Low center of gravity is very viscous. Coming home from Newcastle of Port Kembla on a slow green with a load of steel in your belly could produce rolls up to 50 degrees on some vessels. With modifications to Canterbury - For me Still NO. She has too much windage with her high profile. She is ice strengthened BUT like other Project Protector assets fail to fully fulfil their objective roles. Servicing the Auckland Islands has been accomplished and does provide shelter if necessary. NZ is a lot closer from their than the edges of the Antarctic where fisheries patrols would be made. For our SOPV I would be happy with a VARD9 Icebreaker (Chilean Navy new build) or a Canadian VARD Harry De Wolff
Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
Canterbury is based on a commercial RO-RO design and was designed for a specific task. The vessel may will be challenging in light loaded conditions because of this and I agree that she would not make a good dedicated SOPV.
However I do have a comment on your issue with 50 degree rolls with a low centre of gravity (CoG).
A low CoG does not cause rolling, heel or and angle of loll (these are a consequence of the action of the sea and dynamic forces such as free surface effect and wind). Rolling to 50 degrees would suggest a high CoG and/or there are other forces degrading the vessel stability such as free surface effect from slack ballast and fuel tanks. If you are slow rolling up to 50 degrees I suggest someone has stuffed up the load or has not managed the stability of the vessel. A good example of this is the MV Jawan which had a combination of poorly declared cargo and poor weight management as well as free surface. This vessel had a high CoG and was very tender (liable to roll). The combination of animal movement and free surface effect gave the vessel an unstable equilibrium caused by a low metacentric height caused a negative GM meaning the vessel would roll over until the increased buoyancy on the side of the roll stopped the roll on that side ..... only to have the cycle repeated as she rolled back.
jawan rolling - Bing
A very low CoG may make the vessel very 'stiff' meaning it will try to return to the upright very quickly (also known as whipping) which is not a good thing either. In short having a very low CoG (caused by a belly full of steel) should not have caused the 50 degree rolls you describe. A vessel with a low CoG will often have a large GM which will resist the roll and try to return the vessel to the initial (upright) position. When planning a ship the Chief Officer would look at a happy middle ground, the vessel has adequate stability but is not so stiff that the hull and cargo will be subject to whipping.
Thanks for the indepth query and following explanation of why a low or very low COG was not the cause of heavy rolling. Taking the 50 degree roll as a one off (Ngatoro mid 1960s) Others in her class experienced heavy rolling in severe sea conditions.and with your explanation there lies the answer.
CJohn
Active Member
You are not alone in that regard.
From the Cole report an independent review into Canterbury 's acquisition and introduction into service, focusing on the ship's safety and functionality:
"From the outset of the project, there was insufficient appreciation of the constraints to the ship's operations imposed by the selection of a commercial ro/ro design as the basis for the design for the MRV," the report stated. "The Ben-My-Chree (which Canterbury is based on) is a 'short/fat' ship that operates across the Irish Sea where conditions are akin to coastal waters, where the seas are generally short-crested as compared with deep oceans. Even a cursory examination of her design and operating profile should have raised questions over her suitability, once modified, for long operational patrols in the southern oceans."
The Union Steamship Company was purchased by P&O in 1917. It was one of the largest shipping companies in the Southern Hemisphere. P&O sold it in 1971 to TNT who ran it into the ground before Brierley Investments bought up what was left and sold it piece by piece. A friends dad was NZ GM for Mærsk many years ago, he has always said NZ is a small country with far too many ports. He's always said NZ only needs one large port to service the import export market, with a fleet of domestically flagged vessels providing feeder service to and from this port to the rest of the country along with an efficient rail network.
Most countries don't have a domestically owned shipping company, Australia doesn't, the UK don't, The US not them either, they are all reliant on a handful of large providers who dominate the industry.
�
| Company name | Headquarters | Total TEU | Ships | Market share | Notes | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Maersk Line |
| 4,121,789 | 786 | 16.9% | [Note 1] |
| 2 | Mediterranean Shipping Company |
| 3,920,784 | 589 | 16.1% | [Note 2] |
| 3 | CMA CGM |
| 3,049,743 | 557 | 12.5% | [Note 3] |
| 4 | COSCO |
| 3,007,421 | 498 | 12.3% | [Note 4] |
| 5 | Hapag-Lloyd |
| 1,789,399 | 256 | 7.3% | [Note 5] |
| 6 | Ocean Network Express |
| 1,600,531 | 221 | 6.6% | [Note 6] |
| 7 | Evergreen Marine |
| 1,345,537 | 202 | 5.5% | [Note 7] |
Aluminium Hail
New Member
Hi there everyone. Long time watcher first time poster.
Stuff has an article on SOPV RFI with a link to the complete RFI. I was pleasently surprised to see it incudes a requirement for icebreaking in up to 1m of first year ice. I know many here have advocated for such a capability but I really expected something more like a stretched Otago.
i.stuff.co.nz
Stuff has an article on SOPV RFI with a link to the complete RFI. I was pleasently surprised to see it incudes a requirement for icebreaking in up to 1m of first year ice. I know many here have advocated for such a capability but I really expected something more like a stretched Otago.
Stuff
i.stuff.co.nz
Ideally your friends Dad was "Spot on" when he advocated for one main large port. a New facility at Orere Point area would be a definite consideration. The main problems I foresee would be upgrading our rail system to cope including the addition of more rail ferries. With Coastal shipping - bad experiences historically with the Seamans Union - manning scales etc. (NZ Govt - "Coastal Trader", USS Co vessels) and economics eventually caused their demise. Hence my suggestion for more rail ferries but terminal capacity at both Wellington and Picton would need to be addressed. Restarting a RORO Wellington/Lyttleton service is another option. With RORO vessels you can optimise your loadings better. (Both rail and road transport) Finally - Cost ????.
It was good to see Stuff produce a decent informative article for the digestion of the NZ Public. About time. Has been long overdue and we need more to comeHi there everyone. Long time watcher first time poster.
Stuff has an article on SOPV RFI with a link to the complete RFI. I was pleasently surprised to see it incudes a requirement for icebreaking in up to 1m of first year ice. I know many here have advocated for such a capability but I really expected something more like a stretched Otago.
Stuff
Yes impressive... Polar Class 5 & some ice-breaking capability, happy with that. If they do actually get the go-ahead to purchase and they get something that meets all these specs (rather than a Govt $$$ enforced scale-down) then she'll likely be quite a capability.
I quite like the fact that the RFI has been published in the MSM as it makes it accessible to the average Joe who wouldn't normally bother to go looking and read it unless they had an agenda (think bleeding-hearts & those that think all we need is a coastguard... and likewise the naysayers who simply want to whinge about the cost). The RFI clearly shows the huge area NZ has 'responsibility' for which clearly articulates the need plus it helps to convey to the masses (rabble?) just how technically complex such a capability has to be & therefore explains why the $$$ is going to be what it is! It also shows the degree of effort that has gone into establishing what the vessel will likely need in order to achieve what is required of it and therefore reflects the professionalism of the project team!
Therefore my pick is... procurement of this (if it even occurs) will occur with very little resistance and even the Greens will support it (in their droves I dare say!)
While I agree the international liner trade is dominated by large liner operators it is not correct to say that the countries your point to do not have a domestically owned shipping companies. To be fair the number of Australian ships above 500 gross tonnage certified for international trade is small at around 62. These are all registered on the Australian General Register with the owner or operator residing in Australia. Registration is mandatory under the Australian Shipping Registration Act 1981.
While Australia's international 'fleet' is small the large miners do own large fleets. These are generally operated out of Singapore as they have an international register that has very low tax rates. Australia attempted to entice them back with the Australia International Shipping Register (which still technically exists) but the carrots offered were non-existent compared to a 'proper International flag'.
As a fun fact .... the biggest ship in the world (FLNG Prelude) is on the Australian Register.
Gracie1234
Well-Known Member
Great set of capabilities in the RFI, I expect that we are likely to need more than one SOPV.
WRT the capabilities, we shall see what eventuates. Of interest to note that the MH-60R was mentioned, which isn't unusual because it has to be in the mix for the SH-2G(I) Seasprite replacement. I agree that two would be better.
The Australian fleet could not provide the capacity needed if shit were to hit the fan, the large miners fleets are almost exclusively dry cargo, the ability to haul iron ore isn't going to be that important.
I did not say that we have sufficient shipping and my comment was that the fleet was small. My comment was a correction that there were no domestic owners in Australia.
The Australian fleet will not grow in the current environment. The AISR would have been a good idea and would have attracted general cargo and container vessels .............. if it had been properly implemented. How it was adopted was doom to failure.
As an aside the UK has a number of significant ship owners .... they just don't flag all their ships in the UK.
kiwi in exile
Active Member
Footnote 13 mentions RPAS up to RQ 21. Would be great to see NZDF operate a deployable UAV capability like this
True but the UK still have quite a number of ships on their flag and have four of the remaining point class available to MOD. The number of ships required will really depend on the task.
Australia’s main problem is that we rely almost entirely on foreign flag ships for import and export and they have the predominant share of the coastal trade as well. If things got difficult these vessels may not be available.
Royal New Zealand Navy | Navy Today - Issue 254, May 2021
In our May issue we showcase HMNZS Aotearoa’s ceremonial homeport visit to New Plymouth, and welcome local war veteran Trevor Watson on board for a personal tour. The Navy marae celebrates 21 years, while HMNZS Te Mana’s team struggle with COVID-19 in Canada. Our musicians take part in a...
Should we read anything into what the CN mentions about the budget in page 3 on the latest RNZN Navy Today issue? "...How the investment priorities affect the Navy will be discussed in future editions of this magazine..." I've never seen reference to what the budget is going to mean and needing it described over a few issues... it could be interpreted as referring to a quite dramatic shift... but given it references the budget which provided diddly-squat in $$$ then it certainly won't be a growth phase! Maybe it will be a period of austerity until the next Defence assessment decides what Defence investments follow in subsequent years!?! Bye-bye IPV's?
I'm not sure I read Navy Today like that. From my perspective the budget was a steady as we go budget consistent with implementation of DWP19. In terms of defence there a still a significant number of real estate issues outstanding (from the state of defence housing vs the government's health homes policy, the replacement of some long term building assets (i.e. the main accommodation blocks at DNB (assuming DNB stays) not to mention considerations around a drydock etc.
Realistically the Governments in a bit of a position with regards to the Navy. With most of the fleet due for replacement next decade, there is only so much wriggle room in deferring the acquisition of new ships, and a reduction in fleet size isn't an option, given some of the background reasons for Project Protector (i.e. the navy had become to small). For me decisions on the future fleet would be (given the snail pace of defence acquisitions) need to be made by about 2025 /2027 (at the lastest), with the first ships online 2031. Assuming all the ministers are talking to each other
and are on the same page in regards to the changing strategic situation I suspect we'll see a more of a more capable OPV replacement (i.e. 4 would allow for one permanently deployed into the South Pacific, mil spec for design, larger flight deck - so longer overall length, 57mm as possible examples). The navy will always require 1 IPV for training in the gulf - anyone want a night in a life raft. Changes in MCM / Hydrographic technology are likely to change the requirements to replace Manawanui with a like for like. As to the frigates and Canterbury mmm....
Realistically the Governments in a bit of a position with regards to the Navy. With most of the fleet due for replacement next decade, there is only so much wriggle room in deferring the acquisition of new ships, and a reduction in fleet size isn't an option, given some of the background reasons for Project Protector (i.e. the navy had become to small). For me decisions on the future fleet would be (given the snail pace of defence acquisitions) need to be made by about 2025 /2027 (at the lastest), with the first ships online 2031. Assuming all the ministers are talking to each other
and are on the same page in regards to the changing strategic situation I suspect we'll see a more of a more capable OPV replacement (i.e. 4 would allow for one permanently deployed into the South Pacific, mil spec for design, larger flight deck - so longer overall length, 57mm as possible examples). The navy will always require 1 IPV for training in the gulf - anyone want a night in a life raft. Changes in MCM / Hydrographic technology are likely to change the requirements to replace Manawanui with a like for like. As to the frigates and Canterbury mmm....