Yes Manawanui has proved to be a very sound purchase, and proven a second hand, commercially designed & built vessel can fill a niche role with distinction. Let's face it you wouldn't generally park a dive support vessel in the middle of a heated shooting match, you'd wait till you have control of the littorals & coastline... so I'm sure the 'alluded to' Manawanui replacement will likewise prove to be a very good buy. One assumes it'll be a larger more modern dive vessel - a little faster transit speed than Manawanui would be hoped for! The 2 x .5 cal HMG's will no doubt be taken off Manawanui and placed on the replacement, the absolute bare minimum for dealing with small boats that might choose to get too nosey whilst dive operations are underway!
Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
With respect to the total fleet size, the IPV's, and the LOSC and/or dive support ship... That is sort of my point. The plan had been to eliminate the IPV's which were too large for some roles, but too small for others, all while having a crew that is ~2/3rd's the size of the much larger and more broadly capable OPV's.
Now that the retirement of the IPV's seems to be on hold, it does seem questionable whether the RNZN could manage to crew both a LOSC and dive support vessel, plus the other vessels already in service or expected to be commissioned by 2025. The fact that it has been implied that the LOSC requirements are being changed (if not what is ultimately desired) muddies the issue further.
At present, it looks like we might need to wait for updated statements on what will happen with the IPV's, the LOSC, and/or the planned composition for the RNZN fleet.
Gibbo you are bang on about people not reading too much into this and bang on about the level of PR gloss that senior Defence staff make during media comments.
My view is that the CN slightly misspoke. It is the likely ten vessel ‘55000t’ Navy by 2025 will be as below. It is not really about the Navy after next concept at this stage – it is just 7 years away up to 2025 and halfway into the DWP. The revised LOSV will probably follow not too far away after that though – at least before the Frigate replacements.
RNZN 2025
1. Wellington 1900t
2. Otago 1900t
3. Canterbury 9000t
4. Te Kaha 3800t
5. Te Mana 3800t
6. Aotearoa 24000t
7. SOPV 6440t (If it is the expected Svalbard - DeWolf clone)
8. IPV 340t
9. IPV 340t
10. And the Dive Support Vessel probably around 3500t – (If it is a vanilla COTS Dive Support Ship costing under $100m) – would bring this up to 55000t fleet by 2025.
Because of the extra cost of the Frigate upgrade but the immediate requirement for the DSV capability they will defer by 5-7 years the introduction of a tricked up LOSV.
Quote: The Littoral Operations Support Capability (LOSC) is one of the centerpieces for the NZDF’s joint capability. The LOSC will allow the NZDF to back up reconnaissance aircraft with a rapidly deployable ISR asset in the South Pacific when disaster strikes. It will also be equipped to provide the necessary support to other ground missions depending on the situation. So, you see that the LOSC will provide a unique regional capability and has been highly considered in the DWP 2016.
There are all sorts of possibilities in such a vessel.
I would suggest that at least one or both of the IPV’s will go when the LOSV arrives post 2025 and that the LOSV will be a platform that will be capable of also doing offshore patrol amongst a number of things.
My view is that the CN slightly misspoke. It is the likely ten vessel ‘55000t’ Navy by 2025 will be as below. It is not really about the Navy after next concept at this stage – it is just 7 years away up to 2025 and halfway into the DWP. The revised LOSV will probably follow not too far away after that though – at least before the Frigate replacements.
RNZN 2025
1. Wellington 1900t
2. Otago 1900t
3. Canterbury 9000t
4. Te Kaha 3800t
5. Te Mana 3800t
6. Aotearoa 24000t
7. SOPV 6440t (If it is the expected Svalbard - DeWolf clone)
8. IPV 340t
9. IPV 340t
10. And the Dive Support Vessel probably around 3500t – (If it is a vanilla COTS Dive Support Ship costing under $100m) – would bring this up to 55000t fleet by 2025.
Because of the extra cost of the Frigate upgrade but the immediate requirement for the DSV capability they will defer by 5-7 years the introduction of a tricked up LOSV.
Quote: The Littoral Operations Support Capability (LOSC) is one of the centerpieces for the NZDF’s joint capability. The LOSC will allow the NZDF to back up reconnaissance aircraft with a rapidly deployable ISR asset in the South Pacific when disaster strikes. It will also be equipped to provide the necessary support to other ground missions depending on the situation. So, you see that the LOSC will provide a unique regional capability and has been highly considered in the DWP 2016.
There are all sorts of possibilities in such a vessel.
I would suggest that at least one or both of the IPV’s will go when the LOSV arrives post 2025 and that the LOSV will be a platform that will be capable of also doing offshore patrol amongst a number of things.
And you, Mr C sir, I suggest are bang-on with hitting the nail fairly & squarely on the head!
I have a rule that I never do 'lists' as invariably within a couple of reply posts it has morphed into an unrealistic wish-list. However the list above would be a 100% match to what I expect around the 2025 mark, all else being equal. In a nutshell as FFGs return to service & Aotearoa is in full swing the first 2 IPV will go. Next as the LOSC comes along the last 2 IPV will drop off as the LOSC will indeed be more than capable of undertaking patrol work. As the DSV will by then be undertaking what were originally envisaged as (some of) the LOSC roles then the latter will have a little more availability for patrol. With 3 x OPV & LOSC capable of patrol & manning the IPV's becoming difficult again, the latter will be disposed of.<afterthought>
Another related topic not getting a lot of discussion is the NZ First electioneering stating that DefMin is keen to re-equip RNZNVR with it's own vessels...
NZ First handed defence portfolio - DEFSEC Media
”NZ First also wants to “re-establish and expand the Territorial Force of the NZ Army and to re-equip the Royal New Zealand Naval Reserve with its own vessels for inshore patrol, maritime SAR, pollution control and anti-mine warfare.”
I doubt the IPV's will be considered = probably too much a stretch, cost etc!?! There are plenty of smaller fast craft that could fulfil this role with small crews that might allow VR to be out more frequently at less cost.
Last edited:
The widening of the LOSV scope could be of great benefit if it is executed with a degree of finesse.
The whole concept of command of the littorals is changing and the USN and USMC have a new doctrine document which hopefully will shape thinking.
Document: Marine Corps Littoral Operations in a Contested Environment Concept - USNI News
To a certain extend this is suggested in the CN's interview with Dr Greener if one assumes the CN and his staff read what the USN and USMC thinking.
Basically the capability lines of traditional littoral roles and the amphibious roles are merging. The 'mothership' concept is too the fore in a littoral warfare sense. depending on the tasking/mission the mother vessel can go in close or stand-off if there is a heightened risk. Also the sea-based sustainer role within the amphibious aspect of the doctrine merges with this when one is looking at capability platforms.
The whole concept of command of the littorals is changing and the USN and USMC have a new doctrine document which hopefully will shape thinking.
Document: Marine Corps Littoral Operations in a Contested Environment Concept - USNI News
To a certain extend this is suggested in the CN's interview with Dr Greener if one assumes the CN and his staff read what the USN and USMC thinking.
Basically the capability lines of traditional littoral roles and the amphibious roles are merging. The 'mothership' concept is too the fore in a littoral warfare sense. depending on the tasking/mission the mother vessel can go in close or stand-off if there is a heightened risk. Also the sea-based sustainer role within the amphibious aspect of the doctrine merges with this when one is looking at capability platforms.
Hmm interesting (speed) read! Fair to suggest the littorals are probably the most constantly evolving domain and certainly throw up a multitude of challenges. I'm a fan of the mother-ship concept and with so many modern systems being modular it's an affordable way forward for RNZN. Otago has previously deployed with one of the littoral boats (A08/A09 Takapau & Tarapunga) on-board so the concept is not entirely new to RNZN. My understanding is the LOSC would stand-off and send in littoral boats to do MCM, Hydrography etc using Remus AUV etc; fast boats would run to/from shore with SpecOps teams & others as req'd (recon, force protection, engineers etc etc) and light landing craft would run in supplies; light vehicles (inc. ATV's) etc. During all this an embarked SH2G would maintain oversight with MG's (pity Maverick isn't still an option) - and the LOSV provides the eyes & ears! As you say - if designed with a little finesse and political backing it could prove to be a very solid asset.
RNZN - Littoral Warfare Unit = useful related link & an insight into thinking at present. Not tied to a specific vessel!
The other thing that I suspect might be at play with the LOSC is the RNZN want to wait a little & see what develops as others such as USN get a better grasp on what vessel designs are required for the littorals. Getting the DSV now takes the pressure off a little and provides some breathing space for thinking to mature.
Last edited:
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Interesting discussions of late on the LOSC, DSV and near-future feet compositions chaps.
LOSC + DSV: Can we assume that the (future) LOSC vessel will now in effect also be a (very late) replacement for HMNZS Resolution, but with much enhanced and advanced subset capabilities (as outlined in the above posts)? If so, with the recent more-or-less confirmation (NZDF/DefMin) that HMNZS Manawanui will be replaced with a commercial DSV (likely to be announced "soon" in 2018), at least the RNZN will eventually revert back to a one-for-one vessel replacement (rather than implement the previous "cost-cutting" measure to have the LOSC replace both vessels etc).
If so, that can only be good for the RNZN in terms of the fleet composition and crew posting and development opportunities etc. But presumably the future LOSC will also have some dive-support capabilities (for littoral warfare operations)? If so, where does the DSV fit in? I suppose it would provide a good training capability and provide another vessel for local diving/MCM operations especially when the LOSC is deployed?
One thing though, I'm not so sure about the future LOSC as another patrol vessel. Wasn't the initial spec for a slower vessel (eg relatively speaking compared to the OPV's)? Would rather patrol duties be handled by dedicated PV's (and their trained crews) and a LOSC and their specialist crews concentrate on LOSC duties!
Likely 2025 fleet composition: Nice summation Mr C! I'd only add that even if the RNZN retained its 4 IPV's (which appears to be the new "current" thinking - handy for supporting both South Pacific deployments and local duties), their weight at 350t ea could easily see all 4 fit into the CN's approx 55,000t numbers (eg give or take another few hundred more tons or so etc).
Let's hope RNZN gets the funding for a 6000t Svalbard/DeWolf or equivalent SOPV type, for southern ocean conditions etc.
No LOSC in your fleet composition (as yet/no problems), which then highlights an interesting point in that the CN mused about a 9-10 vessel fleet - by your compostion count 9 would include a LOSC but excluding the IPV's?!! So would the RNZN retain only two IPV's or would all 4 transfer to say the RNZNVR and not be counted?
LOSC + DSV: Can we assume that the (future) LOSC vessel will now in effect also be a (very late) replacement for HMNZS Resolution, but with much enhanced and advanced subset capabilities (as outlined in the above posts)? If so, with the recent more-or-less confirmation (NZDF/DefMin) that HMNZS Manawanui will be replaced with a commercial DSV (likely to be announced "soon" in 2018), at least the RNZN will eventually revert back to a one-for-one vessel replacement (rather than implement the previous "cost-cutting" measure to have the LOSC replace both vessels etc).
If so, that can only be good for the RNZN in terms of the fleet composition and crew posting and development opportunities etc. But presumably the future LOSC will also have some dive-support capabilities (for littoral warfare operations)? If so, where does the DSV fit in? I suppose it would provide a good training capability and provide another vessel for local diving/MCM operations especially when the LOSC is deployed?
One thing though, I'm not so sure about the future LOSC as another patrol vessel. Wasn't the initial spec for a slower vessel (eg relatively speaking compared to the OPV's)? Would rather patrol duties be handled by dedicated PV's (and their trained crews) and a LOSC and their specialist crews concentrate on LOSC duties!
Likely 2025 fleet composition: Nice summation Mr C! I'd only add that even if the RNZN retained its 4 IPV's (which appears to be the new "current" thinking - handy for supporting both South Pacific deployments and local duties), their weight at 350t ea could easily see all 4 fit into the CN's approx 55,000t numbers (eg give or take another few hundred more tons or so etc).
Let's hope RNZN gets the funding for a 6000t Svalbard/DeWolf or equivalent SOPV type, for southern ocean conditions etc.
No LOSC in your fleet composition (as yet/no problems), which then highlights an interesting point in that the CN mused about a 9-10 vessel fleet - by your compostion count 9 would include a LOSC but excluding the IPV's?!! So would the RNZN retain only two IPV's or would all 4 transfer to say the RNZNVR and not be counted?
I've followed this discussion with interest but I must say I find CN's use of a displacement tonnage measurement puzzling. Surely that is totally irrelevant. The importance surely must be capability, what types of platforms and their roles. Tonnage is virtually meaningless when divorced from these basics eg a Frigate may be anything from 2k-10k tonnes or an amphibious platform has infantesimal iterations.
If I'm missing something here can one of you, in the legendary words of one Pauline Hansen, "please explain"
Last edited:
In a way yes. And like Aotearoa replacing Endeavour, the LOSC will by the sounds of it be a huge leap from the Resolution.
The initial specs are seemingly out the window. To be honest time and technology has passed them by. The LOSV concept appeared in DPW 2010 and there seems to be a number of lessons learnt internationally and new doctrines formulated to possibly make it redundant.
The LOSV is very very likely to be able to embark all teams in the Littoral Warfare Unit which includes Survey, Dive and MCM - but it seems likely to be able to do much more. I would even suggest that it may assist CY in a logistical role as HADR is part of its remit.
Resolution and Manawanui and earlier Tui and Monowai 'patrolled' - with the mothership approach the slo-mo speed does not have to be part of the vessel but the deployable minor vessels. The JMSDF uses a MCM mothership, the 5700t JDS Uraga which happily ploughs around at OPV speeds. The Hyundai have actually built recently a minelayer crossed with an ASW platform based on their FFX 3500 frigate design the RoKS Nampo (570). Thus having the LOSV capable of doing patrols as a dimension of its operational remit makes real sense.
The link that Gibbo made to the LWU reveals that they are now a platform neutral unit and will cross deck as specialists onto any vessel and not part of a ships core crew.
There is no LOSV in the 2025 line-up because there will not be a LOSV in 2025 and I believe the CN misspoke. Maybe 2027/28. But not in 2025 which was the question the CN attempted to replied to. They will not be commissioning the LOSV and the SOPV at the same time. The returned Frigates will be like new vessels systems wise and will take a considerable effort and with the DSV and the Big A as well all within a 5-7 year timeframe - a pre 2025 LOSV is not doable by that date. The SOPV will take out IPV 1 & 2 and the LOSV will take OPV 3 &4. They were built for 20 years service and they are not exactly Japanese level in their production values. Other than short term butt covering the IPV's will have served their purpose and be paid off. They will be 20 when the LOSV arrives.
The DeWolf/Svalbard are VARD's 7 100 ICE thus from the same 'design family' as the current Protectors as VARD 7 85's. That will possibly mitigate a number of orphan issues.
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
Mr C do you see any possibility that the NZ Government would consider a Dewolfe from our existing line from Irving in Halifax. There have been rumblings of seeking international orders for the design to cover a gap that may exist between the Dewolfes and the frigates. Based upon the time line could delivery of a Dewolfe in 2023 or 2024 fit in with the RNZN timeline or would it be too early?
Well you don't get to be CN these days without having done the PR501 course in advanced spin doctoring for senior public servants.
Of course he has to put a clear positive spin on things. Less is more - we will have fewer ships but better is the messaging he was what he attempted to frame in this case. In the long form interview he does flesh out the capabilities sought.
You are right about tonnage analogy when one of those vessels will account for 40% of the tonnage he is talking about.
Only if you could build it for the same price as a VARD 7 ICE built in Ulsan for instance. I actually do not think that future RNZN ships will be built in shipyards where the Linga Franca is English other than possibly Australia and even then the question of cost maybe a hurdle. In my view the Koreans and Japanese are looming large.
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
Yes I agree. Our price would likely be far higher than a Korean build. Just thought I would get your opinion.
At least there is the opportunity of sending staff over here to review the design and maybe cross deck some crew prior to taking possession of your own vessel.
Thanks
This current govt has a different ideological outlook and priorities to the previous govt so reading tea leaves and sheep's entrails may be better analytical tools rather than looking at the previous 9 years. We don't know what they're planning for defence so we would be wise to wait and see what their intentions are. I would hazard a guess that since the PM is a Clark acolyte their defence procurement policies may be similar to that of the 1999 - 2008 Clark govt.
Yes very interesting discussion re LOSC, DSV etc. Much as a post in RNZAF thread just now, Clark would spend money where it didn't involve sharp-end war fighting capability - and Greens influence is a worry in this regard. However NZ First has the Defence portfolio and they're more a rabid dog that the Greens for Labour to be wary of so anyone's guess.
Labour and even the Greens have shown keenness in platforms that allow us to do HADR in the region and on paper at this point a LOSV would seem a very easy sell to all parties. Imagine the glossy sales brochure now - being able to survey & clear shallow water hazards after a disaster to allow humanitarian aid to be delivered (ie: Hydrograhy & MCM); ships boats / light landing craft able to deliver aid including relief teams (read moving SpecOps, Recon; etc); embarked Helicopter to allow delivery of aid & personnel (read armed SH2G for oversight); and onboard disaster relief management / co-ordination facilities for when shore-based options aren't available (read C4ISR).
Only possible concern is a Govt directive to make it a commercial design & to carry only a few manaually operated HMG's.
It could be worth casting an eye to a couple of European nations as well. The type 31 and F-110 should be just about in service by the time NZ is ready to move on a new frigate.
Maybe even something out of left field like the Absalon class could be an interesting option for NZ.
I think the Italian PPA is also an interesting concept.
PPA, Pattugliatori Polivalenti d'Altura - Wikipedia
Absalon? As a frigate replacement? Might be a interesting option for a LOSV!
Type 31? As an Anzac replacement?
Yet the Defence agenda is in the hands of NZ First - and under the influence of the officials. There won't be any radical changes from the the DWP16 and its spending track. This government is not like the Labour-Alliance government that came into power 18 years ago who had the numbers to dominate every select committee. Jacindarella is no Helen Clark and it is very questionable that they will last more than a term.
t68
Well-Known Member
There is no hard fast design for this yet all speculation, think they can find a better pimped up OPV cheaper somewhere else
Agree that Defence is held by NZ1st but what concerns me is how much traction they will have in Cabinet. Is Winston really willing to endanger his status and the baubles of office over defence by threatening to / or take NZ1ST out of the govt? Also it's not predetermined that this is a single term govt. The possibility exists that they could be a 2 or 3 term govt. As much as we may wish for it to be different, the great hairy unwashed have the final say at the ballot box.