Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

Sea Toby

New Member
Thanks mug. Calliope drydock is 181.4m x 24.3m. HMNZS Canterbury is 131m x 23.4m. Its very, very tight, but I believe she will fit. However, the new Interislander ferry Kaitaki is .2m too long. You would think if you going to build a new ship it should fit, unlike buying a used ferry which wasn't built to fit this drydock. If need be, I'm sure the drydock could be extended again to fit the new ferry Kaitaki, another meter or two will do the trick.

Also, notice that the smallest beam for the ADI Dutch Enforcer designs was 24.8m, some .5m too large for this drydock. Maybe this is why Tenix/Merwede won the order?
 
Last edited:

Lucasnz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Sea Toby said:
Thanks mug. Calliope drydock is 181.4m x 24.3m. HMNZS Canterbury is 131m x 23.4m. Its very, very tight, but I believe she will fit. However, the new Interislander ferry Kaitaki is .2m too long. You would think if you going to build a new ship it should fit, unlike buying a used ferry which wasn't built to fit this drydock. If need be, I'm sure the drydock could be extended again to fit the new ferry Kaitaki, another meter or two will do the trick.

Also, notice that the smallest beam for the ADI Dutch Enforcer designs was 24.8m, some .4m too large for this drydock. Maybe this is why Tenix/Merwede won the order?
Thats really tight. Virtually no room to do hull maintenance at all. Given the increasing size of ships visiting and operating in New Zealand, its probably time the drydock was expanded. It can be expanded along the beam easy as most of the space on one side is carparking. Length wise is another matter.

Just image the reaction of the locals when the navy starts digging away at the hill again:D
 

mug

New Member
IIRC there was a discussion on this topic a few months ago (maybe even last year). I can't for the life of me remember which forum it was on, nor can I find it either.

Ring any bells for anyone?
 

Whiskyjack

Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analys
Verified Defense Pro
Lucasnz said:
Thats really tight. Virtually no room to do hull maintenance at all. Given the increasing size of ships visiting and operating in New Zealand, its probably time the drydock was expanded. It can be expanded along the beam easy as most of the space on one side is carparking. Length wise is another matter.

Just image the reaction of the locals when the navy starts digging away at the hill again:D
especially if there is a crane!!!:jump

Agree it may be time to look at widening.
 

Sea Toby

New Member
I don't see why it can't be lengthened several meters either, instead of going inward, why not outward towards the sea? If you are going to do one of the jobs, why not both jobs? Since the doors of the drydock move inward, half of 24.3 meters is 12.15 meters. Lengthening the drydock 13 meters isn't going to break the bank. Widening should increase the beam at least 4 meters.

Then again, its no big deal to sail across the Tasman Sea to an Australian drydock. Of course, I would prefer to increase New Zealand employment than to increase Australian employment. Jobs are jobs.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Sea Toby said:
I don't see why it can't be lengthened several meters either, instead of going inward, why not outward towards the sea? If you are going to do one of the jobs, why not both jobs? Since the doors of the drydock move inward, half of 24.3 meters is 12.15 meters. Lengthening the drydock 13 meters isn't going to break the bank. Widening should increase the beam at least 4 meters.

Then again, its no big deal to sail across the Tasman Sea to an Australian drydock. Of course, I would prefer to increase New Zealand employment than to increase Australian employment. Jobs are jobs.
It would proably be more effective to build a new facility like a syncolift rahter than try to extend the existing dry dock. Depending of the nature of the geology in the area this could be a large and expensive undertaking.
 

Sea Toby

New Member
From the Google Maps satellite image, it appears there is a cliff at the forward tip of the Calliope dry dock at Devonport, New Zealand. But there is room to widen the drydock a few meters into the parking lot (car park). While the RNZN don't need to lengthen it a few meters yet, it appears the only direction is out to sea. I don't see any space for a syncolift at Devonport.

I have downloaded the image, and its a 148 Kb pdf.
http://homepage.mac.com/donclark/.Public/DevonportNZ.pdf
 

Lucasnz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Sea Toby said:
From the Google Maps satellite image, it appears there is a cliff at the forward tip of the Calliope dry dock at Devonport, New Zealand. But there is room to widen the drydock a few meters into the parking lot (car park). While the RNZN don't need to lengthen it a few meters yet, it appears the only direction is out to sea. I don't see any space for a syncolift at Devonport.

I have downloaded the image, and its a 148 Kb pdf.
http://homepage.mac.com/donclark/.Public/DevonportNZ.pdf

The navy does have a sync lift for Patrol Boat size vessels. Its located at the far end of the base, on the car park side of the drydock. There would be no room to enlarge the sync lift facility.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Sea Toby said:
From the Google Maps satellite image, it appears there is a cliff at the forward tip of the Calliope dry dock at Devonport, New Zealand. But there is room to widen the drydock a few meters into the parking lot (car park). While the RNZN don't need to lengthen it a few meters yet, it appears the only direction is out to sea. I don't see any space for a syncolift at Devonport.

I have downloaded the image, and its a 148 Kb pdf.
http://homepage.mac.com/donclark/.Public/DevonportNZ.pdf
I was not necessarily suggesting that a facility such as a large syncrolift be built at Devonport or be operated by te navy. My point is that enlarging an existing graving dock will be:

1. difficult;
2. cosly; and
3. very time consuming (years not months)

Particualry in such a restricted space. It is not a simple process to widen a dock as the floor forms part of the support for the sides and alighment is quite important. In addiiton the cassion would need to be replaced and the sill rebuilt as well as the associated drainage and pumping arrangment which are normally located at the entry of the dock. To do this a cofferdam would l need to be built around the mouth of the dock (far enough out to allow work to be carried out) to pump the area out.

As this dock can handle most ships in the RNZN has and is growth int e area is limited it wouel appear to be better to look at other options, i.e:

1. another facility
2. dock somewhere else.

cheers
Alex
 

Sea Toby

New Member
I agree there isn't a lot of space for growth at Devonport, the parking lot may have more importance than widening the drydock. Considering its only one ship in their inventory in which the drydock isn't suitable, its probably best to use an Australian drydock instead. The current dimensions of the drydock is suitable for the rest of their fleet.

All of the World War I cruisers would fit into this drydock, but none of the World War I battleships or battlecruisers would fit. Obviously this drydock was built to handle ships as large as WWI cruisers.
 

Stuart Mackey

New Member
Sea Toby said:
.

All of the World War I cruisers would fit into this drydock, but none of the World War I battleships or battlecruisers would fit. Obviously this drydock was built to handle ships as large as WWI cruisers.

According to the RNZN website the dockyards and the drydock was modified post 1936 to accomodate a Leander class cruiser. The dock completed a refit of a cruiser in 1931.

RNZN Devonport webpage
 

NZLAV

New Member
Update

HMNZS Canterbury (L-421)-MRV
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



HMNZS Canterbury under constructionRoyal New Zealand Navy


HMNZS Canterbury is a multi-role vessel of the Royal New Zealand Navy. The MRV is contracted-out to Merwede Shipyard in the Netherlands.

The keel was laid on September 6th 2005 and the MRV was launced successfully on February 11th 2006.

The ship is currently undergoing inital sea trials and will be sailed to Australia for fit-out of its military equipment. The MRV should be delivered to the RNZN in late 2006.





General Characteristics
Displacement: 9000 tonnes (full load)

Dimensions: 131 m x 23.4 m x 5.6m

Endurance: 8000nm @ 16kts: Max Speed 19kts

Complement

Crew: 53 Navy: 10 Aircrew: 7 Army Staff
Other: 35 Trainees: 4 Government Agency Staff
Troop Lift: 250 Troops
Total Accommodation: 360
Machinery

2 x Warstila diesel engines in a COLAD arrangement.
3 x Auxiliary diesels.
2 x Bow Thrusters
Sensors

Navigation Radar
Weapons Control: Optical Director
Weapons

1 x 25mm Cannon
2 x 12.7mm Machine Guns

Aircraft: Flight Deck capacity for Two Medium Helicopters and transport capability for 4 NH90 and one SH-2G Helicopter.

Lift Capability: 403 Lane Metres which could hold: 16 LAV, 14 LOV, 7 UNIMOGS, 2 Ambulances, 2 Flat bed trucks, 7 LOV Trailers, 2 Rough Terrain Fork Lifts and 4 four wheel vehicles and up to 33 containers

Landing Craft: 2 x medium landing Craft (23m), 2 x 7.4m RHIB (25kts: 100nm), 2 x Special Forces RHIB's


Other
The MRV is fitted with a Operating Theatre, two bed sickbay and 5 bed ward and is also fitted with x-ray, laboratory and a morgue.

Protector class OPV's

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Protector class is to be an off-shore patrol vessel of the Royal New Zealand Navy.

Key Dates
July 2002 NZ MoD issues Invitation to Register (ITR)
29 July 2004 Project Protector contract signed between NZ MoD and Tenix Defence. OPVs to be built at Tenix's Williamstown Yard, Victoria, Australia with modules barged across the Tasman from Tenix's Whangarei, New Zealand shipbuilding facility.
22 February 2005 First OPV steel cut
December 2005 OPV1 keel laid
31 March 2006 Future commissioned names announced - OPV1 to be HMNZS Otago (P148) and OPV2 to be HMNZS Wellington (P55)
November 2006 OPV1 to be launched
April 2007 planned delivery OPV1 to RNZN
October 2007 planned delivery OPV2 to RNZN

Design origin
Conceived as part of Project Protector, the Ministry of Defence acquisition project to acquire one multi-role vessel, two offshore and four inshore patrol vessels. The Project Protector vessels will be operated by the RNZN to conduct tasks for and with the New Zealand Customs Service, the Department of Conservation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Ministry of Fisheries, Maritime New Zealand, and New Zealand Police.

Variations of the OPV design are in service with the Irish Naval Service (since 1999) and the Mauritian Coast Guard (since 1996). The vessel is compliant with all of the operational requirements for patrol and response, cargo carriage and handling, sea keeping for sea boat and helicopter operations, and has a high level of comfort for crew and client agency officials.

Names
On 31 March 2006 the Hon. Phil Goff, Minister of Defence, announced that the OPVs will be named HMNZS Otago and HMNZS Wellington. Otago and Wellington are the names of frigates previously operated by the RNZN. These ships will carry the honour board of their predecessors, and the heritage so represented.

On 8 July 2006 the RNZN website was indicating pennant numbers as HMNZS Otago (P148) and HMNZS Wellington(P55).


General characteristics
Displacement: 1740 tonnes
Length overall: 85 metres
Length of waterline: 77.6 metres
Beam: 14 metres
Draft: 3.6 metres
Speed: 22 knots
Range: 6,000nm
Minimum endurance: 28 days stores
Core ship's company: 35
Flight personnel: 10
Government agencies: 4
Additional PAX: 30
[edit]
Propulsion
Two MAN B&W 12RK280 diesel engines with a continuous rating of 5,400 kW at 1,000 rpm
ZF W63000 NRH gearboxes
CP propellers
Baseline speed 22 knots
Economical speed 12 knots
Loiter speed 4-10 knots

Helicopter
The helicopter facilities have been designed to replicate those of the RNZN ANZAC frigates
SH-2G Seasprite

Boats and cargo handling
2 x RHIB (7.74m) each with own crane
1x special forces RHIB (11m)
1 x sea container
15 tonne crane aft
Maximum SH-2G helicopter cargo lift: 1814 kg

EEZ patrol and response
Sea boat deployment and recovery in sea state 4 (seas moderate, waves 1.25 - 2.5m)
Helicopter launch and recovery in sea state 5 (seas rough, waves 2.5 - 4m)
Vertrep in sea state 6 (seas very rough, waves 4 - 6m)
Ability to patrol in sea state 6 and survive in sea state 9 (seas phenomenal, waves over 14m)

Armament
ATK (via ADI/MSI) M242 Bushmaster 25mm cannon with remote weapons station, including optical direction (The NZ Army's 105 light armoured vehicles NZLAVs also use the M242, sharing ammunition and training.)
2x12.75mm machine guns
small arms
SH-2G helicopter can use homing torpedos, depth charges, Maverick air-to-surface missiles, M60 machine gun

Ice strengthening
Strengthened to provide ice class 1C protection.
Involved strengthening the bow section, ice belt region, fin stabilisers, propulsion shaftline and the propellers.

Crew ranks and appointments
According to Written Question 01976 to the Minister of Defence, the ranks and appointments of the OPV will be as follows:

Rank Appointment Position Service
LT CDR CO Commanding Officer Navy
LT CDR/LT XO Executive Officer Navy
LT/SLT NO Navigation Officer Navy
LT/SLT/ENS BWK Bridge Watchkeeper Navy
LT/SLT/ENS SO Bridge Watchkeeper Navy
LT EO Engineering Officer Navy
CPO PMM Plant and Maintenance Manager Navy
PO ESCMM Propulsion and Aux. POS# Supervisor Navy
L PHASM Prop, HVAC# & Aux. Systems Maintainer Navy
L ESM Electrical Systems Maintainer Navy
A PHASM Prop, HVAC & Aux. Systems Maintainer Navy
A ESM Electrical Systems Maintainer Navy
PO Snr Elec Tech Senior Electronics Technician Navy
L Elec Tech Electronics Technician Navy
L Weapons Tech Weapons Technician Navy
A Elec Tech Electronics Technician Navy
PO Snr Chef Catering Manager Navy
A Chef WK Watchkeeping Chef Navy
A Chef WK Watchkeeping Chef Navy
A Chef WK Watchkeeping Chef Navy
L Snr SA Logistic Support Navy
L Medic Medical Support Navy
CPO CBM IC Seaman Evolutions Navy
PO Comcen Sup Communications Supervisor Navy
A COM Communications Operator Navy
A COM Communications Operator Navy
PO Ops Rm Sup Ops. Room Supervisor/CBM#’s Assistant Navy
A Ops Room AB Ops Room Operator Navy
A Ops Room AB Ops Room Operator Navy
L POS, BP#, Evo# Maintenance Team Leader Navy
L POS, BP#, Evo#, Maintenance Team Leader Navy
A AB Quartermaster Navy
A AB Quartermaster Navy
A AB Quartermaster Navy
A AB Quartermaster Navy
M Fish Boarding Civilian
M Fish Boarding Civilian
Customs Boarding Civilian
Customs Boarding Civilian
LT CDR FLTCDR Flight Commander Navy
LT PLT/OBS Pilot/Observer Navy
LH/CPO AC Aircrewman Navy
FSGT SMR Senior Maintenance Rating Air Force
SGT AT Aircraft Technician Air Force
CPL AT Aircraft Technician Air Force
CPL AT Aircraft Technician Air Force
SGT SAVTECH Senior Avionics Technician Air Force
CPL AVTECH Avionics Technician Air Force
SGT ARMR Armourer Technician Air Force


Lake-Class IPV

Design origin
Conceived as part of Project Protector, the Ministry of Defence acquisition project to acquire one multi-role vessel, two offshore and four inshore patrol vessels. The Project Protector vessels will be operated by the RNZN to conduct tasks for and with the New Zealand Customs Service, the Department of Conservation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Ministry of Fisheries, Maritime New Zealand, and New Zealand Police.

The IPVs will be used for inshore tasks within 50nm of the coastline.

The shipbuilders (Tenix Defence) claim "the vessel is more than capable of extending the Crown's operational envelope to southern ocean patrol duties".

Names
On 31 March 2006 the Hon. Phil Goff, Minister of Defence, announced that the IPVs will be named HMNZS Taupo, HMNZS Pukaki, HMNZS Hawea and HMNZS Rotoiti. These are the names of Lake class patrol boats, and frigates, previously operated by the RNZN. These ships' names come from New Zealand lakes, two in the North Island and two in the South Island.


General
Displacement 340 tonnes
Dimensions 55 x 9 x 2.9 metres (179 x 29 x 9 feet)
Max speed 25 knots
Range 3,000 nm
Complement 20 (+2) Navy 4 Govt agency officers 12 additional personnel
To achieve the required 950 patrol days and allow sufficient crew rest, multi-crewing of the four boats by six crews is required.

Propulsion
Two MAN B&W 12VP185 engines rated at 2,500 kW and 1,907 RPM
ZF 7640 NR gearboxes
Two controllable pitch propellers
Range 3,000 nautical miles and a maximum speed of 25knots
Economical speed 12 knots
Loiter speed 4-7 knots



Patrol and response
Sea boat deployment and recovery in sea state 4 (seas moderate, waves 1.25 - 2.5m)
Vertrep in sea state 5 (seas rough, waves 2.5- 4m)
Ability to patrol in sea state 5 and survive in sea state 8 (seas very high, waves 9 - 14m)

Armament
3 x 12.75 mm machine gun, mounted forward and two either side of the funnel.
Small arms

Source-Wikipedia
 

Whiskyjack

Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analys
Verified Defense Pro
Can I ask, as there seems to be an opinion in this direction, which gun people see the OPVs, MRVs armed with?

My personnel preference from reading is the Mk 3 57mm from BAE (used to be United Defence).

However I am also a bit ambivalent, as IMO opinion a few 25mm rounds in the right place will stop anything found in the South Pacific.

So I am interested in what system/calibre and why people feel it needs to be that system.
 

KH-12

Member
Whiskyjack said:
Can I ask, as there seems to be an opinion in this direction, which gun people see the OPVs, MRVs armed with?

My personnel preference from reading is the Mk 3 57mm from BAE (used to be United Defence).

However I am also a bit ambivalent, as IMO opinion a few 25mm rounds in the right place will stop anything found in the South Pacific.

So I am interested in what system/calibre and why people feel it needs to be that system.
The 57mm gun does indeed look like a nice weapon a 17km reach is very reasonable , I think the main reason to go with a larger gun is for the range aspect, you would probably have to close to within 1-2km with the 25mm to be accurate (I agree the damage it could inflict should be adequate), which may not always be practical. The 25mm would be good on the IPV. I guess there is a reasonable increase in costs to integrate a longer ranged weapon from the target acquisition and aiming perspective.

From an asethetics viewpoint the 25mm Bushmaster just does'nt make the grade ;)
 

Whiskyjack

Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analys
Verified Defense Pro
KH-12 said:
The 57mm gun does indeed look like a nice weapon a 17km reach is very reasonable , I think the main reason to go with a larger gun is for the range aspect, you would probably have to close to within 1-2km with the 25mm to be accurate (I agree the damage it could inflict should be adequate), which may not always be practical. The 25mm would be good on the IPV. I guess there is a reasonable increase in costs to integrate a longer ranged weapon from the target acquisition and aiming perspective.

From an asethetics viewpoint the 25mm Bushmaster just does'nt make the grade ;)
From my perspective, if you are chasing down a trawler/merchant vessel, you do not want to be firing warning shots at long range, the last thing any one wants is an international incident where NZ is explaining to a major trading partner how rounds accidently hit a vessel killing some people!
 

KH-12

Member
Whiskyjack said:
From my perspective, if you are chasing down a trawler/merchant vessel, you do not want to be firing warning shots at long range, the last thing any one wants is an international incident where NZ is explaining to a major trading partner how rounds accidently hit a vessel killing some people!
What about if you are in pursuit of something more sinister for example a high speed Al Qaeda suicide boat, and your OPV tops out at 22knots, you may feel the need to reach out and touch them :( , hypothetical I know but not impossible. I doubt you would have to more than fire across a merchant vessels bow to get them to stop, if you want to put some lead on them then the 12.7mm is probably the best option.
 

Whiskyjack

Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analys
Verified Defense Pro
KH-12 said:
What about if you are in pursuit of something more sinister for example a high speed Al Qaeda suicide boat, and your OPV tops out at 22knots, you may feel the need to reach out and touch them :( , hypothetical I know but not impossible. I doubt you would have to more than fire across a merchant vessels bow to get them to stop, if you want to put some lead on them then the 12.7mm is probably the best option.
Not sure I under stand your scenario, are you saying that the RNZN will find a high speed suicide boat out in the Pacific, or in a harbour?

In the Pacific (apart from running out of gas, and not sure what it would be doing there) you launch a Seasprite with a Mav, in harbour the range and options would be down to the 12.7/25mm?

Unless yoy know what you are shooting at, I doubt you would ever put rounds into a ship out of visual range, could be packed with explosives, drugs, fish, people etc etc..
 
Top