Ah my bad
Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
t68
Well-Known Member
Well no doubt both designs can move what amounts to the JATF and major equipment list, but what about doctrine what sort of lift does NZ want for a future JATF, section, platoon or company lift? And what of interoperability and large heavy lift aircraft aft like CH-47 or even osprey?
IMHO I believe NZ should have capacity to host other larger machines, to me the Makassar design dose not meet the overall needs of RNZDF
IMHO I believe NZ should have capacity to host other larger machines, to me the Makassar design dose not meet the overall needs of RNZDF
Yeah, cutaways to show the internals.
The only spec I've seen is it's to be 150m long instead of 122-125m for the other versions. So one would assume it will carry more vehicles/troops/helos than they do.
Yip those are cutaways to show the internal "potential", no way they would expose that much, including the hanger, to the open seas as just a disaster waiting to happen. Haha it would be as buoyant as a brick.
t68
Well-Known Member
Interesting I hadn’t heard anything for quite a while, still might be hope for NZ
Singapore to replace Endurance class with Joint Multi Mission Ship after 2020 | Jane's 360
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Well actually Ngatimozart appears to be correct about the MRSS's RHIB positioning under the flight deck appearing to be less than ideal (for NZ ocean conditions).
For HMNZS Canterbury's remedial work the RHIB alcoves were relocated "from their original location under the flight deck and main deck (Deck 3) level, to a new location forward under the LCM mooring deck and higher up at Deck 4 level".
See page 3 http://marinedesign.co.nz/upload/news/Newsletter_Dec_2012.pdf
Otherwise the MRSS sure looks like an exciting and capable vessel!
For HMNZS Canterbury's remedial work the RHIB alcoves were relocated "from their original location under the flight deck and main deck (Deck 3) level, to a new location forward under the LCM mooring deck and higher up at Deck 4 level".
See page 3 http://marinedesign.co.nz/upload/news/Newsletter_Dec_2012.pdf
Otherwise the MRSS sure looks like an exciting and capable vessel!
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I could be mistaken but I believe that Canterbury can have a CH-47 land on the helipad, but it would not fit into the hangar. I would imagine that having the helipad designed to handle the size and weight of a CH-47 would be a fairly minor and easily accomplished requirement. Doing the same for a V-22 Osprey or F-35B Lightning II could be a somewhat different issue, as the pad needs to be able to handle the heat as well as the weight/ground pressure.
If the expectation that a future RNZN sealift vessel should be able to hangar a heavylift helicopter like the CH-47, that IMO would be unreasonable unless/until either such a helicopter is in service with the NZDF, or is expected to enter service. To me, a requirement for hangar space aboard a vessel implies a requirement for a sheltered workspace for ground crew to enable them to perform the sort of maintenance and support work required to sustain flight ops. With no CH-47 in NZDF service, there would be no Kiwi personnel with either the need to have or knowledge to sustain a CH-47, and if there were any CH-47 specific systems or tools required for sustaining the helicopter, there would be no reason for NZ to purchase them either. Now if the hangar space can be easily configured to handle NN utility & other helicopters in NZ service and without expending much resources enable CH-47 to fit into the hangar space in place of other helicopters, that would be a somewhat different story
I do think though that even if the NZDF does not have or plan on getting tanks, that a future amphibious ship should have a 'tank deck' or at least a vehicle deck, well dock, and landing craft able to handle vehicles the size and weight of modern MBT's. My reasoning behind this is that a heavy vehicle deck able to handle MBT's can just a easily also be used to handle regular/light vehicles, and that some of the capabilities which light vehicles have been able to provide have started to require a heavier vehicle. Canada's LAV 6.0 is a good example, I would not really consider a ~28,000 kg vehicle a 'light' vehicle, since that is getting into the same weight range as a WWII medium tank like the Sherman, or slightly more than a Cromwell cruiser tank. A heavy vehicle deck would not only enable the landing or recovery of allied heavy vehicles, it could permit NZ to bring heavy construction equipment in a HADR situation, as well as being able to handle basically any future vehicles Army would be apt to acquire in the future.
Todj, leaving helos ondeck for long periods of time, especially during bad weather is not conducive to their ongoing health. I know that the USN will leave aircraft parked on deck on their CVNs & LHAs, but they are not resource strapped to the same degree as the RNZN / NZDF. Also their flight decks are considerably higher above the water line than RNZN vessels. Hence stowing helos under cover is an important consideration from a NZDF POV especially if the helos in question are not marinised. The only marinised helos in NZDF service are the SH-2G(I) Sprites.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I know. At present I still have no concerns about leaving CH-47 Chinooks with a Kiwi roundel on deck though.
We could get a flat top with a ski ramp that we could operate Kiwi F-35Bs and Chinooks fromI know. At present I still have no concerns about leaving CH-47 Chinooks with a Kiwi roundel on deck though.
Chinooks? Meh .... get some real lifting power NG because we may have to lift 1440 cases of beer in an emergency and the only one for that job is the CH-53K King Stallion!We could get a flat top with a ski ramp that we could operate Kiwi F-35Bs and Chinooks from
Hyundai Heavy Industries who are knocking up the Aotearoa as we speak have a "Helicopter Dock Landing" design the HDL-18000 which is 18000t, 199m length, 31m beam and 6.6m draft. I believe it was offered as part of the LPX project and is accordingly similar in dimensions to the Hanjin Heavy Industries Dokdo Class.
We could get a flat top with a ski ramp that we could operate Kiwi F-35Bs and Chinooks from
This conversation could go many way's...............................Did you want just the one flat ?
Regards S
Yeah, we're definitely in fantasy land nowThis conversation could go many way's...............................Did you want just the one flat ?
Regards S
. Back in the real world; is the government really going to approve the huge cost of a vessel like the Endurance 170? Something they will see as an aircraft carrier? And it's not just the cost of the vessel itself, to justify that level of capability we would need more equipment to fill it. With NZ's current helicopter fleet we'd struggle to fill the deck landing spots, let alone the hangar space.
I've never seen a requirement for NZ's future sea lift ship to be able to host an Osprey, but I have seen the requirement that it have a relatively shallow draught to allow access to the small islands in the South Pacific.
The Canterbury has a draught of 5.4m, the Endurance 160 has a draught of 5.8m and the Makassar class has a draught of 4.9m.
The biggest reason for suggesting a Makassar class variant is cost. Peru paid US$60m for their first ship in 2013 and Indonesia paid even less for their vessels.
t68
Well-Known Member
At this point in time we don't know what a Singaporean built JMMS would cost or how many the RSN is expected to get
Take a leaf out of Howards play book and sell them as improved HADR assets in the wider pacific and the interoperability to accommodate larger aircraft such as CH-47F for longer periods of time to support HADR
With the recent buy of P8 and the more aggressive stance in the last strategic report, I feel more confident that the JATF 2035 Canterbury replacement may come to fruitarian in a more capable and tactical/strategic sealift ship, interoperability with allies and there equipment is always an enabler even if you do not have that equipment yourselves. HMAS Adelaide is showing that at Rimpac 2018 with six nations embarked and a host for USMC heavy amphibious equipment.
you could have got a cheaper MSC vessel than HMNZS Aotearoa but didn't you went for capability like the P8 decision, I think defence has seen the last of cheap and cheerful under the Clark leadership
Just a cautionary note ...... there are reasons certain ships are cheaper than others. These can be many and varied but in many cases it comes down to the equipment fitted and nature of build. A $60m price tag on a complex ship such as a LPD is very low and I suspect you are buying a very basic vessel that suits the role it is built for. In Indonesia inter-island operations are key .... however these voyages neeed not be of long duration given the nature of the islands.Yeah, we're definitely in fantasy land now
Back in the real world; is the government really going to approve the huge cost of a vessel like the Endurance 170? Something they will see as an aircraft carrier? And it's not just the cost of the vessel itself, to justify that level of capability we would need more equipment to fill it. With NZ's current helicopter fleet we'd struggle to fill the deck landing spots, let alone the hangar space.
I've never seen a requirement for NZ's future sea lift ship to be able to host an Osprey, but I have seen the requirement that it have a relatively shallow draught to allow access to the small islands in the South Pacific.
The Canterbury has a draught of 5.4m, the Endurance 160 has a draught of 5.8m and the Makassar class has a draught of 4.9m.
The biggest reason for suggesting a Makassar class variant is cost. Peru paid US$60m for their first ship in 2013 and Indonesia paid even less for their vessels.
Similarly if the vessel is not fitted with (or for) a CMS then that will be fitted if you want to integrate your operations. The same goes for radars and other weapons systems (even a CIWS) ..... you need to design the supporting services and capability in.
If you look at speed as well ... the Makassar has an economic cruising speed of 12 knots and a maximum of 16 knots... most warships cruise at 16 to 17. Again if you want to increase your speed there is going to be a cost.
The Makassar performs admirably in the role it was built for but may need considerable modification to support a sustained HADR or policing role fitting RNZN needs.
So unless you are happy to go with a vessel that has the integration capability of a merchant vessel .... You cannot go on price alone.
Last edited:
Oh it's totally bare bones. I've seen the equipment in the Indonesian ships and it looks like 90s tech. I'd expect a NZ version to be at least double the price. Even at triple the price it would still be cheap.
I'm interested to see what the MRSS equipment requirement spec looks like. I doubt the Malaysians would accept as austere a fit as the Indonesians have.
Last edited:
Unfortunately those days are gone. The RNZN now has dry ships, so centuries of history have gone down the heads. Jacks dungy runs are no longer tolerated. Anyway can buy 2 - 3 chooks for the price of one King Stallion, so can lift more beer for the same cost.Chinooks? Meh .... get some real lifting power NG because we may have to lift 1440 cases of beer in an emergency and the only one for that job is the CH-53K King Stallion!
So basically it's an LHD then? I think maybe a tad large for our requirements, but if it could be scaled down to say 13,000 or 14,000 tonnes then it would be ideal. However steel is cheap and air is free and it might be easier to leave it at 18,000 tonnes.