Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[Todjaeger]

Not at all.

There are levels of threat that fall between terrorist craft and Air Defence Cruiser.

There are many types of missile boats, corvettes, and light frigates throughout the Asian region. These would not only be easier a target, easier to kill/mission kill with one (relatively) small missile, but be a more realistic foe for a kiwi Anzac.

I have to disagree here somewhat. In a maritime environment the target platform, unless it is something quite small like some FACs would expect to be aware of the incoming Seasprite for some time prior to it (the Seasprite) reaching launch range. If one looks at the various air defence weapons available to a number of different corvettes and other smaller vessels, it is quite possible that a Maverick-armed Seasprite would be within range of the ship-based air defences before it is able to fire the Mavericks. The Maverick does have a significant warhead for its size, sufficient to damage if not mission-kill or outright sink smaller vessels, but it has comparatively short range for use vs. maritime targets. I do think it is better than nothing, or if NZ could get and use the ex-RAN Penguin AShM, which is another short ranged (this time upto ~40km with an even larger warhead IIRC). However, a Maverick is really an AGM, not some form of standoff weapon.

The other issue I have with using helibourne Mavericks is that due to size and weight, a Seasprite can really only carry a maximum of two. Coupled with the range limitations, the Maverick can IMO only really be used safely vs. targets with comparatively weak air defences. This usually means thinks like FACs. Against targets like these, it often seems the new range of multi-purpose Hellfire missiles are more suitable as more can be carried by an aircraft.

-Cheers

 

[icelord]

had a look on Cantrebury when she was at FBE Sydney, very nice and spacious, especially the part where you don't even need to see pongos until the come onboard or leave, funny though watching on the ships CCTV the duty stoker mopping the tank deck...still few hiccups but very nice indeed, plus the RHIBs on the water looked impressive when flying past.

 

[Sea Toby]

When one looks at the new LSDs Indonesia bought from the South Koreans and are building in Indonesia, New Zealand got a transport ship at a very good price. While the Indonesian LSDs which are about the same size run almost twice as much as the Canterbury, in US dollars. There may have been a few flaws, she has proved her worth as a transport ship.

Last year she worked well in exercises with Australian LCMs, this year she as worked well with Australian LCHs. Several types of helicopters have flown off her decks, from Sea Kings, Seahawks, Blackhawks, Pumas, Allouettes, not to mention Seasprites and Hueys, and most likely Squirrels as well. She is large enough to handle a Chinooks, but I have not heard whether one has flown off her as yet. Soon Australian and/or New Zealand NH-90s plus A-109s will fly from her decks.

I consider the Canterbury as the poor man's LPD, without a well dock.

 

[StevoJH]

When one looks at the new LSDs Indonesia bought from the South Koreans and are building in Indonesia, New Zealand got a transport ship at a very good price. While the Indonesian LSDs which are about the same size run almost twice as much as the Canterbury, in US dollars. There may have been a few flaws, she has proved her worth as a transport ship.

Last year she worked well in exercises with Australian LCMs, this year she as worked well with Australian LCHs. Several types of helicopters have flown off her decks, from Sea Kings, Seahawks, Blackhawks, Pumas, Allouettes, not to mention Seasprites and Hueys, and most likely Squirrels as well. She is large enough to handle a Chinooks, but I have not heard whether one has flown off her as yet. Soon Australian and/or New Zealand NH-90s plus A-109s will fly from her decks.

I consider the Canterbury as the poor man's LPD, without a well dock.

Is the deck of the Canterbury strengthened enough for Chinooks?

 

[Sea Toby]

When the ship was built, it was reported several times that she could carry a Chinook. Therefore, I assume she can.

 

[MrConservative]

When one looks at the new LSDs Indonesia bought from the South Koreans and are building in Indonesia, New Zealand got a transport ship at a very good price. While the Indonesian LSDs which are about the same size run almost twice as much as the Canterbury, in US dollars. There may have been a few flaws, she has proved her worth as a transport ship.

Last year she worked well in exercises with Australian LCMs, this year she as worked well with Australian LCHs. Several types of helicopters have flown off her decks, from Sea Kings, Seahawks, Blackhawks, Pumas, Allouettes, not to mention Seasprites and Hueys, and most likely Squirrels as well. She is large enough to handle a Chinooks, but I have not heard whether one has flown off her as yet. Soon Australian and/or New Zealand NH-90s plus A-109s will fly from her decks.

I consider the Canterbury as the poor man's LPD, without a well dock.

So Toby you are saying that a KRI Makassar class LPD is more expensive to build at Daewoo than the Canterbury was at Merwede. So the TNI announcing that the class of 4 ships to be a total of US$80m was nonsense (I did find the quoted cost of US19.9ml suprising in the least when I have read elsewhere the class of four vessels was around the 150m pounds stirling total). I was under the impression that the Makassar was alot cheaper per unit than the Canterbury though a lot simpler as a ship. What is the project cost of the Makassar LPD's? It must be more than US100ml per ship then.

That said I have to admit that I so loathe the new Canterbury I refused to drive from Northcote Pt, a quick 5 minutes over the harbour bridge to to the view the thing up close at Princess Wharf on Saturday last, unlike every other ship in the navy since the first Canterbury as a schoolboy 38 years ago.

 

[Sea Toby]

Sorry, the information I read about their costs wasn't in American dollars. I am usually good at foreign exchange, but it appears I may be off a zero.

Having said the above, I find it difficult their price can be so cheap. If they can build ships a dime on a dollar than anyone else, everybody would be buying ships from them and nobody else. I can see cheaper labor rates, but not cheaper steel rates. Well, not that much.

 

[Gibbo]

...That said I have to admit that I so loathe the new Canterbury I refused to drive from Northcote Pt, a quick 5 minutes over the harbour bridge to to the view the thing up close at Princess Wharf on Saturday last, unlike every other ship in the navy since the first Canterbury as a schoolboy 38 years ago.

I think we all agree the Canterbury was a typical NZ Govt (Labour or National) attempt at doing defence on the cheap, and this is probably one of the worst examples

Now I'm no Navy man but for all that, and remembering the Canterbury was never intended as anything more than a glorified transport - it's not actually that bad a vessel. Sure she has issues - but I suggest you take the chance to have a look around here before you condemn her! She's well laid-out and the crew seem quite proud of her.

Once the various issues are ironed out she'll be pretty much fit for service (yes granted with some limitations), but I'm sure the RNZN will coax the best out of her!

 

[Sea Toby]

While the Resolution replaced the previous hydrographic ship, Monowai, along with the previous oceanographic ship, Tui, in my eyes the Canterbury is much better at sea lift than Monowai. While she is no LPD or a frigate, she can transport 403 lane meters of vehicles, and carry more helicopters than Monowai. I would consider this an overall improvement.

 

[MrConservative]

I think we all agree the Canterbury was a typical NZ Govt (Labour or National) attempt at doing defence on the cheap, and this is probably one of the worst examples

Now I'm no Navy man but for all that, and remembering the Canterbury was never intended as anything more than a glorified transport - it's not actually that bad a vessel. Sure she has issues - but I suggest you take the chance to have a look around here before you condemn her! She's well laid-out and the crew seem quite proud of her.

Once the various issues are ironed out she'll be pretty much fit for service (yes granted with some limitations), but I'm sure the RNZN will coax the best out of her!

But the point that still bugs me is that she was 'sold' to the public as a 'multi-role vessel' that would patrol the southern oceans and venture far and wide on the high seas as a replacement for the old frigate Canterbury, as well as a sealift vessel replacing the (awful) Charles Upham. More than a glorified transport in my view. That has not happened obviously. My refusal to go near her in a way is my silent protest against the dreadful defence policy of the previous government. Canterbury is a great region of NZ and the ship is not good enough to bear her name as was the Upham was a slur on the great soldiers name. It should be renamed the HMNZS Helen Clark IMHO.

 

[MrConservative]

While the Resolution replaced the previous hydrographic ship, Monowai, along with the previous oceanographic ship, Tui, in my eyes the Canterbury is much better at sea lift than Monowai. While she is no LPD or a frigate, she can transport 403 lane meters of vehicles, and carry more helicopters than Monowai. I would consider this an overall improvement.

I still am of the view that the final cost of circa NZ$200m (post rectification) for what we ended up with, a sealift ship with nice carpet and comfy bunks, could have been done for less. Lane metres, hanger space, flight deck etc...

In many ways project protector should have been broken down into the separate key capabilities and a specific contractor involved with delivering a key specific capability (sealift, long range ocean patrol and inshore patrol) and not under the umbrella of one organisation tasked with trying to deliver all the specific capabilities as a package.

 

[Sea Toby]

One cannot blame the government for going on the cheap and then on the other hand say someone could have done it for less. Frankly, in my opinion this is exactly what is wrong with the New Zealand people and their attitude toward defense. Too much talk and not enough substance.

The same thing happened with the F-16 deal. America bent over backwards almost giving you the aircraft at a fire sale price, but but, it was too much, we can't afford them. Before long, its been spun to we can't afford any air combat force.

The Australians provide New Zealand with a good offset deal for the Anzac frigates, but instead of buying four, or even three, New Zealand only bought two.

You are correct, penny pinching defense has become very common. Don't be surprised when the offset offers and fire sales aren't offered anymore.

 

[MrConservative]

One cannot blame the government for going on the cheap and then on the other hand say someone could have done it for less. Frankly, in my opinion this is exactly what is wrong with the New Zealand people and their attitude toward defense. Too much talk and not enough substance.

The same thing happened with the F-16 deal. America bent over backwards almost giving you the aircraft at a fire sale price, but but, it was too much, we can't afford them. Before long, its been spun to we can't afford any air combat force.

The Australians provide New Zealand with a good offset deal for the Anzac frigates, but instead of buying four, or even three, New Zealand only bought two.

You are correct, penny pinching defense has become very common. Don't be surprised when the offset offers and fire sales aren't offered anymore.

Lets be very clear on this. An equally capable Sealift capability could have be done very effectively for less. You know that as well as I do. It was wasteful spending for what we got delivered. Thus the patrol element of Project Protector was undercooked because of it. You know very well where I stand on this issue regarding effective defence spending.

Think about how the contract was designed and the AG's report on the funding levels and process. It was not good reading as I know you have probably read most of the critical reports that I have read following the delivery of the vessels.

My view is that the contractual element in Project Protector could have been done more effectively by separating it out into the required capability components and appropriately funding and contracting them separately.

Therefore for what we taxpayers paid for and for what we actually got is it is unacceptable in my view. It all harks back to the bundling up of all the projects components into the one contractual package.

That is the key point I am making and blaming the prior government for. So it is possible to blame the government for going on the cheap and then on the other hand say someone could have done it for less.:nutkick

As for the cancelled F-16's deal, do not hang that on the people of NZ collectively. It was a flawed decision made by the then PM in 2000 as part of her hidden agenda and against public opinion at the time. It was not the only sweet deal on the cards at the time offered by the US and in fact the take it or leave it attitude of 28 aircraft deal initially offered was the thing that held it up from not being signed off earlier with the chance that the Clark Govt could not have backed out like they did. Only after the Quigley report said 14-16 aircraft was what was required did the US backtrack. But really its all water under the bridge and should be discussed on the navy thread.

As for fire sales and offsets being offered. Remember a week is a long time in politics. Labour and the Republicans are gone, traditionally National and Democratic governments have a history of working quite well together, for instance NZ just this week did a nice back room deal so the US could get a position so as to influence the UNHRC, a key US diplomatic goal.

 

[shanes_world_05]

Hi Sea Toby,

I am not disagreeing with you or not saying that the US wasn't trying to bend over backwards to offer the F-16's ( I suspect they very much were) but what makes you say that? I am interested to know about that deal as there is not alot around on it other that what the woeful media feels bothered to put out.

Does anyone know the extent of the upgrades the RNZAF were going to acquire for the F-16 if they had got them? Helmet-mounted sights to much and what of jamming and targetting gear?
And any chance of a sweet number of cheap airframes lying around now? (Dreaming away....)

And yes I remember people complaining that we didn't need full fledged frigates at the time of the ANZAC's construction then bemoaning the lack of Govt investment in NZ industry and skills based employment - exactly what ship building gives you.....doesnt take much to connect the dots so yeah I agree alot. I could easily rant on but its just opinions. And yes the Canterbury was marketed to the electorate as a multi-role vessel and the electorate didn't bat an eyelid.
It comes down to alot of reasons why we don't do things right in enough areas. But its predictable that like Britain NZ will only have fully trained and equiped military ready to fight just as the war is winding down and the inadequate forces we have sent (not a comment on the actual soldiers, sailors and airmen - I know I was pretending to be one) have sustained disproportionate losses again ala the last two major scraps we got into.

Also for the 750 or 760 Million NZD we have spent on the NH90's what could we have obtained in say chinooks (massive, massive difference in size and class but look at afghanistan. Nobody would trade there for anything but Chooks, and besides the A109's are quite capable little choppers in their own right and worthy of more than just the title of training chopper. And Prince William got to use one as his personal party bus. Why cant we have some.)
or say something else equally proven, capable and well supported? Nothing else springs to my mind but there would be I imagine.
The NH90 is a fine helicopter but its alot new. I would love to be qualified to fly one - couldn't think of many better jobs (say being Megan Fox's after dinner plaything is still holding court though) but just wonder if it were my job to shape the NZDF for a short sharp and risky intervention somewhere whether thats what I would spend 750 mill on, despite the sexy euro chic that they are. I mean they really do look good. But few things would command respect more than a chook with four 50's banging away as it is flaring in light and tight to drop off a platoon of NZ finest. Dreams being free.

Anyway as always would appreciate your thoughts. )sorry for the mix of airforce malarkey in here too.
Cheers,

 

[alexsa]

Lets be very clear on this. An equally capable Sealift capability could have be done very effectively for less. You know that as well as I do. It was wasteful spending for what we got delivered. Thus the patrol element of Project Protector was undercooked because of it. You know very well where I stand on this issue regarding effective defence spending.

I will disagree but it is a matter or timing. The price they paid was for an in service highly modifed (milatry) design (and i suspect this was more that hull an equipment costs which I have used in the past).

At the ime the contract wqs singed the buildng boom was still on the ascendent. I they has signed later the cost would have bene much higher. To give an example a highly modified RO-RO designe quoted in late 2007 blossomed from 81 milliont US to 1205million US in a 12 month period (same ship) for just the ship ready to sail (no on costs).

The building market is curently in slump but the the yards have contacts out to 2012 (on average) and these hulls will drive the market. However at the time protector was signed I think you got great deal.

 

[MrConservative]

I will disagree but it is a matter or timing. The price they paid was for an in service highly modifed (milatry) design (and i suspect this was more that hull an equipment costs which I have used in the past).

At the ime the contract wqs singed the buildng boom was still on the ascendent. I they has signed later the cost would have bene much higher. To give an example a highly modified RO-RO designe quoted in late 2007 blossomed from 81 milliont US to 1205million US in a 12 month period (same ship) for just the ship ready to sail (no on costs).

The building market is curently in slump but the the yards have contacts out to 2012 (on average) and these hulls will drive the market. However at the time protector was signed I think you got great deal.

Im pleased you mentioned timing. It is also a key factor which drove costs and a major part of this saga. The Canterbury was meant to be delivered before the older frigate Canterbury was decommissioned in 2005. The Sealift Review was done five years earlier in 2000. This is well before the construction boom. Incidently the Canterbury is a modified merchant design not military. PS Could you please use your spellcheck before you post.

 

[Sea Toby]

Lockheed Martin in Fort Worth weren't excited about an Air Force US$110 million ten year lease for 28 aircraft they sold to Pakistan for over US$30 million per aircraft. At the time they were trying to sell New Zealand newer aircraft approaching US$40 million an aircraft. In their eyes they were losing US$30 million each.....

In the long run Pakistan got better aircraft for the old price, and the USAF got these aircraft for nothing. More or less a swap of better aircraft for older aircraft..... While Lockheed Martin and Pakistan may have came out of this okay, the USAF swallowed a US$10 million loss per aircraft supplying Pakistan with better aircraft.

Look at events from someone else's point of view. And Kiwis wonder why the US have not approved the sale of the Skyhawks? The American taxpayers are left holding the bag.

 

[KiwiRob]

It should be renamed the HMNZS Helen Clark IMHO.

Now if you were a sailor would you want to go to sea on a ship named after the ugliest women in two boots that NZ has ever had the misfortune to vote in as PM. I think we would have a mutiny.

 

[alexsa]

Im pleased you mentioned timing. It is also a key factor which drove costs and a major part of this saga. The Canterbury was meant to be delivered before the older frigate Canterbury was decommissioned in 2005. The Sealift Review was done five years earlier in 2000. This is well before the construction boom. Incidently the Canterbury is a modified merchant design not military. PS Could you please use your spellcheck before you post.

I am completely aware of where the design stemmed from and I did not mean to suggest she was a military design, rather highly modified from the original design for military purpose.

The timing issue relates to when the order was placed and I am sorry I still think you did well and anything with a lot of reasonable accomodation and equipment will cost. If the order had gone later the cost would have been a lot higher. The other issue is what you get for the money most merchant ship contracts involve just the ship and seatrials. Actually putting the vessel into service is an additional cost.

 

[MrConservative]

Lockheed Martin in Fort Worth weren't excited about an Air Force US$110 million ten year lease for 28 aircraft they sold to Pakistan for over US$30 million per aircraft. At the time they were trying to sell New Zealand newer aircraft approaching US$40 million an aircraft. In their eyes they were losing US$30 million each.....

In the long run Pakistan got better aircraft for the old price, and the USAF got these aircraft for nothing. More or less a swap of better aircraft for older aircraft..... While Lockheed Martin and Pakistan may have came out of this okay, the USAF swallowed a US$10 million loss per aircraft supplying Pakistan with better aircraft.

Look at events from someone else's point of view. And Kiwis wonder why the US have not approved the sale of the Skyhawks? The American taxpayers are left holding the bag.

For the history of this deal Toby I refer you to these concise articles though we are heading off topic.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_users_article14.html

and

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_users_article28.html

There were also reactivation costs of NZ$233m which the RNZAF were to pay as well as planned upgrades that were not part of the lease package that were to happen during the second 5 year lease period which LM would have benefitted from. Then a final a payment of NZ$287m at the end of the second lease period to purchase the aircraft outright.

This is outlined here -

http://www.victoria.ac.nz/css/docs/Strategic_Briefing_Papers/Vol.2 Feb 2000/C&C.pdf

It was going to be a win-win deal for all parties involved, RNZAF, LM, the US GAO, Pentagon, NZ Govt and White House however which way one slices and dices the figures.

Yes you are right. The cancellation was shameful and I can understand hurt feelings about it. I know a few good people whose careers were destroyed by it.

Lets get back to naval stuff.