Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

Off the wire . Endeavour's replacement is due to come on line in 2018 at a cost of $250 million. Indications are that the ship may possibly be fitted with the necessary mountings to take Phalanx, in addition to 50 cals.

Click to expand...

The eventual Endeavour replacement is starting to look more like a real joint support ship every day, I note there was also a mention of accommodation for a limited number of troops.
With a budget of $250 mil. there may be some interesting design concepts from the major Shipyards in the near future.
The trend towards multi-role ships is definitely the way ahead for the RNZN in this area I would think.

It's good news as I see it. !

Hmmm... what I take from that article:

1. Endeavour replacement has been delayed 5 years. I would hope this is only due to the ship being in better condition than expected.

2. Navy still doesn't have a clue as to what it wants (or what the Ministry will provide them with). They seem to be favouring some form of JSS. I found this paper quite useful in explaining why this would be a bad idea. Even the Canadians have now dropped it. No more Frankenships please RNZN! KISS principle should be applied - just get an AOR. $250mil is a big budget for a replacement tanker.

3. The efforts to "double hull" Endeavour have reduced her capacity more than I understood. This story from 2008 claimed only a 10% reduction. Now its 25%, soon to be slightly more.

4. The anti-piracy armament thing seems a little disingenuous. Endeavour has had Phalanx fitted previously (see posts #629-634 in this thread) - admittedly only the Block 1A version. I fail to see why Endeavour can't mount .50cal mgs on it's bridge wings. I know she only has a small crew, but really! The fact that she doesn't already have them (especially since that boarding incident in the Solomons in the 1990's) suggests Navy needs to pull it's finger out somewhat.

Chis73

The delay in the replacement is probably something to do with hmas success getting replaced around that time as well. If endeavour will last that long is a different question, Especially with its engine already looking knackered.

chis73 said:

Hmmm... what I take from that article:

1. Endeavour replacement has been delayed 5 years. I would hope this is only due to the ship being in better condition than expected.

2. Navy still doesn't have a clue as to what it wants (or what the Ministry will provide them with). They seem to be favouring some form of JSS. I found this paper quite useful in explaining why this would be a bad idea. Even the Canadians have now dropped it. No more Frankenships please RNZN! KISS principle should be applied - just get an AOR. $250mil is a big budget for a replacement tanker.

3. The efforts to "double hull" Endeavour have reduced her capacity more than I understood. This story from 2008 claimed only a 10% reduction. Now its 25%, soon to be slightly more.

4. The anti-piracy armament thing seems a little disingenuous. Endeavour has had Phalanx fitted previously (see posts #629-634 in this thread) - admittedly only the Block 1A version. I fail to see why Endeavour can't mount .50cal mgs on it's bridge wings. I know she only has a small crew, but really! The fact that she doesn't already have them (especially since that boarding incident in the Solomons in the 1990's) suggests Navy needs to pull it's finger out somewhat.

Chis73

Click to expand...

Typical NZ reporting on Defence - make a big overblown headline about Endeavours replacement having what is (in the scale of things internationally) a rather basic self-defence capability. Yeah okay a Phalanx would be good, but the .50 HMG's are the most likely to be provided - hopefully in 'mini-typhoon' mounts.

And yeah - why doesn't Endeavour currently have them - and why must it wait until the replacement comes into service!?! :unknown

Endeavour has had a few breakdowns before eg 2002 and 2003.

Then again perhaps that's not too unusal, and of course she's had her scheduled drydock maintenance programmes over the years (eg see various Navy Today's on the RNZN website for details), thus she has been maintained.

According to former Defmin Burton in 2003 "The ship is in excellent structural and mechanical condition".

So go figure.

But I'm wondering though, I don't recall any major work such as engine replacement or refurishment over the years? Maybe she didn't need one but perhaps I may have thought after, say, 15 years of life (2003) she may have had a mid-life type upgrade.

Also I may have thought that Endeavour would, like any vessel, reach the point whereby with replacement due on the horizon it isn't economic to spend too much more money on major upgrades.

According to former Defmin Goff in 2007, "HMNZS Endeavour is expected to remain in service until April 2013".

This could suggest, that if no major upgrade occured around, say, 2003 (@ 15 y.o.) that it would be unlikely for her to receive any major upgrade after that date if replacement was "eminent" (2013).

Although, to add to the puzzle, Wikileaks mentioned (6c) that the sale of the ACF was meant to fund various Defence projects, including (although not exclusively) "to replace or make changes to the planned maintenance and upgrades to New Zealand's only supply ship, HMNZS Endeavour". The ACF sale of course didn't happen thus Defence didn't reap any consequential additional funding etc.

Ok, I realise this could all appear as joining some imaginary dots or drawing some long bows, when in fact this isn't the case, so I shall have to reserve any judgements until more facts are known in due course (eg the outcome of Endeavour's current repairs etc).

So why the delay for Endeavour's replacement from 2013 to now 2018? Perhaps Endeavour actually is in good shape (bar the current problem? For all we know perhaps the repairs may not be major but it might be that parts are no longer available and need to be remanufactured or adapted hence the extended maintenance period etc)??? Or perhaps as alluded to above, a tie in with the HMAS Succes replacement? I note on various ADF/DOD websites the RAN too is experiencing delays in replacing their tankers. With the close tie in Endeavour has with the ADF (the ADF's "third" tanker), and the move to closer jointness with the ADF perhaps the Endeavour replacement delay is simply a consequence of new joint planning?

Skipper Mag had an interesting article on Endeavour recently.

chis73 said:

Hmmm... what I take from that article:

1. Endeavour replacement has been delayed 5 years. I would hope this is only due to the ship being in better condition than expected.

2. Navy still doesn't have a clue as to what it wants (or what the Ministry will provide them with). They seem to be favouring some form of JSS. I found this paper quite useful in explaining why this would be a bad idea. Even the Canadians have now dropped it. No more Frankenships please RNZN! KISS principle should be applied - just get an AOR. $250mil is a big budget for a replacement tanker.

3. The efforts to "double hull" Endeavour have reduced her capacity more than I understood. This story from 2008 claimed only a 10% reduction. Now its 25%, soon to be slightly more.

4. The anti-piracy armament thing seems a little disingenuous. Endeavour has had Phalanx fitted previously (see posts #629-634 in this thread) - admittedly only the Block 1A version. I fail to see why Endeavour can't mount .50cal mgs on it's bridge wings. I know she only has a small crew, but really! The fact that she doesn't already have them (especially since that boarding incident in the Solomons in the 1990's) suggests Navy needs to pull it's finger out somewhat.

Chis73

Click to expand...

I would agree it doesn't take much to install a .50 cal mount especially on a bridge wing. My next question is why can't they ship some FN MAG58 7.62 mg's as well, which shouldn't be a problem because the Air Force and Army replaced all their M60's with them. They can either be belt or magazine fed. Since the Endeavour will not meet IMO requirements in 2 years time isn't it about high time a replacement was well under way or is going to be typical NZG and leave it until the last minute. The RNZN doesn't need another HMNZS Charles Upham fubar.

I was reading a report prepared for the navy by the Defence technology agency yesterday whilst at Philomel, I can say there are several reasons why END didn't have hard fixed weapon systems and these counted for crew safety for gas boundaries and to keep her a 'neutral' type of platform as like was used in the Solomons. There report was a good read and I intend to get have another look and post some more content related stuff soon

Thanks Mattyem, that makes some sense (as to why we don't see her permanently armed - and it was noted in Chis73's link on JSS's that design and safety need to be paramount etc).

So in terms of the Endeavour replacement, at least then from the experiences learnt the RNZN is factoring in defensive weapon systems to work safely (and from that I guess we can assume this wasn't a major factor in the Endeavour design in the "benign" 1980's. Ditto the Canterbury design).

With the RNZN's experience in Timor in 1999 (and the vulnerability of Endeavour then if a shooting war had erupted), I hope at least the planners factor in two CIWS-type locations - even if only one is fitted-for. I say that because with the arms build up in South East Asia (let alone the Gulf), next time the Endeavour replacement is involved in an intervention she could find herself operating in a higher threat environment (and if she is a mini-JSS she will be carrying additional high value assets etc).

What is really puzzling is the lack of clarity on what they want. I would have thought that if they were looking to introduce a replacement by 2013 that a specification would have been pretty well locked down by now. The comments suggest there hasn't even been a serious design study yet - they are wanting a ship that "does everything" - which is where the Canadian JSS project got bogged down for ten years. It reads like they are just going to put out a list of wildly divergent requirements and let the market offer solutions.

It doesn't sound like the delay is related to a tie-in with the HMAS Success (& HMAS Sirius?) replacement. If so, why mention "amphibious support" & "troop accommodation" - these are not likely to be Australian requirements (I suspect they will want another AOR). Why not say "we are holding off to join up with the Aussies"?

Perhaps it is useful to note that Defence doesn't even have a Endeavour replacement acquisition project yet. As far as I can tell, there hasn't been any Request for Proposals or even Registration of Interest either. Which all points to the conclusion that the 2013 timeline was changed long ago.

Chis73

chis73 said:

Perhaps it is useful to note that Defence doesn't even have a Endeavour replacement acquisition project yet. As far as I can tell, there hasn't been any Request for Proposals or even Registration of Interest either. Which all points to the conclusion that the 2013 timeline was changed long ago.

Chis73

Click to expand...

The Govt's LTDP isn't public, so we don't know eg priorities and timeframes etc.

The timeline could have been extended because of lack of funding (not a high priority with A'Stan deployment requiring continuous improvement etc), studying alternative concepts and discussing with and watching other navies to make moves ... whom are also being cautious, which probably doesn't help!

Trouble is there's probably a few headaches (and crossed fingers) occuring in planning units as they try and assess what's needed to extend her life to please the fiscally tight pollies and Treasury bean counters

Trouble is Defence then gets to chart unknown waters (again), and if hiccups occur along the way, the media have a field day and bash them (whilst the bean counters escape the criticism)

I note the RAN bought the Largs Bay off the poms for a bargain basement price so are there any RN RFA vessels that the UKG have cut loose that would meet RNZN requirement over say an 8 year gap and are in good condition. If the price was right and the vessel is good condition, it would then give time for a proper project to be run without the pressure of having to replace END immediately or very soon. I would also think that considering the RNZN have known for some time END's end of service time that they must have had some planning in place for a replacement.

ngatimozart said:

I note the RAN bought the Largs Bay off the poms for a bargain basement price so are there any RN RFA vessels that the UKG have cut loose that would meet RNZN requirement over say an 8 year gap and are in good condition. If the price was right and the vessel is good condition, it would then give time for a proper project to be run without the pressure of having to replace END immediately or very soon. I would also think that considering the RNZN have known for some time END's end of service time that they must have had some planning in place for a replacement.

Click to expand...

Of their replenishment ships, only the Wave Class (which arent going anywhere) are double hulled. In addition they are all MUCH larger ships then Endevour or even HMAS Success.

mattyem said:

I was reading a report prepared for the navy by the Defence technology agency yesterday whilst at Philomel, I can say there are several reasons why END didn't have hard fixed weapon systems and these counted for crew safety for gas boundaries and to keep her a 'neutral' type of platform as like was used in the Solomons. There report was a good read and I intend to get have another look and post some more content related stuff soon

Click to expand...

I fully understand issues around gas boundaries etc , but man I struggle with the concept that a major platform should be lightly armed to allow it to remain a 'neutral platform' - send another vessel & if one isn't available (as was probably the case at the time of the Solomons) - send a civvy vessel. A survey vessel may have been a better choice if that was their worry!

This thinking is similar to one of the key arguments as to why it took so long to get NZLAVs to Afghanistan - don't scare the locals with guns! Thing is that thinking might hold for NZer's at home, but these places have very different social structures where unfortunately there's a strong element of guns = power = respect! It's how you deploy the platform that may or may not scare the locals - not what it packs! Hell once they finally realised NZLAVs were needed in Afghanistan they no sooner arrived than whammo - they proved their worth in an IED incident!

Call me a cranky old fashioned sod, but I get irritated by the softly softly approach getting to the point where it affects the type of defensive capability a major platform is given! So would an OPV be 'over-gunned' for a similar deployment!?!

ngatimozart said:

I note the RAN bought the Largs Bay off the poms for a bargain basement price so are there any RN RFA vessels that the UKG have cut loose that would meet RNZN requirement over say an 8 year gap and are in good condition. If the price was right and the vessel is good condition, it would then give time for a proper project to be run without the pressure of having to replace END immediately or very soon. I would also think that considering the RNZN have known for some time END's end of service time that they must have had some planning in place for a replacement.

Click to expand...

Oilers are cheap ships compared to true warships. I see no benefit buying used. Even the Australians bought a new tanker when they bought and modified the Sirius...

Its apparent the Kiwis want something similar to the Damen design above. Otherwise why would Damen list this design? Who builds a similar ship will have to win the contract with the best bid. I don't see New Zealand buying anything larger or better....

The timeline could have been extended because of lack of funding (not a high priority with A'Stan deployment requiring continuous improvement etc), studying alternative concepts and discussing with and watching other navies to make moves ... whom are also being cautious, which probably doesn't help!

Click to expand...

This maybe close to the truth if Endeavour is in quite good shape at present.
There are a number significant capabilities proposed for the next five years including a replacement littoral warfare support ship and short-range maritime patrol aircraft to mention but a few.

The Navy may get what they really want... only if they wait.
I think we have all heard that before !

wasnt tony parr talking about working with the Norwegians on a replenishment ship awhile ago? does anyone know what sort of ship they are getting or when they want it?

Todjaeger said:

As a practical matter, those vessels are properly OPV's, which the RNZN already have two of. So it really gets down to what sort of specifications the LWSS is supposed to have. If Government decides to go with another (or more) OPV's it might just be better to purchase additional examples of the current RNZN OPV. Otherwise the fleet will end up with very similar vessels, with different layouts, electronics and plant/machinery. All of which would have negative impacts on maintenance and crew rotation.

Until more information comes out about just what the RNZN/Government means by Littoral Warfare Support Ship, all we can do is make some rather wild guesses.

At a minimum I would expect that route, and possibly bottom/side-scanning sonars of types not usually found aboard OPVs would be hull-mounted, and that some form of diving chamber would either be permanently located aboard ship, or that space/weight/connection points for a containerized diving chamber would be available aboard the LWSS.

Other than that, the vessel armament could include VSHRAD SAMs and medium calibre guns (40 - 76 mm), or things could at the opposite end of the spectrum, with mountings for 12.7 mm HMGs at the most...

-Cheers

Click to expand...

The current OPV design would suit and keep the current 25mm Bushmaster and M2 .50 cal MGs. The Bushmaster is quite effective from what I have seen posted on the NZ Army forum in discussions about mounting a 105mm gun on the NZ LAV. I might add that maybe some Hellfire missile pods be added plus say 4 FN MAG58 7.62mm MGs. Sidescan sonar and military sonar shouldn't be an issue. If helicopters or aircraft are an issue Stingers or similar could be mounted.

Elsewhere on this forum it was suggested that a Dutch OPV be bought for use say on pirate patrols in the Indian Ocean. I would argue that the current OPV design with the armament above added would be suitable. In this case for the reasons Todjaeger put forward - commonality, i.e., one platform. In this case then an additional 4 vessels would be needed to cover all tasks envisaged. That way the RNZN would still have 2 frigates but with 6 OPVs that had the ability to undertake some tasks that previously a frigate would have been used for plus the LWSS. The OPVs may have to be armoured but these days armour can be be lightweight. In the long term at end of life only 2 ANZACS need replacing then later on 2 OPV's followed by the other 4 at staged intervals. We may have to acquire some more Seasprites because of the extra 4 vessels.

Endeavour repairs under way

This reports that the Endeavour's engine fault was identified, is being rectified and sea trials commence in approx two weeks. Good work RNZN! (Although I suppose further wear and tear can't be ruled out due to age and other component failure)?

The navy is facing a $400,000 repair bill for its tanker and supply ship Endeavour which broke down soon after leaving Auckland on its way to western Australia in April.

The 138-metre, 7300 tonne ship began burning excessive oil in its 5300 horsepower Mann Burmeister & Wain diesel engine and was forced to return its Devonport base.

When engineers stripped it down they found three of the 12 cylinders were glazed, meaning the seal between the cylinder walls and pistons was not effective and the engine used excessive oil.

The navy ordered four new cylinder liners from the manufacturer in Europe and installed three, keeping one as a spare, Commander Phil Eagle, the navy's operational support officer, told NZPA.

He said engineers were rebuilding the engine and the ship was expected to be back at sea undergoing trials in two weeks.

Click to expand...

pea032 said:

wasnt tony parr talking about working with the Norwegians on a replenishment ship awhile ago? does anyone know what sort of ship they are getting or when they want it?

Click to expand...

I believe the Norwegians and the British are planning on the MARS concept, an AEGIR design....

http://media.bmt.org/bmt_media/resources/33/AEGIRPresentedatWMTCMarch06.pdf

Basically a replenishment ship of a small to modest size, much smaller than HMAS Sirius... The Norwegian Navy isn't as large as the RAN, but larger than the RNZN... Now that the Norwegians are deploying their ships further from Europe, alike the RNZN they need an AOR... Understandably so considering the Cold War is over...

Maybe the RNZN should buy one too, although its not a JSS... I believe the RNZN wants something similar to the Damen design posted in this thread recently...

Sea Toby said:

I believe the Norwegians and the British are planning on the MARS concept, an AEGIR design....

http://media.bmt.org/bmt_media/resources/33/AEGIRPresentedatWMTCMarch06.pdf

Basically a replenishment ship of a small to modest size, much smaller than HMAS Sirius...

Click to expand...

No - that's just one of the Aegir family. The brochure lists three sizes: Aegir 10 (146 metres, 10000 dwt), Aegir a8 (175m, 18000 dwt) & Aegir 26 (196 metres - and you guessed the tonnage) - but it suggests that's not an exhaustive list.