than a plattoon. The numerical equivalent of an infantry company for example. Not a battalion group.
Lucasnz you do make an excellent point about whether the next E could be offset by an improved capability in the littoral warfare support ship. I agree with you that if the LWSV was more capable and able to do the supplementary lift role then we may not have to go further than straight forward traditional tanker. As long as it can cover the existent gap, and for sheer utility have a flight deck that can handle an ADF Chinook. But, the DWP does not seem to be working out that way - therefore I am left with advocating for the above, because of the issues I highlighted earlier. In a perfect world I would take a traditional tanker and a Absalom if given the choice but, that is not where the MinDef are heading. In a perfect world I would eventually replace the CY with something along the lines of a Endurance 160.
The reason why they did not buy one larger vessel is an arbitrarily imposed cost restraint that lead to what the CY is - something well covered. There is still an extant problem with sole reliance in just a single platform in terms of the capacity to deal with major disaster response in the Pacific. Cyclones and Tsumani's are never geographically isolated - something more difficult for us to manage in a vast demographically dispursed region. Merchant shipping within NZ is at its lowests ebb with only a handful of ships.
The Irish don't have any large ships in their merchant marine. Yet somehow they are able to lease foreign flagged ships within a few days to send their army equipment to Bosnia, Liberia, and Chad.... Likewise on the return... What was Plan A before the Canterbury is now Plan B...
The Canterbury never leaves New Zealand except to do exercises in Australian waters and do pre-planned aid missions... In an emergency she will be called back In the same manner her pre-planned dry dock was suddenly abrupted...
Canterbury provides all of the training and skills maintenance for sea lift operations New Zealand armed forces requires... Its why she was bought....
The government at the time of her purchase set the specifications, and Canterbury fulfilled all of her sea lift specifications...
Regarding secondary sealift vessels - how about asking KiwiRail to design in a well dock & landing craft into their next Interislander ferry. The Government owns the Interislander Ferries presently - correct? It could be used as a safety device to unload passengers in an emergency
But seriously folks, another way to mitigate this problem would be to accept that at times we are not going to be able to respond to events where an across-the-beach requirement exists. We could look at reaching an agreement (there probably already is one) with Australia to ensure that at least one tanker/AOR and one landing ship is available in the Tasman area at all times. Sometimes we contribute the landing ship & troops, at others the AOR/tanker.
I do have concerns about my previous suggestion of a Fort Victoria class as an Endeavour replacement (right concept I think, but perhaps the wrong size). I think we need an AOR (ie big R) given the lack of merchant shipping in NZ waters. A ship like the Berlin or Cantabria class are more of an AOr (ie small R).
Regarding a tanker/sealift ship - other than Canada's JSS concept, are there any existing examples of such a ship?
All good ideas though, keep 'em coming.
Chis73
But seriously folks, another way to mitigate this problem would be to accept that at times we are not going to be able to respond to events where an across-the-beach requirement exists. We could look at reaching an agreement (there probably already is one) with Australia to ensure that at least one tanker/AOR and one landing ship is available in the Tasman area at all times. Sometimes we contribute the landing ship & troops, at others the AOR/tanker.
I do have concerns about my previous suggestion of a Fort Victoria class as an Endeavour replacement (right concept I think, but perhaps the wrong size). I think we need an AOR (ie big R) given the lack of merchant shipping in NZ waters. A ship like the Berlin or Cantabria class are more of an AOr (ie small R).
Regarding a tanker/sealift ship - other than Canada's JSS concept, are there any existing examples of such a ship?
All good ideas though, keep 'em coming.
Chis73
Last edited:
I'm not sure how being military ops/exs or civ-aid changes the pre-requisites, sealifts sealift and availability is availability, you do not need to move 250 DOC staff, red cross or refugees along with that amount of equipment around the south pacific that much, handy for all that space but then again not because of the off chance CYs busy at the 'other' natural disaster, conflict or in dry dock.Thanks - you got it.
Again to cover that off chance, which honestly as you say is possible but not guaranteed, there are other means such as sharing other military assets, civ hire or as ST says worst comes to worst 'borrow' a interislander. All these require no huge capital outlay, maintanece or even full crewing and are only on a when needed basis or job to big scenario.
exactly chi, a vessel to cover in times of need is a option but not actually required to be dedicated and funded/crewed by RNZN as back up and will just go about its regular routine usually, although I still think CY and EN II(even with its secondary sealift levels) will pretty much have us covered over a wide range of tasks and timings.
t68
Well-Known Member
No one is arguing the government cannot use civilian assets when there is a need, but you cannot ignore the advantages of HMNZS Canterbury being able to offload her cargo when there are no port facilities available. How many civilian shipping do you know of that has the capability to stand off the coast and deliver it cargo without any port infrasturce of some description,HMNZS Canterbury has that capability, it has the first response capability to carry cargo to help re-open the ports so that civilian shipping can bring in the aid. No one knows when the capability will be needed.
It is prudent of governments to have assets that complement one another, for at this time the main sealift ship in the RNZN is HMNZS Canterbury, within the RNZN should have the ability to have a backup vessel to be able to take up the slack to a certain degree. You can use the Spanish equivalent description for Juan Carlos 1; her primary role is a LHD, but when Principe de Asturias (R11) is laid up and not available Juan Carlos 1 steps up to the plate to take the role of a temporary aircraft carrier.
With HMNZS Canterbury recent voyage to Australia for EX Hamel, you could make the assumption that she is on the small side for a deployment if claims she was operating at 105% are correct, no room for error on their part. The NZGov bought Canterbury for a price and that’s the bottom line, and i would bet my last dollar that those in the RNZN if they had the chance and budget would have gone for a Galicia class and 2 if the money was there. HMNZS Endeavour would have been replaced by an enlarged oiler on a direct replacement 1 for 1 basis.
Endeavour II will be able to back up CY if it ever was offline with a platoon size org, veh complement and cargo capacity, who's to say you always need to deploy a company sized group? chances are if CY was laid up for any reason would sealift even be needed at that particular time anyway, why fund what ifs and concentrate on primarys.
What happens when Endeavours in dry dock, does the navy shut down? no there are always contingencies and look at Manawanui and Resoloution they are being combined into the same platform with no back up, navy will just overcome.
I think everyone is focussing on the Hamel ex load at 105% as if it was a shortfall when in actual fact the helos had been airlifted by Aus C17 leaving the hangers empty so why not make use of the space and throw in a few extra vehicles topside to make life easier in Aus, wanted but not nescessarily needed.
t68
Well-Known Member
Massive difference. They were set down long termed mission arrangements after the lengthy triple lock process that the IDF has to go through its Dail before they start organising. Ireland is smack bang in Europe, a place of large numbers of readily available ships for charter - thus able to secure and have delivered things with greater ease. They do not have the rapidly unfolding Hum/Supt obligations we have, particularly in response timeframes. Geo-politically our differences/needs are like chalk and cheese. You are not exactly telling me or any of us anything new about the CY and the specs were tailored to meet the preset budget conditions.
Last edited:
When Canterbury was under review to be purchased the other option for the navy besides buying a new ship would have been remodeling the Charles Upham...
MNZS Charles Upham
Commissioned in 1995, Completed 1982
Displacement: 7955 Light, 10,500 tonnes: Full Load
Dimensions: 131.7m x 21.1m x 6.2m
Endurance: 7000nm : Speed 14kts
Complement: 32, plus 200 Troops
Vehicle deck: 440 lane meters
Ramp: Aft
Notes
Proposed modifications would have included the capability to operate 4 Huey helicopters, deck marked for 2 landing zones, hospital facility, and the fitting of Passive Counter measures.
HMNZS Canterbury L 421
Commissioned in 2007
Displacement: 7200 Light, 8870 tonnes: Full Load
Dimensions: 131 m x 23.4 m x 5.6 sealift, 4.76 patrol
Endurance: 8000 nm : Speed 19 kts
Complement: 53 navy, 10 air force, 7 army, 4 civil, 35 trainees, 250 Troops
Hangar: 1 Seasprite helicopter, 4 NH-90s stored, deck marked for 2 landing zones
Vehicle deck: 403 lane meters, plus 33 containers
Cranes: 2 60 tonnes
Landing craft: 2 LCM-8
Ramp: Aft and Starboard
Specifications for the Canterbury was for an enlarged company group, not a battalion... Comparing size and storage capacity the ships were more or less even, well the lane meters for the Charles Upham was 37 meters longer before conversion., but the Canterbury carries more troops... The Charles Upham's draught was too deep to enter Dili, the Canterbury has enter Dili... Most importantly, the Canterbury carries landing craft for over the beach operations the Charles Upham didn't....
If the Charles Upham was sufficient to meet sea lift specifications than the Canterbury is... If money was the issue, the Charles Upham would have won...
MNZS Charles Upham
Commissioned in 1995, Completed 1982
Displacement: 7955 Light, 10,500 tonnes: Full Load
Dimensions: 131.7m x 21.1m x 6.2m
Endurance: 7000nm : Speed 14kts
Complement: 32, plus 200 Troops
Vehicle deck: 440 lane meters
Ramp: Aft
Notes
Proposed modifications would have included the capability to operate 4 Huey helicopters, deck marked for 2 landing zones, hospital facility, and the fitting of Passive Counter measures.
HMNZS Canterbury L 421
Commissioned in 2007
Displacement: 7200 Light, 8870 tonnes: Full Load
Dimensions: 131 m x 23.4 m x 5.6 sealift, 4.76 patrol
Endurance: 8000 nm : Speed 19 kts
Complement: 53 navy, 10 air force, 7 army, 4 civil, 35 trainees, 250 Troops
Hangar: 1 Seasprite helicopter, 4 NH-90s stored, deck marked for 2 landing zones
Vehicle deck: 403 lane meters, plus 33 containers
Cranes: 2 60 tonnes
Landing craft: 2 LCM-8
Ramp: Aft and Starboard
Specifications for the Canterbury was for an enlarged company group, not a battalion... Comparing size and storage capacity the ships were more or less even, well the lane meters for the Charles Upham was 37 meters longer before conversion., but the Canterbury carries more troops... The Charles Upham's draught was too deep to enter Dili, the Canterbury has enter Dili... Most importantly, the Canterbury carries landing craft for over the beach operations the Charles Upham didn't....
If the Charles Upham was sufficient to meet sea lift specifications than the Canterbury is... If money was the issue, the Charles Upham would have won...