Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[kiwipatriot69]

Yes, i read that article too,and it seems they want to fly the NH 90 off the new littoral support vessel too, so with hydrography,mine countermeasures,and embarking extra police and military personell , diving capability i would imagine it a similar size to our OPV?

 

[Todjaeger]

Yes, i read that article too,and it seems they want to fly the NH 90 off the new littoral support vessel too, so with hydrography,mine countermeasures,and embarking extra police and military personell , diving capability i would imagine it a similar size to our OPV?

I hope not. At least, not if the NH90 is supposed to be able to deploy off it. AFAIK the hangar space aboard the FFH's are too small to realistically operate the NH90's, and the hangar space aboard the OPV's are even smaller.

I do hope whatever is selected has (or gets modified to have) some self-defence capabilities aboard. Not necessarily full-time, but the ability to have coverage via a Bushmaster and/or Phalanx. Plus a magazine for helicopter weapons if it has a hangar.

As for a third OPV... As I understand it, the current two are ice-strengthened. The issue with them is apparently the sums were wrong, with the result that as time passes, the overall displacement of the OPV is projected to increase sufficiently so that the ice-belt would be submerged below where it provides useful protection.

One thing I do wonder, is how much EEZ patrolling does NZ do, and how much does it feel is truly required?

I ask because at present, I believe NZ operates a trio of ice-strengthened vessel (Canterbury and the OPV's) and if there are only occasional patrols into ice, then NZ might not need any additional vessels built to operate in ice. As I understand it, the increased displacement caused by reinforcing the hull can make a vessel less suitable for operations in other circumstances.

 

[RegR]

I hope not. At least, not if the NH90 is supposed to be able to deploy off it. AFAIK the hangar space aboard the FFH's are too small to realistically operate the NH90's, and the hangar space aboard the OPV's are even smaller.

I do hope whatever is selected has (or gets modified to have) some self-defence capabilities aboard. Not necessarily full-time, but the ability to have coverage via a Bushmaster and/or Phalanx. Plus a magazine for helicopter weapons if it has a hangar.

As for a third OPV... As I understand it, the current two are ice-strengthened. The issue with them is apparently the sums were wrong, with the result that as time passes, the overall displacement of the OPV is projected to increase sufficiently so that the ice-belt would be submerged below where it provides useful protection.

One thing I do wonder, is how much EEZ patrolling does NZ do, and how much does it feel is truly required?

I ask because at present, I believe NZ operates a trio of ice-strengthened vessel (Canterbury and the OPV's) and if there are only occasional patrols into ice, then NZ might not need any additional vessels built to operate in ice. As I understand it, the increased displacement caused by reinforcing the hull can make a vessel less suitable for operations in other circumstances.

I did'nt nesscessarily read it to mean an NH90 would operate from the littoral but more off the littoral as in not have a hanger and embark it's own 90 but more have the ability to land a NH90 sized helo on a deck to support ie either from another vessel or from land as the majority of it's roles would be close to land or part of a larger force.

Whilst an organic helo is always advantageous in terms of hydro, diving support and MCM is it always if at all required?

 

[ngatimozart]

I did'nt nesscessarily read it to mean an NH90 would operate from the littoral but more off the littoral as in not have a hanger and embark it's own 90 but more have the ability to land a NH90 sized helo on a deck to support ie either from another vessel or from land as the majority of it's roles would be close to land or part of a larger force.

Whilst an organic helo is always advantageous in terms of hydro, diving support and MCM is it always if at all required?

It's always advantageous to have helo capability on a platform if possible because it increases the versatility of that platform. If they the ship will be large enough for a hangar then it should probably have one, even if a helos is only embarked rarely. The hangar can be utilised for other things as well, such as a temp gym, prep bay for missions etc. Whether or not the NZG is willing to pay for such a facility is another story.

Re Tods query about how often the RNZN patrols down and around the Ice. For the last two or so years, the RNZN has done one patrol down to the Ice per season (summer). I think that reflects NZG funding for EEZ and associated patroling more than anything else.

 

[Todjaeger]

I did'nt nesscessarily read it to mean an NH90 would operate from the littoral but more off the littoral as in not have a hanger and embark it's own 90 but more have the ability to land a NH90 sized helo on a deck to support ie either from another vessel or from land as the majority of it's roles would be close to land or part of a larger force.

Whilst an organic helo is always advantageous in terms of hydro, diving support and MCM is it always if at all required?

Not always required. However, while having a helipad large enough for an NH90 could provide a few advantages in a small number of circumstances. Having a hangar large enough to accommodate one, with the inclusion of a magazine for the helicopter, provides a significantly greater number of advantageous circumstances. Having a larger hangar could allow the littoral support vessel to ferry an NH90 to or from a deployment away from NZ. At present, if NZ wanted to deploy an NH90 away from NZ for some reason, they would either need to be brought in by Canterbury, as some sort of cargo from a STUFT, or flown in as air cargo (unless the deployment is close enough to be flown to from NZ and/or friendly islands). If for some reason, NZ only needs a single helicopter (or just and extra one) at a deployment, it would be more sensible for that to be brought in when possible by something smaller than Canterbury, especially if Canterbury is already being utilized for something else.

As for the magazine, at present only the FFH's are able to support armed helicopter operations, due to a lack of hangar magazine in the OPV's and Canterbury. While I would not expect a Seaspite to often be deployed, especially armed, from the littoral vessel, including a hangar magazine gives more potential options and flexibility for future force structures and deployments.

As I have alluded to previously regarding the Project Protector vessels, it almost seems as if the particular designs and configurations selected, were specifically chosen because of how limited they were in capacity for future growth. Take the OPV's for instance. They are armed with a 25mm gun, but without significant hull and internal compartment modification, could not be armed with a larger weapon (even just switching to a 30mm Goalkeeper CIWS). While they can have embarked helicopters, they lack a hangar magazine, so no carrying LWT's, depth bombs, heli-borne AShM, or anything larger than small arms aboard a helicopter.

Absent structural changes in a dockyard, these design decisions will remain, limiting what the RNZN can task these vessels with even in areas without direct state-on-state conflicts.

It's always advantageous to have helo capability on a platform if possible because it increases the versatility of that platform. If they the ship will be large enough for a hangar then it should probably have one, even if a helos is only embarked rarely. The hangar can be utilised for other things as well, such as a temp gym, prep bay for missions etc. Whether or not the NZG is willing to pay for such a facility is another story.

Re Tods query about how often the RNZN patrols down and around the Ice. For the last two or so years, the RNZN has done one patrol down to the Ice per season (summer). I think that reflects NZG funding for EEZ and associated patroling more than anything else.

If the NZG only funds a single patrol per year, then spending any extra on ice-strengthening for a third OPV would be wasteful IMO. If the NZG was looking to maintain a presence for a significant chunk of the year (2-3 seasons per year) then having three OPV's to rotate through for training, maintenance, and deployment would make sense.

Having a third OPV (it should be of difference design, otherwise the design flaws of the current OPV's would be repeated and the person making such a selection charged with something) which is not making the compromises needed in ice-strengthening, never mind the issues with the current OPV ice strengthening, could instead be used for more patrolling aware from the ice. Leaving the two OPV's to alternate which one is going to patrol the ice that year, as well as the other non-ice patrol taskings, trainings. etc. Heck, money and displacement 'saved' on ice-strengthening could be used for a better RHIB/smallcraft launch and retrieval system, or a larger helipad and hangar. Or even a ship-mounted gun aft.

I could see how such a vessel could have/be useful for some of the S. Pacific deployments like RAMSI. IIRC the RAN sent an ACPB in support of the ADF/Ausgov detachment. Having a larger vessel with organic helicopter support and likely better comms could help in such deployments. Same goes for HADR operations where the overall threat to the vessel/crew is generally minimal, but the need for options and flexibility from the deploying vessel is important.

 

[RegR]

Not always required. However, while having a helipad large enough for an NH90 could provide a few advantages in a small number of circumstances. Having a hangar large enough to accommodate one, with the inclusion of a magazine for the helicopter, provides a significantly greater number of advantageous circumstances. Having a larger hangar could allow the littoral support vessel to ferry an NH90 to or from a deployment away from NZ. At present, if NZ wanted to deploy an NH90 away from NZ for some reason, they would either need to be brought in by Canterbury, as some sort of cargo from a STUFT, or flown in as air cargo (unless the deployment is close enough to be flown to from NZ and/or friendly islands). If for some reason, NZ only needs a single helicopter (or just and extra one) at a deployment, it would be more sensible for that to be brought in when possible by something smaller than Canterbury, especially if Canterbury is already being utilized for something else.

As for the magazine, at present only the FFH's are able to support armed helicopter operations, due to a lack of hangar magazine in the OPV's and Canterbury. While I would not expect a Seaspite to often be deployed, especially armed, from the littoral vessel, including a hangar magazine gives more potential options and flexibility for future force structures and deployments.

As I have alluded to previously regarding the Project Protector vessels, it almost seems as if the particular designs and configurations selected, were specifically chosen because of how limited they were in capacity for future growth. Take the OPV's for instance. They are armed with a 25mm gun, but without significant hull and internal compartment modification, could not be armed with a larger weapon (even just switching to a 30mm Goalkeeper CIWS). While they can have embarked helicopters, they lack a hangar magazine, so no carrying LWT's, depth bombs, heli-borne AShM, or anything larger than small arms aboard a helicopter.

Absent structural changes in a dockyard, these design decisions will remain, limiting what the RNZN can task these vessels with even in areas without direct state-on-state conflicts.



If the NZG only funds a single patrol per year, then spending any extra on ice-strengthening for a third OPV would be wasteful IMO. If the NZG was looking to maintain a presence for a significant chunk of the year (2-3 seasons per year) then having three OPV's to rotate through for training, maintenance, and deployment would make sense.

Having a third OPV (it should be of difference design, otherwise the design flaws of the current OPV's would be repeated and the person making such a selection charged with something) which is not making the compromises needed in ice-strengthening, never mind the issues with the current OPV ice strengthening, could instead be used for more patrolling aware from the ice. Leaving the two OPV's to alternate which one is going to patrol the ice that year, as well as the other non-ice patrol taskings, trainings. etc. Heck, money and displacement 'saved' on ice-strengthening could be used for a better RHIB/smallcraft launch and retrieval system, or a larger helipad and hangar. Or even a ship-mounted gun aft.

I could see how such a vessel could have/be useful for some of the S. Pacific deployments like RAMSI. IIRC the RAN sent an ACPB in support of the ADF/Ausgov detachment. Having a larger vessel with organic helicopter support and likely better comms could help in such deployments. Same goes for HADR operations where the overall threat to the vessel/crew is generally minimal, but the need for options and flexibility from the deploying vessel is important.

I think we just have to look at what this ship is replacing and the roles it is covering off to get an idea of cabinets vision (govt and navys vision are not always looking in the same direction) and since we know who is ultimately picking up the tab I think we know who is going to win.

Hydro, MCM and diving support will be it's core functions and none of these to date have had organic helo support therefore as it is even a flight capable deck will be an improvement and a useful lilypad. We need to look at its main functions not its possible functions as with NZDF you start from the bottom and work up not start at the top and dum down otherwise the costs have already escalated. I still cannot see this vessel being overly armed itself nevermind having it's own armed helo with facilities to match therefore not an issue. The space (and weight) where the hanger would be could be where the decomm chamber could go, SMB Adventure would stow or role specific containers fix saving on weight and overall size if they are trying to keep within a limit (other than cost).

All this ship is is a dedicated ship for the survey, diving and MCM branches and even these are a lot more deployable via other means (other ships, aircraft etc) these days showcasing just how compact and man portable these functions have become. Any other roles for this 'transport' are purely a bonus (patrol, training, representation etc) and just reflects the multi-role direction now embedded within the NZDF but I still do not see this ship as being overly combat orientated and if anything the 3rd OPV should be the focus in this direction if so with a NH90 capable deck and hanger to future proof and give us our options.

Options such as hangers cost money and yes whilst useful for other things does still make for an expensive gym, storeroom etc. The OPVs have rarely deployed with a seasprite but still would have more use then the littoral would have with a NH90 in NZ service regardless. As you say it will give us options in the future but if rarely used then those options become wasted but still cost the same, don't get me wrong if I had my way all RNZN ships large enough would be helo capable and hangered but just going off it's envisaged roles this one is still bottom of the pecking order in my view and a capable deck would still be a win, time and funds will tell though.

 

[Zero Alpha]

Hydro, MCM and diving support will be it's core functions and none of these to date have had organic helo support therefore as it is even a flight capable deck will be an improvement and a useful lilypad. We need to look at its main functions not its possible functions as with NZDF you start from the bottom and work up not start at the top and dum down otherwise the costs have already escalated. I still cannot see this vessel being overly armed itself nevermind having it's own armed helo with facilities to match therefore not an issue. The space (and weight) where the hanger would be could be where the decomm chamber could go, SMB Adventure would stow or role specific containers fix saving on weight and overall size if they are trying to keep within a limit (other than cost).

Actually Hydro had a full helicopter facility until Resolution came along (on Monowai). It may have only been for the Wasp, but it was still there.

The spec that went out actually called for a ship much closer in size, speed and endurance to Monowai than anything we have now. Armament was specified as mini-typhoon plus small arms. From what I recall, the indicative budget was pretty large too, potentially enough for something closer to a large OPV. Adding DP1 or DP2 to the spec would ramp up the costs considerably though.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

Has Canterbury ever been deployed to Antarctic Patrols, given its ice belt addition?

 

[kiwi in exile]

Take the OPV's for instance. They are armed with a 25mm gun, but without significant hull and internal compartment modification, could not be armed with a larger weapon (even just switching to a 30mm Goalkeeper CIWS). While they can have embarked helicopters, they lack a hangar magazine, so no carrying LWT's, depth bombs, heli-borne AShM, or anything larger than small arms aboard a helicopter.

Does Goalkeeper require deck penetration? Rheinmetall Oerlikon Millennium Gun doesn't, and is lighter in weight that Phalanx, but may have a bigger footprint.
Upgrading 25mm bushmaster to 30mm bushmaster is easy and probably quiet affordable.
Doubt we will see any further upgrades of OPV weapons systems given they have recently replaced the original turrets with Typhoons. To be honest, I would be happy to let this go if the future littoral ship (+/- the 3rd OPV) were better armed. I would also like to see helo hangars and magazines (and rockets for the sprites)

 

[Lucasnz]

Just a couple of quick comments re the 3rd OPV. From what I can gather one of the reasons for a third OPV is that the IMO regulations for operations in Ice conditions are changing. If they're looking at going down to two IPV (personally they should drop to 3 and give one to the Cook Island's) there a couple of things that come into play:

1. They will be wanting to leverage personnel costs from the reduction in IPV and they have talked about the crew size of an IPV vs OPV. Consequently IMHO any increase personnel (excluding flight deck crew) will be limited to the core crew of the two OPV, that don't currently exist (two at extended notice for sea). That means a crew of around 40 plus training berths.
   
2. Increasingly the navy is talking about a sustainable combat capability. The defence review may shed more detail on what that means. However it seems to me that the there would be significant advantages in achieving that aim if the third OPV were more combat capable (i.e. enhanced civilian design - mil spec for magazines and a limited number of other areas) and designed for low - medium intensity conflict.

In terms of Phalanx I'm of the view that given the 25mm Typhoon will be standard going forward for Asymmetric / Low Level threats on most ships in the RNZN then a gun based system CIWS is mostly redundant. In light of some redacted reports I've seen on inherent ineffectiveness of guns (and factoring in the limited size of the ready use magazine) vs manoeuvring anti ship missile I'm of the view that any additional or upgraded CIWS should be Sea Ram equipped (Accepting that operational costs will increase).

 

[RegR]

Just a couple of quick comments re the 3rd OPV. From what I can gather one of the reasons for a third OPV is that the IMO regulations for operations in Ice conditions are changing. If they're looking at going down to two IPV (personally they should drop to 3 and give one to the Cook Island's) there a couple of things that come into play:

1. They will be wanting to leverage personnel costs from the reduction in IPV and they have talked about the crew size of an IPV vs OPV. Consequently IMHO any increase personnel (excluding flight deck crew) will be limited to the core crew of the two OPV, that don't currently exist (two at extended notice for sea). That means a crew of around 40 plus training berths.
   
2. Increasingly the navy is talking about a sustainable combat capability. The defence review may shed more detail on what that means. However it seems to me that the there would be significant advantages in achieving that aim if the third OPV were more combat capable (i.e. enhanced civilian design - mil spec for magazines and a limited number of other areas) and designed for low - medium intensity conflict.

In terms of Phalanx I'm of the view that given the 25mm Typhoon will be standard going forward for Asymmetric / Low Level threats on most ships in the RNZN then a gun based system CIWS is mostly redundant. In light of some redacted reports I've seen on inherent ineffectiveness of guns (and factoring in the limited size of the ready use magazine) vs manoeuvring anti ship missile I'm of the view that any additional or upgraded CIWS should be Sea Ram equipped (Accepting that operational costs will increase).

I would like to see navy retain the 2 IPVs and instead return them to the rockies in Wellington and Christchurch along with a small RF cadre with each (tech trades etc). Would surely aid in representation, recruitment, retention and response and who wants to be stuck in Auckland their whole career anyway? Postings are sometimes good for the soul but that requires options for posting in the first place.

We already have them on the books (no doubt govt will sell them at a loss if not give them away), are fammed and they can just rotate with the AK based IPVs for any maintanence/upgrade issues. Easier and quicker access for regional police, MPI, customs, SAR etc instead of waiting for a vessel to steam down from Devonport as per recently.

 

[ngatimozart]

Just a couple of quick comments re the 3rd OPV. From what I can gather one of the reasons for a third OPV is that the IMO regulations for operations in Ice conditions are changing. If they're looking at going down to two IPV (personally they should drop to 3 and give one to the Cook Island's) there a couple of things that come into play:

1. They will be wanting to leverage personnel costs from the reduction in IPV and they have talked about the crew size of an IPV vs OPV. Consequently IMHO any increase personnel (excluding flight deck crew) will be limited to the core crew of the two OPV, that don't currently exist (two at extended notice for sea). That means a crew of around 40 plus training berths.
   
2. Increasingly the navy is talking about a sustainable combat capability. The defence review may shed more detail on what that means. However it seems to me that the there would be significant advantages in achieving that aim if the third OPV were more combat capable (i.e. enhanced civilian design - mil spec for magazines and a limited number of other areas) and designed for low - medium intensity conflict.

In terms of Phalanx I'm of the view that given the 25mm Typhoon will be standard going forward for Asymmetric / Low Level threats on most ships in the RNZN then a gun based system CIWS is mostly redundant. In light of some redacted reports I've seen on inherent ineffectiveness of guns (and factoring in the limited size of the ready use magazine) vs manoeuvring anti ship missile I'm of the view that any additional or upgraded CIWS should be Sea Ram equipped (Accepting that operational costs will increase).

My thinking would be to keep the Typhoon 25mm and rather than SeaRAM, maybe a combination of Phalanx and Sea Ceptor. Like other RNZN ships (FFHs and Canterbury), have the Phalanx fitted for but not with. If the Sylver A35 or A43 were fitted, at 7 tonnes or 7.5 tonnes empty weight respectively for 8 cell units, then it could be a far better investment. The Sea Ceptor missiles can be quad packed and whilst the A43 is 4.3 metres long compared to the A35s 3.5m, the A43 would allow for the CAMM-ER if that was acquired. The A35 can also be acquired in 4 cell units, which would give an OPV 16 missiles. As a comparison the Mk41VLS is just about twice as heavy empty.

 

[Todjaeger]

Does Goalkeeper require deck penetration? Rheinmetall Oerlikon Millennium Gun doesn't, and is lighter in weight that Phalanx, but may have a bigger footprint.
Upgrading 25mm bushmaster to 30mm bushmaster is easy and probably quiet affordable.
Doubt we will see any further upgrades of OPV weapons systems given they have recently replaced the original turrets with Typhoons. To be honest, I would be happy to let this go if the future littoral ship (+/- the 3rd OPV) were better armed. I would also like to see helo hangars and magazines (and rockets for the sprites)

Yes, Goalkeeper does require deck penetration, hence the issue. The space beneath the 25mm mount would require reconfiguration from the compartments currently there.

Also not sure whether the Millennium Gun, a Phalanx, or even an upgrade to 30mm would be feasible. It largely depends on whether the current mounting has sufficient power, cooling, and bracing/reinforcement hookups. Not sure about the Millennium Gun (I would imagine it is similar) but Sea Phalanx which does not require deck penetration, still requires a reinforced mount to absorb/handle the stresses of being fired. If the current mounting for the 25mm (which has a much lower ROF) is insufficient, then some structural work would be needed. Again, this could be difficult due to the compartments below the mounting.

As for a choice between more 25mm or Phalanx... While I do not particularly like the Phalanx, IMO there is a greater range of options available with it, then with a 25mm Bushmaster in a Typhoon mounting. I agree that with many of the current crop of AShM, Phalanx is going to be of limited use as a CIWS. Between the damage a 20mm round can inflict and the limited range (~1.5km vs. aerial targets) then a Phalanx might not be enough to protect a vessel. OTOH, while a Mk 242 25mm gun has an effective range of ~3km, the 200 rpm ROF provides SFA volume of fire needed vs. just about anything other than a hovering aircraft.

Since with the Mod 1b upgrade for the Phalanx provides an anti-surface engagement capability, I would rather RNZN vessels, if they might get deployed to an area where some form of aerial attack could, have something which might be able to engage an inbound. My actual preference would be for vessels and mountings be switched over to the 35mm Millennium Gun (including aboard the FFH's) since they can provide both anti-air and anti-surface CIWS capabilities.

From my POV, if the Millennium Gun is available in a swap-able mounting (like the RAN and USN does with some of their Mk 15 Phalanxes) then establishing a small pool of them for the RNZN would make sense. Then as needed, they could be fitted to naval vessels that are either going to be deploying to, or transiting through, potentially unfriendly areas.

 

[40 deg south]

Just going back through previous discussions of the LOSC to highlight a few points.So far there have been two Requests for Information, and an RFP is expected early-ish in 2016.

The first RFI was back in 2013, and Ngati summarised some of the contents on P214 of this thread.

Some dimensions etc:
Max overall length 150m
Max overall beam 19.5m
Max fully laden draft 8.2m
Max displacement 3,600 tonnes
Transit speed 14 – 18 knots.
Ability to operate 0 – 8 knots for MCM etc.
Ability to carry & sustain 90 bods for min 30 days.

I subsequently commented (apologies for quoting self, but it has some useful numbers).

According to the Navy website, Manawanui is 43m long, 9.5m wide and displaces 911 tonnes. Resolution was bigger (70m? 2000 tonnes?) but nothing like the size of the projected replacement.

For comparison, the OCVs are 85m long, 14m wide and displace 1900 tonnes. The ANZACs are 118m long, 14.8m wide, draft 6.2m and displace 3600 tonnes.

I know these are maximums, but doubt they were set deliberately higher than what the navy thinks it needs. What is interesting (at least to this landlubber) is that the max displacement is capped at the same size as an ANZAC (3600 tonnes) but the other specs provide for it to be both significantly longer (150m vs. 118m) AND wider (19.5m vs. 14.8m).

What does this mean? Two obvious possibilities spring to mind:
1) RNZR are providing maximum flexibility for would-be suppliers to supply designs ranging from short'n'fat through to long'n'skinny?
2) Vessel construction will be much more lightweight than a frigate, giving a bigger but lighter boat?

I'd welcome the people here who know something about this nautical stuff pitching in with better-informed opinions.

The most recent RFI came out in June of this year. Some info on it is found around pp 265 -267 of this thread. There was no update provided to the dimensions given above.

One point that is very clear is that they want to be able to land and refuel helicopters up to NH90 size, but that no provision is made for a hanger. So the LOSC certainly won't be operating with an organic helicopter, but will be able to embark/disembark crew/specialists/survivors plus stores via helicopters.

 

[Volkodav]

Just going back through previous discussions of the LOSC to highlight a few points.So far there have been two Requests for Information, and an RFP is expected early-ish in 2016.

The first RFI was back in 2013, and Ngati summarised some of the contents on P214 of this thread.



I subsequently commented (apologies for quoting self, but it has some useful numbers).


The most recent RFI came out in June of this year. Some info on it is found around pp 25 -267 of this thread. There was no update provided to the dimensions given above.

One point that is very clear is that they want to be able to land and refuel helicopters up to NH90 size, but that no provision is made for a hanger. So the LOSC certainly won't be operating with an organic helicopter, but will be able to embark/disembark crew/specialists/survivors plus stores via helicopters.

Probably just freeing up options to look at suitable MOTS solutions, i.e. a batch 2 BAM/Meteoro class OPV which are intended to be capable of MCM, Hydrographic and Oceanographic Survey, maritime pollution control and disaster relief in addition to their base patrol role.

 

[RegR]

Probably just freeing up options to look at suitable MOTS solutions, i.e. a batch 2 BAM/Meteoro class OPV which are intended to be capable of MCM, Hydrographic and Oceanographic Survey, maritime pollution control and disaster relief in addition to their base patrol role.

Agreed, they usually have low, med and high end options (guess what we then get) so to cover any and all possibilities, allow for max industry participation and show what's available either side of the 'mark' for comparison and ideas, the parameters are set wide and far.

I've always liked the BAM concept for various reasons and could pave the way for a generic family if the littoral and 3rd OPV where based on these now along with otago class replacements in the future. The littoral version could have a multi-mission area in lieu of the OPV variants hanger.

 

[chis73]

Some developments occurred overnight, with the release of the UK's Strategic Defence & Security Review (SDSR), that may be of interest to NZ:

1. The UK Govt has committed to 9 P-8 MPA. If they had chosen P-1 or C295 (or even C-130J), I felt that might have opened the door wider for NZ to do the same. No UAV (eg Triton) to accompany them though. Also, RAF will keep their C-130Js.

2. Now only eight Type 26 to be built (down from 13). Instead, a new class of at least 5 general-purpose "light frigates" (Type 27?) will follow the Type 26, for entry into service about 2030. The Type 26 building programme also seems to have been delayed, with 2 more OPVs (presumably Batch 2 Rivers) ordered to tide the yards over. It seems the grand shipbuilding plan has reverted back to the 2007-2009 one, with C1 (Type 26) and C2 (the new light frigate) classes. David Cameron specifically mentioned Australia & NZ as potential export customers for this new design in the parliamentary debate. I don't know if Australia would be interested in the new light frigate (their requirements seem closer to Type 26, and they want to build their own), but it may suit NZ very well. Many other potential export customers will also want to build locally (ie Canada, Brazil), but the light frigate might find a market amongst smaller navies who want decent range and North Atlantic-quality seakeeping ability (ie. Portugal, Chile, NZ). It will be interesting to see how "light" the light frigate turns out to be (perhaps something Lafayette-like) - it's something that will keep the other European frigate builders on their toes anyway.

Finally, regarding the LOSC discussion above: is there an intention to multi-crew this vessel (say like HMS Echo)? I can't help thinking that it has way too much on it's plate for one crew (and one ship if you ask me). We may get, what, 160 sea days maximum out of this vessel per year if it is single-crewed. What backup will there be for the rest of the year? We used to have HMNZS Kahu as the backup dive vessel. What are we going to do when this vessel is unavailable, or deployed overseas? Or, if we need a dive vessel and a hydrography vessel in two different places at once? The OPVs seem to have enough to do as it is, and aren't particularly suited to diving support or hydrography (they were not designed to go slow economically). I have been trying to work out exactly how many vessels this ship will be replacing. Let's see: Manawanui (thats one), Resolution (itself a replacement for both Tui & Monowai - so that's three), Kahu (four) - and maybe the old inshore hydrography boats, Tarapunga & Takapu (I don't think you could say the two small REA boats are real replacements for those, so maybe 6 ships in total).


Chis73

 

[40 deg south]

Some developments occurred overnight, with the release of the UK's Strategic Defence & Security Review (SDSR), that may be of interest to NZ:


2. Now only eight Type 26 to be built (down from 13). Instead, a new class of at least 5 general-purpose "light frigates" (Type 27?) will follow the Type 26, for entry into service about 2030...
David Cameron specifically mentioned Australia & NZ as potential export customers for this new design in the parliamentary debate. I don't know if Australia would be interested in the new light frigate (their requirements seem closer to Type 26, and they want to build their own), but it may suit NZ very well....
It will be interesting to see how "light" the light frigate turns out to be (perhaps something Lafayette-like) - it's something that will keep the other European frigate builders on their toes anyway.
.
Chis73

Chis73
Thanks for update. Certainly an interesting day for the UK defence forces.
Re the proposed 'light frigate', is this actually a new hull, or simply a T26 minus some expensive kit? My initial read suggested the latter, but I could well be mistaken.

LIght frigates are certainly all the rage just now. Germany has proposed a MKS180
MKS 180

France has trimmed its planned FREMM purchases and proposed buying an as-yet undesigned FTI 'Mid-size frigate'.
Update to French Military Planning Law Means New Capabilities for Lafayette Class Frigates

May well be a buyers market in the second half of the 2020s when New Zealand is looking around.

 

[40 deg south]

Finally, regarding the LOSC discussion above: is there an intention to multi-crew this vessel (say like HMS Echo)? I can't help thinking that it has way too much on it's plate for one crew (and one ship if you ask me). We may get, what, 160 sea days maximum out of this vessel per year if it is single-crewed. What backup will there be for the rest of the year? We used to have HMNZS Kahu as the backup dive vessel. What are we going to do when this vessel is unavailable, or deployed overseas? Or, if we need a dive vessel and a hydrography vessel in two different places at once? The OPVs seem to have enough to do as it is, and aren't particularly suited to diving support or hydrography (they were not designed to go slow economically). I have been trying to work out exactly how many vessels this ship will be replacing. Let's see: Manawanui (thats one), Resolution (itself a replacement for both Tui & Monowai - so that's three), Kahu (four) - and maybe the old inshore hydrography boats, Tarapunga & Takapu (I don't think you could say the two small REA boats are real replacements for those, so maybe 6 ships in total).
Chis73

Chis
You are slightly under on the sea days - I'll dig another quote out of the earlier discussion on p265. Fair point on the number and range of tasks they will be expecting the LOSC to carry out. There may be scope for the IPVs/OPVs (especially if any new OPV is designed with this in mind) to pick up some of the load, but the LOSC will certainly be a hard-working ship.

I certainly haven't seen anything published about an intention to double-crew, nor do I know where they would get the extra crew from.

A few other points:

Must be able to allow landing/take-off of helicopters up to NH90 size, with on-deck and in-air refuelling. But no hanger required.

No mention I can see of ice capability.

Can embark up to 56 'special personnel' with armoury and magazines

Self-defence capability, with varying options of Phlanx, Typhoon, Mini-Typhoon and 0.5s

200 sea days/yr, with 165 alongside in port

Max transit speed of 16-18 knots but able to do 0-8 knots for extended periods for hydrography and diving

C4ISR capability, and sensor suite for self-defence

 

[swerve]

Chis73
Thanks for update. Certainly an interesting day for the UK defence forces.
Re the proposed 'light frigate', is this actually a new hull, or simply a T26 minus some expensive kit? My initial read suggested the latter, but I could well be mistaken.

LIght frigates are certainly all the rage just now. .

Sounds like a new hull, like the Italian PPA -
"We will also launch a concept study and then design and build a new class of lighter, flexible general purpose frigates so that by the 2030s we can further increase the total number of frigates and destroyers. These general purpose frigates are also likely to offer increased export potential."
The number of Type 26 is being cut to the number of ASW Type 23, & they'll all be ASW according to the SDSR paper.