Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

Norway have chosen a 26,000 tonne BMT Aegir Logistics Support Vessel for its navy. The ship will be built by Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering (DSME) in South Korea and the contract with BMT is for US$213 million. http://www.shephardmedia.com/news/mil-log/norway-picks-bmt-design-its-new-logistics-ship/ That gives an idea of a probable costing for the Endeavour replacement albeit at the larger end of the scale. However I think that for what NZDF want and what the NZG would get for its money the price would be good. They are having to think about RAN considerations as well which is a good thing.

There was talk awhile ago about NZ working with the Norwegians on a replacement supply ship. Interesting that norway removed the roll on, roll off requirement which probably means it was to expensive, if thats the case little hope of the endeavour replacement having the capability.

ngatimozart said:

Norway have chosen a 26,000 tonne BMT Aegir Logistics Support Vessel for its navy. The ship will be built by Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering (DSME) in South Korea and the contract with BMT is for US$213 million. Norway picks BMT design for its new logistics ship - News - Shephard That gives an idea of a probable costing for the Endeavour replacement albeit at the larger end of the scale. However I think that for what NZDF want and what the NZG would get for its money the price would be good. They are having to think about RAN considerations as well which is a good thing.

Click to expand...

These BMT designed ships certainly seem to be kicking some goals, winning contracts from the UK and now Norway.

The overall dimensions of the ship seems to be the same as the version being offered to the RAN.

Ng, what is the budget allowance for the Endeavour replacement?

From the RAN perspective, the DCP has an allowance of between $1 and $2 Billion for the replacement of Success and Sirius, at the price that Norway is paying for its ship, two and possibly 3 would appear to fit well within the budget allowance.

I wonder if a joint purchase of 3-4 ships for both our navies is possible??

pea032 said:

There was talk awhile ago about NZ working with the Norwegians on a replacement supply ship. Interesting that norway removed the roll on, roll off requirement which probably means it was to expensive, if thats the case little hope of the endeavour replacement having the capability.

Click to expand...

RO/RO would normally imply bow or stern doors as in a ferry, but the RFI only wants 260 lane metres for vehicles on the top deck so doing it that way would be an expensive option for what 30 odd vehicles. However I think Canterbury vehicular access is in the side of the hull. I could be wrong. It depends on how you can load and off load the vehicles quickly and efficiently for the least amount of expenditure on the methodology for doing this. You also have to allow for the space that this would take up in the ships volume.

John Newman said:

These BMT designed ships certainly seem to be kicking some goals, winning contracts from the UK and now Norway.

The overall dimensions of the ship seems to be the same as the version being offered to the RAN.

Ng, what is the budget allowance for the Endeavour replacement?

From the RAN perspective, the DCP has an allowance of between $1 and $2 Billion for the replacement of Success and Sirius, at the price that Norway is paying for its ship, two and possibly 3 would appear to fit well within the budget allowance.

I wonder if a joint purchase of 3-4 ships for both our navies is possible??

Click to expand...

I don't know what the budget is for the Endeavour replacement John. I'll make enquiries. The RFI was put out rather quietly and as far as I know didn't make the media here. I only picked it up by chance. I can't find anything regarding it on the MoD site and GETS can be a nightmare if you don't have access which I don't. I have the impression from the RFI and the article that they are unsure of costings so the replies to the RFI will inform any submissions they make to government about a project budget.

One thing the RFI stipulated was that it was to be ice strengthened so that changes construction and design. From what I understand they add many extra ribs and maybe an armoured belt around the hull at water level laden and unladen. I just watched a very interesting documentary on a 90,000 tonne Russian oil tanker that is also an icebreaker. It has pods for propulsion that are of Finnish design and manufacture. The pods can rotate through 360 degrees and the props used allow for crunching and breakup of ice so when the ship gets into ice that is 2m+ thick and has ice ridges, it just reverses into them and starts chewing it's way through them at about 1 & 1/2 knots. Not that we need that capability but the RFI says we do need to get the Endeavour replacement in and out of McMurdo Sound from November to March each year. So ipresume that the ice capability will be similar to or the next higher level as the Protector Class OPVs.

From NG
Norway have chosen a 26,000 tonne BMT Aegir Logistics Support Vessel for its navy. The ship will be built by Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering (DSME) in South Korea and the contract with BMT is for US$213 million. Norway picks BMT design for its new logistics ship - News - Shephard That gives an idea of a probable costing for the Endeavour replacement albeit at the larger end of the scale. However I think that for what NZDF want and what the NZG would get for its money the price would be good. They are having to think about RAN considerations as well which is a good thing.

Click to expand...

That is very interesting, from the graphics of the Norwegian design there would be plenty of room forward of the RAS masts for 260 lane meters plus 12 TEUs required in the RFI, also the superstructure is large enough to house two 65 Tonne landing craft in alcoves.

Also interesting to note the number of ship building yards that submitted proposals for the project !

CJohn said:

That is very interesting, from the graphics of the Norwegian design there would be plenty of room forward of the RAS masts for 260 lane meters plus 12 TEUs required in the RFI, also the superstructure is large enough to house two 65 Tonne landing craft in alcoves.

Also interesting to note the number of ship building yards that submitted proposals for the project !

Click to expand...

Which project would that be? The NZ one? If so do you have a source / reference for your statement? Just some of us are very interested in the Endeavour replacement.

ngatimozart said:

I don't know what the budget is for the Endeavour replacement John. I'll make enquiries. The RFI was put out rather quietly and as far as I know didn't make the media here. I only picked it up by chance. I can't find anything regarding it on the MoD site and GETS can be a nightmare if you don't have access which I don't. I have the impression from the RFI and the article that they are unsure of costings so the replies to the RFI will inform any submissions they make to government about a project budget.

One thing the RFI stipulated was that it was to be ice strengthened so that changes construction and design. From what I understand they add many extra ribs and maybe an armoured belt around the hull at water level laden and unladen. I just watched a very interesting documentary on a 90,000 tonne Russian oil tanker that is also an icebreaker. It has pods for propulsion that are of Finnish design and manufacture. The pods can rotate through 360 degrees and the props used allow for crunching and breakup of ice so when the ship gets into ice that is 2m+ thick and has ice ridges, it just reverses into them and starts chewing it's way through them at about 1 & 1/2 knots. Not that we need that capability but the RFI says we do need to get the Endeavour replacement in and out of McMurdo Sound from November to March each year. So ipresume that the ice capability will be similar to or the next higher level as the Protector Class OPVs.

Click to expand...

Ng, I wonder if the ship to be built for Norway includes ice strengthening? One would think that with Norway's geographical location that ice strengthening might be on the list of requirements.

If not, as you have suggested,a NZ version would certainly have to have it to meet the RFI that Endeavour's replacement needs to get in and out of McMurdo, I wonder how much that would add to the cost of such a ship?

Rather than going down the path of the additional cost of ice strengthening, would it be better if the NZG had a separate dedicated Ice Breaker ship to do that role of resupply to McMurdo?

Something like Aurora Australis for example?

John Newman said:

Ng, I wonder if the ship to be built for Norway includes ice strengthening? One would think that with Norway's geographical location that ice strengthening might be on the list of requirements.

If not, as you have suggested,a NZ version would certainly have to have it to meet the RFI that Endeavour's replacement needs to get in and out of McMurdo, I wonder how much that would add to the cost of such a ship?

Rather than going down the path of the additional cost of ice strengthening, would it be better if the NZG had a separate dedicated Ice Breaker ship to do that role of resupply to McMurdo?

Something like Aurora Australis for example?

Click to expand...

Well the two OPVs are ice strengthened to Class 1C and they appear to have no problems operating down around the ice. I would think that the MPSC would operate in conjuction with a USCG icebreaker. IMHO a dedicated icebreaker in NZ service would not be feasible financially in the current financial climate. Whereas an ice strenghtened MPSC is viable because the extra costs can be justified and not as expensive as dedicated icebreaker. Also they can tell the greenies that it is far more structurally sound that your average tanker

ngatimozart said:

Well the two OPVs are ice strengthened to Class 1C and they appear to have no problems operating down around the ice. I would think that the MPSC would operate in conjuction with a USCG icebreaker. IMHO a dedicated icebreaker in NZ service would not be feasible financially in the current financial climate. Whereas an ice strenghtened MPSC is viable because the extra costs can be justified and not as expensive as dedicated icebreaker. Also they can tell the greenies that it is far more structurally sound that your average tanker

Click to expand...

Thanks for clearing that one up for me, appreciated.

My suggestion of a separate icebreaker was more of a 'thought bubble' moment, I was thinking that if the RFI bar was set too high or complex, you can end up in a situation where it becomes all to hard and expensive to meet the requirement.

But as you said, if the ship is built to the appropriate ice strengthened standard and you also have a US icebreaker to escort the ship in, then there is no point in having a dedicated icebreaker supply ship.

Regarding the Russian tanker/icebreaker doco you mentioned, I'm sure I saw that, or something very similar, about a year or so ago.

It was quiet impressive the way the propulsion pods were able to smash the ice up.

Certainly would make a mighty impressive 'snow cone' machine!

John Newman said:

Thanks for clearing that one up for me, appreciated.

Regarding the Russian tanker/icebreaker doco you mentioned, I'm sure I saw that, or something very similar, about a year or so ago.

It was quiet impressive the way the propulsion pods were able to smash the ice up.

Certainly would make a mighty impressive 'snow cone' machine!

Click to expand...

Yes it reminded me of my brother in laws mother in law with her false teeth on a grumpy day. She'd chew through 1/2inch plate steel like it was melted cheese and spit it out as iron filings.

From Ng: Which project would that be? The NZ one? If so do you have a source / reference for your statement? Just some of us are very interested in the Endeavour replacement.

Click to expand...

I was meaning the Norwegian project, but I would hope that many of these same ship builders would have submitted proposals to the NZ project, considering the Daewoo-BMT team's success in the UK and now Norway.
Also Hyundai Heavy Industries built the current HMNZS Endeavour and Fincantieri has recently completed two fleet tankers for the Indian Navy.

ngatimozart said:

One thing the RFI stipulated was that it was to be ice strengthened so that changes construction and design. From what I understand they add many extra ribs and maybe an armoured belt around the hull at water level laden and unladen. I just watched a very interesting documentary on a 90,000 tonne Russian oil tanker that is also an icebreaker. It has pods for propulsion that are of Finnish design and manufacture. The pods can rotate through 360 degrees and the props used allow for crunching and breakup of ice so when the ship gets into ice that is 2m+ thick and has ice ridges, it just reverses into them and starts chewing it's way through them at about 1 & 1/2 knots.

Click to expand...

They are called double acting ships, the ones I know about were a pair of ships build by Admiralty and another three built by Samgsung, all are operated by Sovcomflot. They were ordered to transport product from the Prirazlomnoye field. Russia has a number of other double acting vessels, there are a number of ice breakers and Norlisk Nickel built a series of dry cargo vessels at Aker Yards in Finland. I don't really see what use we would have for a double acting Endeavour replacement.

KiwiRob said:

They are called double acting ships, the ones I know about were a pair of ships build by Admiralty and another three built by Samgsung, all are operated by Sovcomflot. They were ordered to transport product from the Prirazlomnoye field. Russia has a number of other double acting vessels, there are a number of ice breakers and Norlisk Nickel built a series of dry cargo vessels at Aker Yards in Finland. I don't really see what use we would have for a double acting Endeavour replacement.

Click to expand...

Maybe not a double acting ship but from the RFI it has to be able to get in and out of McMurdo during the summer season so hence the ice strenghtening requirement. I also know they've used ice breakers down there to clear a channel to get the resupply ships in as close as possible to McMurdo base.

Another approach could be the Canadian JSS variant of the Berlin that the Canadians have finally signed up to for the RCN. However I would rather it built in South Korea instead of Canada or Germany just because of cost. With the ANZAC frigate we could have bought three with what we paid for two if they had been built in Korea rather than make work for Aussie ship building, although we did get some offsets which we wouldn't have got with a Korean build. However I'd far rather had the third frigate.

ngatimozart said:

Maybe not a double acting ship but from the RFI it has to be able to get in and out of McMurdo during the summer season so hence the ice strenghtening requirement. I also know they've used ice breakers down there to clear a channel to get the resupply ships in as close as possible to McMurdo base.

Another approach could be the Canadian JSS variant of the Karl Doorman that the Canadians have finally signed up to for the RCN. However I would rather it built in South Korea instead of Canada or Germany just because of cost. With the ANZAC frigate we could have bought three with what we paid for two if they had been built in Korea rather than make work for Aussie ship building, although we did get some offsets which we wouldn't have got with a Korean build. However I'd far rather had the third frigate.

Click to expand...

From what I have heard NZ did very well out of the ANZAC program being given work more in accordance with the four ships they were ment to order rather than the two they did get. Interestingly HMAS Perth came in under budget (I believe under A$100m I'm then.dollars) and ahead of schedule so who knows what the savings would have been had NZ bought their second pair.

ngatimozart said:

With the ANZAC frigate we could have bought three with what we paid for two if they had been built in Korea rather than make work for Aussie ship building, although we did get some offsets which we wouldn't have got with a Korean build. However I'd far rather had the third frigate.

Click to expand...

Just a point of correction here. From a historical POV, at the time that NZ still had (the unexercised) options for two additional ANZAC-class FFH's, and then later still when the RNZN/NZDF was considering just an order for a single frigate outside of the joint programme... An argument frequently used in NZ against either exercising the two options, or the single purchase, was the doing so would support lazy Aussie shipyard workers, be providing make-work for Aussie yards, and other similar type comments.

From my perspective, it seems much more likely that people in gov't and/or politics at the time were looking to hamstring defence planning initiated or agreed upon by previous (opposing) gov'ts, and/or discretely cut Vote Defence. The arguments themselves while apparently often repeated, do not appear to me to be either honest or accurate.

As part of the ANZAC ship programme, there was a programme requirement that 80% of the programme had to be 'local' content, with local being Oz or NZ-sourced product or workshare. Of that, 20% of the value of the local content had to be from NZ. Looking at the module workshare, the frigates were assembled from a dozen modules, six hull and six superstructure modules. The lead ship in class was assembled entirely at Williamstown. After that though, the remaining nine frigates had modules built in both Oz and NZ. The hull modules were from one of three yards within Oz, while the superstructure modules came from Whangarei NZ. That in turn means that while NZ only actually ordered and purchased 20% of the frigates, NZ built 45% of the modules...

In effect, it seems that NZ might have gotten workshare which at least reached the programme agreement goal, if not exceeded it.

-Cheers

Volkodav said:

From what I have heard NZ did very well out of the ANZAC program being given work more in accordance with the four ships they were ment to order rather than the two they did get. Interestingly HMAS Perth came in under budget (I believe under A$100m I'm then.dollars) and ahead of schedule so who knows what the savings would have been had NZ bought their second pair.

Click to expand...

Yeah I factored that in but money was always going to be the issue and then we were well into block obscelescence. It was as much a political decision in response to pressure from Canberra as well that we entered into the ANZAC frigate program. It is part of the price we pay for being Anzac mates and for having an independent foreign policy. We don't complain about the price but sometimes we have to look elsewehere for kit. If we hadn't we might've gone down the corvette route and that is something that will have to be seriously looked at in the next decade.

Personally I don't think that we'll be able to afford to participate in the ANZAC replacement frigate project because the RAN future frigate requirements and RNZN future frigate requirements are dissimilar with the RAN being more high tech and specialised. I think if NZ stays with frigates we would be best to follow the Absalon type route with a GP fitout and the modular armaments system. The Absalon has a complement of 100 + 70 extras compared to the RNZN ANZAC of 177. So I think that a combination of that type of vessel and well armed OPV / corvette capable of using the same modular armament system would be ideal for the RNZN. If I were in charge of replacing the ANZAC frigates today I would go for an Absalon / Navantia BAMS combination (ice strengthened); 3 and 3. That way you would only have to find a crew for the extra BAMS. I'd sell the two ANZACs and the 2 Protector OPVs. The Phillipines are buying at the moment.

Todjaeger said:

An argument frequently used in NZ against either exercising the two options, or the single purchase, was the doing so would support lazy Aussie shipyard workers, be providing make-work for Aussie yards, and other similar type comments.

From my perspective, it seems much more likely that people in gov't and/or politics at the time were looking to hamstring defence planning initiated or agreed upon by previous (opposing) gov'ts, and/or discretely cut Vote Defence. The arguments themselves while apparently often repeated, do not appear to me to be either honest or accurate.

Click to expand...

Is there a source for that as I've never (ever) heard that argument that NZ didn't want to exercise the 3rd and 4th ANZAC Frigate options because of "lazy Aussie shipyard workers" etc.

Reported opposition was along the familiar protest lines of "spending up large on useless Frigates" & "Who are we fighting? Cold War is over so why is NZ trying to cosy up to the American war machine" or "patrol vessels would be more appropriate for Pacific needs" etc.

But yes lazy NZ pollies could use these excuses to curry favour with the public.

From memory a Govt defence review (mid 90's) cut down the Frigate fleet from 4 to 3 in essence meaning that by the time of needing to act upon acquiring the last batch of (two) Frigates (a couple of years later) the Govt could then say it would only need to acquire a third (not fourth). Alas the Asian economic crisis (mid-late 90's) did affect NZ's economy to such an extent the pollies did get cold feet about purchase #3, not at all helped by NZ's change in 1996 to the MMP coalition governing system which meant unless a Govt achieved over 50% of the vote (which hasn't happened here in decades) then they would need to govern with smaller coalition parties - a classic case of the tail wagging the dog - as these smaller parties suddenly gained more influence out of proportion to their size i.e. they could make or break a ruling (voter majority) Govt which I understand is exactly what happened when the then Govt junior coalition partner went against the 3rd Frigate (but supported the F16 aquistion instead. It was one or the other but not both due to cost etc). Then of course a couple of years later a change in Govt killed off any last chance to acquire Frigate #3. Am I excusing our pollies? No, just pointing out the complications that we have to deal with nowadays! I'd hope that lessons have been learned by both Trans-Tasman govts to ensure no repeat for the ANZAC II project.

ngatimozart said:

Personally I don't think that we'll be able to afford to participate in the ANZAC replacement frigate project because the RAN future frigate requirements and RNZN future frigate requirements are dissimilar with the RAN being more high tech and specialised.

Click to expand...

I really think it is way, way too early in the piece to rule anything in or out. There are no documents in the NZ public domain about its replacement Frigate needs (presumably RNZN have some ideas of what it would like, like they always do, alas which don't necessarily come into fruition), apart from some broad statements the Aussies also haven't nailed down their requirements, we have a much changed ship building landscape in Australia (compared to ANZAC I times) & the Type 26 is still evolving.

It could be that the likes of BAE Systems offer (and build in OZ) two variations of Frigates for the RAN and the RNZN (+RN)?? Who knows?

However one should never underestimate the importance to the NZG of the Closer Defence Relations agreement with the Australian Govt. Unless the US heap a mutual assistance package on NZ I would expect the NZG will work in with the Australian Govt to work on a joint-programme for both defence and skills/employment on both sides of the ditch.

Todjaeger said:

Just a point of correction here. From a historical POV, at the time that NZ still had (the unexercised) options for two additional ANZAC-class FFH's, and then later still when the RNZN/NZDF was considering just an order for a single frigate outside of the joint programme... An argument frequently used in NZ against either exercising the two options, or the single purchase, was the doing so would support lazy Aussie shipyard workers, be providing make-work for Aussie yards, and other similar type comments.


As part of the ANZAC ship programme, there was a programme requirement that 80% of the programme had to be 'local' content, with local being Oz or NZ-sourced product or workshare. Of that, 20% of the value of the local content had to be from NZ. Looking at the module workshare, the frigates were assembled from a dozen modules, six hull and six superstructure modules. The lead ship in class was assembled entirely at Williamstown. After that though, the remaining nine frigates had modules built in both Oz and NZ. The hull modules were from one of three yards within Oz, while the superstructure modules came from Whangarei NZ. That in turn means that while NZ only actually ordered and purchased 20% of the frigates, NZ built 45% of the modules...

In effect, it seems that NZ might have gotten workshare which at least reached the programme agreement goal, if not exceeded it.

-Cheers

Click to expand...

The "make work" remark is mine and it is a condensed version of a comment in the Greener - Timing is Everything work on NZ Defence procurement. The lazy aussie workers remark would come from NZ First under Peters, the NZ Labour pollies under Clark, their supporters plus the peaceniks. Greener states that the two ANZAC frigates built in Australian yards cost NZ 34% more than if they had been built somewhere like Asia. With regard to the third frigate, the decision had to be made by November 1998 and the Shipley National led govt, which was a miniority govt, then decided to go with F16s over the frigate because it was seen as a less politically fraught proposition. Labour under Uncle helen had very highly politicised the ANZAC frigate purchases and once they had forced the govt into only taking two frigates they started into the F16s. Also at the same time as the third frigate and the F16s, the army M113 APCs had to be replaced, so that was three major pieces of kit and govt only having money for one. They went with the F16 deal because it was literally the deal of a lifetime. IIRC 28 aircraft for $13 million a year plus about $200 million to upgrade to C/D status.

From my perspective, it seems much more likely that people in gov't and/or politics at the time were looking to hamstring defence planning initiated or agreed upon by previous (opposing) gov'ts, and/or discretely cut Vote Defence. The arguments themselves while apparently often repeated, do not appear to me to be either honest or accurate.

Click to expand...

I agree & it is still hamstrung. It really started on budget night 1991 but money had become tighter since the late 1970s.