PDA

View Full Version : New Zealand Project Protector.



Pages : [1] 2

John
6th August 2004, 21:32
Project Protector

(Source: New Zealand Ministry of Defence; issued Aug. 6, 2004)

The Ministers of Defence and Finance announced on 30 July that the contract had been signed between the Government and ship builders Tenix Limited for the construction of seven new ships to be operated by the Navy.

At a brief ceremony today held with Tenix, Ministers welcomed this next stage of the project. The Minister of Finance, Dr Michael Cullen, said the $NZ500 million project is part of the approved Long Term Development Plan for the New Zealand Defence Force.

The Minister of Defence, Mark Burton is very pleased that the project is now under way.

“It is planned that the Multi Role Vessel (MRV), two Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPVs) and four Inshore Patrol Vessels (IPVs) will enter service over the next 3 years.

“They will represent a significant increase in the Government’s capability to meet military and civilian responsibilities throughout New Zealand’s extensive EEZ, in the South Pacific and in the Southern Ocean.

“They will fulfil a broad range of requirements including personnel and cargo sealift, emergency response, fisheries and customs patrols and at sea training for the Royal New Zealand Navy.”

The Minister of Defence said a whole of government approach had been followed from the inception of the project and during the tender evaluation phase.

“The ships will be operated by the Navy and used for military purposes as well as meeting the needs of a number of other Government agencies.

Each ship will have designated facilities for staff from other agencies who will embark when required for different operations.

The MRV will have accommodation for up to fifty Army and Air Force personnel as part of the ship’s company and further space for up to 250 soldiers together with their vehicles and stores to carry them on operational deployments.

It will have the capability to carry an Infantry Company including its Light Armoured Vehicles and other equipment and will have the capacity to move New Zealand Defence Force equipment for operations like the recent Solomon Islands and East Timor deployments.

The ship will also be fitted out to enable humanitarian and emergency responses involving multi-agency personnel and equipment, in the South Pacific.

Both the MRV and the OPVs will be ice strengthened for operations in the Southern ocean and the Ross Sea and will also have the capability to embark Seasprite helicopters, which will enhance their ability to undertake maritime patrol tasks.

-ends-

Tenix Defence Signs $500 Million Contract for NZ Project Protector

(Source: Australian Department of Defence; issued Aug. 6, 2004)

Australian company Tenix Defence Pty Ltd has been awarded contracts for the provision of Project Protector, a NZ$500 million modernisation program for the Royal New Zealand Navy, Defence Minister Robert Hill announced today.

"Tenix's provision of a successful and innovative solution for the New Zealand Navy displays the capabilities and strengths of Australian ship builders to operate competitively in the international market, outcompeting bids from the United Kingdom, Singapore and the Netherlands," Senator Hill said.

"It also clearly demonstrates that the Australian shipbuilding industry has the ability and skills to meet the forthcoming shipbuilding programs outlined in the Government's Defence Capability Plan."

Project Protector is the acquisition of a multi-role vessel, and offshore and inshore patrol vessels, to be operated by the Royal New Zealand Navy to conduct tasks for and with the New Zealand Customs, the Department of Conservation, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Ministry of Fisheries, Maritime Safety Authority of New Zealand and New Zealand Police.

The 2002 Maritime Forces Review, conducted by the New Zealand Ministry of Defence, detailed the need for sealift capability, inshore and offshore patrol matched to New Zealand's demanding maritime environments, and the ability to conduct at-sea Naval training.

All of the vessels purchased under Project Protector will be designed and purpose built to meet these needs.

Tenix plans to build on its successful experiences of local industry participation in the ANZAC Ship Project in both Australia and New Zealand, with the majority of Project Protector's vessels to be built, assembled, launched and fitted out in Australia and New Zealand. Modules for the offshore patrol vessels will be constructed in New Zealand, while the consolidation and launch of the ships will occur at Tenix's shipbuilding facilities at Williamstown in Victoria, where the ANZAC vessels were constructed.

"This will provide opportunities for a wide range of New Zealand and Australian companies, building upon the considerable benefits already delivered through the ANZAC frigate program," Senator Hill said.

-ends-

Goldie fish
6th August 2004, 22:01
Similar to the Irish naval service then....

mutter nutter (again)
6th August 2004, 22:38
Can someone tell me why New Zealand can spend 1 billion+ dollar's upgrading their military, while Ireland ,which is a richer country can't?:mad:

Goldie fish
6th August 2004, 22:57
http://www.navy.mil.nz/pdfs/strategic%20plan%20@23aug.pdf

This link used to have attached images of the proposed vessels. It doesn't any more..

Try here instead...

http://www.tenix.com/PDFLibrary/206.pdf

Goldie fish
24th August 2004, 10:18
This is kind of interesting....

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/5116/nz_part6.html#4


Tenix's proposed Multi-Role Vessel
This MRV will be a RO-RO type ship as currently used on the Irish Sea.

Displacement (tonnes): 8,000
Dimensions (feet): 425 x 76 x ? (131 x 23.4 x ? metres)
Propulsion: 2 x Diesels (Unknown at this stage)
Max. Speed (knots): 19
Armament: Unknown
Aircraft: 1 x Kaman Seasprite SH-2G ASW Helicopter
Complement: 53 plus 10 flight, 7 Army and 4 Govt agency officers
plus 35 trainees and 250 embarked troops

The OPVs will be helicopter capable and will provide the RNZN with a new
capability between the Frigates and IPVs, to assist in the patrol of its EEZ.

Tenix's proposed Off-Shore Patrol Vessels
These OPVs will be of similar design to the Irish Navy's OPVs, L.E. Roisin & L.E. Niamh.

Displacement (tonnes): 1,600
Dimensions (feet): 276 x 45 x 22 (85 x 14 x 6.8 metres)
Propulsion: 2 x Diesels (Unknown at this stage)
Max. Speed (knots): 22
Range (nm): 6,000
Armament: 1 x 76mm OTO Melara Cannon (Unknown at this stage)
Aircraft: 1 x Kaman Seasprite SH-2G ASW Helicopter
Complement: 35 plus 10 flight and 4 Govt agency officers
plus 30 embarked personnel

The IPVs will replace the existing Moa Class IPVs.

Tenix's proposed In-Shore Patrol Vessels
These IPVs will be similar in design to a Tenix designed S&R vessel in service with the Phillipines Coast Guard.

Displacement (tonnes): 340
Dimensions (feet): 179 x 29 x 8 (55 x 9 x 2.5 metres)
Propulsion: 2 or 3 Diesels (Unknown at this stage)
Max. Speed (knots): 25
Range (nm): 3,000
Armament: Unknown
Complement: 20 plus 4 Govt agency officers
plus 12 additional personnel

The Ministry of Defence will now enter into contract negotiations to
finalise options for fleet composition and an Offer Definition Process
to clarify technical matters with Tenix prior to final confirmation of the
multi-role vessel supplier.



Originally posted by mutter nutter (again)
Can someone tell me why New Zealand can spend 1 billion+ dollar's upgrading their military, while Ireland ,which is a richer country can't?:mad:

Because they only have 3 ships?

futurepilot
24th August 2004, 15:09
Excuse my ignorance but what 8,000 tonne ship are they talking about there?

Goldie fish
24th August 2004, 19:44
One of the Truck ferries.

Goldie fish
25th August 2004, 08:04
Tenix ready to roll on $500m Navy ship project

06.08.2004
By KEVIN TAYLOR
A seven-ship fleet to boost the Royal New Zealand Navy's capabilities will be delivered over the next three years, with work starting almost immediately.

Government ministers yesterday attended a ceremony at Parliament with officials from Australian shipbuilder Tenix to mark last week's signing of the contract for the $500 million Project Protector.

But last night a rival ship-builder and unsuccessful tenderer, the Dutch firm Schelde Marinebouw announced it was seeking an urgent High Court hearing to stop the contract proceeding.

Schelde New Zealand spokesman Bill MacGregor said the company had requested an urgent hearing so a decision on its claim could be made rapidly.

Schelde filed papers in the High Court last week alleging that the Defence Ministry's tender processing was fatally flawed and seeking $55 million in damages and costs.

At the ceremony, Tenix group managing director Paul Salteri said the value of the work to New Zealand would be more than $200 million.

Project work had already been given to about 100 New Zealand firms.

One 8870-tonne multi-role vessel, two 1600-tonne offshore patrol vessels and four 340-tonne inshore patrol ships will be built.

Tenix, which owns a shipyard in Whangarei, will build all the inshore patrol vessels and some of the modules for the offshore patrol vessels there.

The remaining parts will be built at Williamstown, Melbourne.

The construction of the multi-role vessel will be subcontracted to Merwede in the Netherlands.

Finance Minister Michael Cullen said the project would have economic benefits to New Zealand industry and the economy, and the Government was getting value for money.

Delivery dates

One 8870-tonne multi-role vessel: December 2006.

Two 1600-tonne offshore patrol vessels: May and November 2007.

Four 340-tonne Inshore patrol vessels: February, June, and September 2007 and January 2008.


http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3582579&thesection=news&thesubsection=general&thesecondsubsection=&reportid=52007

$500m ship deal 'flawed'

17.08.2004


The Government signed a contract with Australian shipbuilder Tenix without knowing exactly the costs of keeping going seven new ships for the Navy throughout their lifetimes.

However, it had estimated costs to avoid the $16 million cost for missing a deadline set by Tenix.

Defence Minister Mark Burton yesterday released a raft of cabinet papers about the deal.

It is facing legal action from a Dutch company which tendered unsuccessfully for the $500 million contract for the new ships.

Schelde Marinebouw BV has laid a $55 million law suit against the Ministry of Defence and Tenix, which won the contract to build the seven new ships.

It has described the tender process as fatally flawed.

The papers show the Government decided not to carry out further work on "life cycle" costs and options for the fleet mix because it would have missed a deadline set by Tenix that would have raised the price.

The papers stated that work by officials on "issues of fleet mix options and life cycle costing" would not be completed in time.

But the minister indicated the likely outcome of the additional work would be to confirm the fleet mix offered by Tenix.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3584801&thesection=news&thesubsection=general&thesecondsubsection=&reportid=52007

Goldie fish
19th September 2004, 10:23
Some photos of what the new NZ fleet will look like(anyone think they look familiar?)

http://www.navy.mil.nz/nr/rdonlyres/8292d6f8-1175-47bc-b140-6b71e187dd42/0/protectorfleet.jpg
http://www.navy.mil.nz/nr/rdonlyres/2d7ea7b1-a68d-4ca1-81ed-e28013d7f335/0/mrvbowon.jpg

http://www.navy.mil.nz/nr/rdonlyres/618bbe30-c18d-4015-a0db-ee7ad4fddefb/0/opvicyisland.jpg

http://www.navy.mil.nz/nr/rdonlyres/ffddd483-8bed-43d1-86d7-08c2f4d1bdbe/0/ipvatspeed.jpg

http://www.warshipsifr.com/media/oneSize.jpg

http://www.navy.mil.nz/visit-the-fleet/project-protector/default.htm

Farel'
22nd September 2004, 09:33
The kiwis came up with some great reasons for having a Sealift ship(the MRV above)

http://www.defence.govt.nz/public_docs/nzdf-caprev/contents.shtml
PDF file 344KB (http://www.defence.govt.nz/public_docs/landforce.pdf)

They later went on to identify what they needed from their Naval Forces,and 2 years later were reasy to start signing cheques.

http://www.defence.govt.nz/public_docs/mfr/contents-page.shtml

In comparison,a review of our Military was completed some years ago,with the Naval and Air specific review being completed and published in 1998.
Most of the suggestions have been ignored by the powers that be,except for the ones that provide cost savings.

ias
23rd September 2004, 22:55
GF, probably you already know, but the new NZ OPV looks familiar because it is designed by Kvaerner Masa Marine, the same people that designed Roisin and Niamh www.masamarine.com/ship_patrol.html
and www.masamarine.com/headlines.html
IAS

Goldie fish
24th September 2004, 06:16
However it also bears a striking resemblance,in my opinion to Eithne,P31.

gaff85
24th September 2004, 17:07
Will there be a decison on what equipment the Navy actually requires, not only the "wish lists", but what is actually required for both off-shore and in-shore patrolling.

Is there actually a decision in the pipeline or is it all "hype".

Farel'
28th September 2004, 10:27
Its hype,until we get a government with balls. For McGreedy to come along every year and tell us how much money he saved is well and good,but i would prefer my tax money to be spent on assets,instead of lying around losing value. Any successful business invests its profits in assets. You wont see Bill gates boasting that he has 70 zillion in the bank belonging to Microsoft...instead you will hear about all the companies he is buying to make microsoft an even bigger machine than it is today..

Spend the money! Spend it on stuff the people want! Dont throw it at the health boards,they will only spend it on another report as to why they are rubbish,and nobody will be saved. Spend it on assets! New equipment may not be popular in the crusty liberal world,but the fact is it creates jobs,which creates revenue! In the 80s,thousands kept their jobs because the Navy wanted to build their ships in Cork. In the 90s,People in Devon Kept their jobs because the navy wanted to build their ships in Appledore. Both facilities are now closed.
If the MLH deal hadnt been f**ked up,companies like FLS would be reaping the rewards today.

Its basic economics. To make money,you must spend it. If you save it,all you have left is what you saved. It will never grow while it sits in your pocket.

Goldie fish
18th December 2004, 20:15
The Kiwis are currently suffering from a situation that is the exact opposite of what is happening here.

Their Recruits are leaving because they are not going to sea. Withe the HMNZS CANTERBURY,traditionally the fleets training ship,being prematurely retired with her replacement not due for another 3 years,and the dramatically small nature of the NZ fleet,positions aboard the remaining ships,Te Kaha,Te Mana,and the Tanker Endeavour are very scarce with a strength of over 2000.

hptmurphy
21st November 2005, 14:33
Just reading Warship 2005...an annual publication which is a must for all naval enthusiasts.

It is reported in the international navies section thet New Zealand is to build a new unit of patrol vessels based on....the LE Eithne...its true.....foundit hard to believe my self....

anybody have any more information on this?

Sluggie
21st November 2005, 17:26
This is a guess but it sounds like a report on Project Protector. The two OPVs in the project are based on the same hull as the LE Róisín (but with Helo pad I think). Did the author of the story confuse Eithne with Róisín after a quick brouse of Jane's?.

andy
21st November 2005, 17:47
any pictures of it ?

CTU
21st November 2005, 17:52
Would it be this

http://www.irishmilitaryonline.com/board/showthread.php?t=4040

hptmurphy
21st November 2005, 20:42
Ireckon that might be the case in which case yes the book could be wrong.


The article is a attributed to one Conrad Waters...a barrister by training...and a banker by profession author of numerous articles on modern naval history.

Never heard of him!

I suppose we will have to wait for next years edition for the corrections.

Sluggie
21st November 2005, 21:21
Although if you follow CTU,'s link to the earlier thread you will see that while based on the Róisín's hull the OPV does bear a striking resemblance to a more modern, less top-heavy Eithne (as Goldie points out).

Note the twin funnels, the position of the main armament and the afterdeck below the helideck. It looks like a cross between the two classes, just as the Róisín is somthing of a PV/CPV cross.

It will be interesting to see how it turns out as artists impressions can be misleading.

Goldie fish
21st November 2005, 21:51
However it also bears a striking resemblance,in my opinion to Eithne,P31.

You heard it here first.

McCarthy
22nd November 2005, 16:34
I was lookin through the irish independant archives and i saw that the navy got a submersible craft.
This craft isnt manned is it?

Goldie fish
22nd November 2005, 16:42
No. It is artificial intelligence.

kiwi1
23rd November 2005, 09:03
Hi all just thought i would send the links to view the pictures of two opvs being built for the New Zealand Navy .
http://www.defencemodels.com.au/Projects/images/DSC09752lrg.jpg

hptmurphy
23rd November 2005, 11:49
Lovely....cross between P31 and P51

Goldie fish
23rd November 2005, 12:30
Thanks Kiwi.

http://www.defencemodels.com.au/Projects/images/DSC09900lrg.jpg
http://www.defencemodels.com.au/Projects/MRV.asp

http://www.defencemodels.com.au/Projects/images/DSC09750lrg.jpg
http://www.defencemodels.com.au/Projects/OPV.asp

http://www.defencemodels.com.au/Projects/images/DSC09853lrg.jpg
http://www.defencemodels.com.au/Projects/IPV150.asp


Lovely....cross between P31 and P51
Hopefully with the best features of both.

ODIN
23rd November 2005, 12:58
out of interest, wht type of heli wil the Kiwi's be opperating on these new ships?!?

Tribunius
23rd November 2005, 13:54
Kaman Sea Sprite (SH-2F) I would imagine.

Goldie fish
23rd November 2005, 17:25
I don't expect helis to be deployed on the smaller craft, but the helideck on the OPV gives them the option.
The Kaman Seasprite, of which they have 5, is the standard Naval heli on their Anzac Frigates, Te Kaha and Te Mana.
http://www.navy.mil.nz/nr/rdonlyres/2c929841-1072-47c3-8fdb-aca64b6b4d5b/0/tncomefwd.jpg

kiwi1
24th November 2005, 04:14
Hi all from NZ the RNZN has in service five SH-2G Kamen seasprite helos.Our models can use various armament options eg maverick missiles/mu-90 torpedoes etc.I would say our navy will mostly use these helos on the frigates/fleet tanker/opvs and the new mrv will use the NH-90s on order.The new ipcs will go to RNZNVR units.I have heard that the ipcs will get a 25 mil cannon up forrad later.

Goldie fish
23rd December 2005, 05:17
http://www.navy.mil.nz/nr/rdonlyres/f249bded-7c20-4ca9-8b12-5f64edd4d8b3/0/nt106web.pdf

RNZN officer on exchange with Irish NS.

ldman60119
23rd December 2005, 20:03
New Zealand does not have much of a military to move anywhere. The army has some AFV and cannons, but is basically an infantry force. They have 2 frigates that would not put up much of a fight against say Chinese ships/aircraft or subs. They have some P-3 against subs and ships, but their range would be to limited for many operations. They have no air-to-air and only the P-3s, SH-2Gs and UH-1s for attack.

The transport ship would only be good for some sort of task force attached with Aussies. If it is to be used for peacekeeping operations, fly the troops in instead. The patrol crafts are alright, but would not the money be better spent on buying something like Oliver Hazard Perry Class Frigates to replace thier frigates and have a ship with patrol/attack options. They got rid of thier A-4s and M.339s to save money, why on GODs green earth would they spend this much money on these ships!

Goldie fish
23rd December 2005, 21:22
I don't think the 3 million or so Kiwis are planning on invading the chinese mainland any day soon.

They have decided on vessels that are appropriate to their needs. Not everyone is in the business of imposing democracy on the world.
Read the links in this thread and you will see exactly why they decided to spend on these ships.

Perry class are approaching obsolesence, and are crew intensive, which is not ideal for a small country with a small navy. The Aussies use them in addition to the Meko type, and the MEKO(ANZAC) is considered the superior warship of the two, in spite of the fact that it is not US designed.

Why does every military force in your opinion need to be an offensive one? The Kiwis have a pretty good international reputation as it is without having needed to invade anyone. I urge you to visit their websites, and look at the doctrine based on local military roles and humanitarian requirements, which is a secondary tasking of all modern small Naval forces.

kiwi1
23rd December 2005, 22:56
Hi all from NZ thanks goldie for your comments on our naval requirements/future needs,you are spot on with what we want to achieve.It never ceases to amaze me how NZ is put under a lot of pressure to follow the US/UK all the time.Yes we do have small defence forces but a lot of new gear is coming online in the near future and 2500 more personnel to be recruited for all three services.Actually its a shame NZ and Irish defence forces couldnt work together more but thats another thread.

ldman60119
27th December 2005, 16:39
I don't think New Zealand is planning any invasions. The first purpose of any military is to protect the people of its country. China is a growing threat in Asia. Over the next 20 years they will be a bigger threat.

Also you need more than just infantry troops for peacekeeping. What about East Timor? Remember when the RNZN lost track of an Indonesian 209 sub while NZ Army troops were being transported to Suai. If the Indonesian Navy wanted to, the Frigate Canterbury and that transport would be rusting at the bottom of the sea. INTERFET (International Force in East Timor) was being probed the whole way that they sailed to East Timor by the Indonesian Navy and Air Force.

This is the mission of the NZ navy from their website:

Ensure the sovereignty of our EEZ and territorial waters;
* Protect our interests in the Southern Ocean and Ross Dependency;
* Counter any threat posed by terrorism or acts of sabotage;
* Provide support in civil defense and other emergencies; and
* Contribute to the Governments social and economic priorities by providing opportunities for training and rewarding careers.

New Zealand's 2 MEKO (ANZAC) class frigates are not up to the same standards as the Aussie ships, and the money that was to go to a third ship has been used on these smaller ships that have less combat value. All this seems to be due to politics rather than what the military needs.

I don't think NZ needs F-22s and a Nimitz-class AC. But if New Zealand is going to buy these types of ships, they need to be able to protect them in combat. Is it the Aussies job to do that? There are still threats to New Zealand. Does New Zealand have a military just for fishery patrols and peacekeeping? If that was they case they would do what Costa Rica did. Abolish their military and create a paramilitary police force with patrol boats and police officers to go on peacekeeping missions.

I don't think every militaries role should be an 'offensive one'. However they should be able to conduct combat operations as their primary goal. Is not that first mission of the Irish Military, or the Mexican military or any military to protect their nation? Even the Swiss Guard's first role is to protect the Vatican.

kiwi1
11th February 2006, 01:22
Hi all from NZ just thought i would give you an update,the NZ MRV is to be launched on 11/2/06 just five months after the keel was laid.The ship is to sail to Australia in july,more details are available on the NZ ministry of defence site.Maybe this is the type of vessel your naval forces might be looking at.

Sailor Girl
11th February 2006, 07:28
Have you any pictures ?
________
Old Man Sex (http://www.****tube.com/categories/29/old-man/videos/1)

Goldie fish
26th February 2006, 17:27
http://www.navy.mil.nz/

http://www.navy.mil.nz/nr/rdonlyres/89ecc32f-b32a-4da2-a783-25a4f1d25107/0/mrvonwater.jpghttp://www.navy.mil.nz/nr/rdonlyres/de684534-c1c3-4f23-be06-6db0139448f1/0/mrvlaunch.jpg

The Royal New Zealand Navy's new Multi Role Vessel (MRV) was launched on Saturday 11 feb (local time) at the Merwede shipyard in Rotterdam.

Secretary of Defence Graham Fortune and the Deputy Chief of Navy, Commodore Jack Steer attended the launch.

The 9000-tonne MRV is the first of seven ships being built under the Ministry of Defence's $500 million Project Protector. Two Offshore Patrol Vessels are being built in Melbourne, and four Inshore Patrol Vessels are being built in Whangarei.

Defence Minister Phil Goff, who visited the shipyards last weekend, said the speed with which the MRV was being built was impressive, with work having been contracted to four other shipyards in Rotterdam.

"As result, the MRV is being built at an average of 20 tonnes per day and five months later it is ready for launch – on schedule and within budget."

The MRV's superstructure was fitted as one complete block the day after the launch. Once the fit-out and sea trials are complete in late July, it will sail for Melbourne to be fitted with armaments and military communications systems. Final trials will then be conducted before Defence accepts the ship in December.

The MRV has a maximum speed of 19 knots, and is capable of transporting the Army’s Light Armoured Vehicles and Light Operational Vehicles, as well as 250 troops, one Seasprite and four NH90 helicopters. It has two 60-tonne landing craft for situations where port facilities are not available.

http://www.navy.mil.nz/nr/rdonlyres/3a523552-3efe-4163-b9b5-fa57ca06640f/0/mrvlaunchdrydock.jpg

Multi Role Vessel leaving dry dock
Mr Goff said all seven of the Project Protector ships would make an important contribution to New Zealand's security and economic interests, as well increasing our capacity to assist in disaster relief in the Pacific.
"They will be operated by the Navy but they will undertake work for a range of government departments as part of a multi-agency approach to protecting our borders," Mr Goff said.

http://www.navy.mil.nz/nr/rdonlyres/331b0f18-df10-41a9-994a-f6b6e92b38e6/0/mrvemergedock.jpg

MRV emerging from dry dock


Read more about the Projects background and capabilities. (http://www.navy.mil.nz/visit-the-fleet/project-protector/project-update.htm)

Sea Toby
20th March 2006, 11:15
The New Zealand MPV, the Multi-Role Vessel, has civilian sisters: the Isle of Man Steam Packet's Company's Ben My Chree, the Commodore Clipper serving the Channel Islands, and two recently built Danish ferries serving the island of Bornholm, the Hammerodde and Dueodde. All of these ships were built by Merwede in the Netherlands.

The MPV will be able to transport a typical company's troops and equipment and sustain it for a month: 250 men, 16 LAV IIIs, 14 LOVs (Pingauzers), 7 Unimogs, 2 ambulances, 7 LOV trailers, 2 rough terrain forklifts, and 4 four-wheel drive vehicles, plus 33 20 ft. containers. The MPV can also carry 4 NH-90 army transport helicopters in the vehicle deck, along with her SeaSprite helicopter in its hangar. Although without a well dock, the ship will be able to move equipment to shore using its 2 LCM-8s landing craft via the stern ramp. There is also a side ramp to starboard to disembark at a port.

While it may be easier to fly the men, the company's equipment must go by sea.

More views of the launching of New Zealand's MPV can be found at the Royal New Zealand Naval Association website, an interesting vessel the Irish military could use.

www.rnzna.org.nz/

Sea Toby
20th March 2006, 11:25
In the South Pacific I doubt whether New Zealand would need a larger gun mount on the MPV or OPV, the 25-mm Bushmaster gun is similar to the gun on their LAVIIIs. However, even the Irish were able to place a 76-mm gun on their new OPVs which are very similar to the New Zealand OPVs.

ZULU
20th March 2006, 15:38
That P101 model looks similar to the new alu hull irish customs patrol vessel except for the aft deck space

Goldie fish
20th March 2006, 21:08
So in other words, not a bit..There is a thread about the Revenue Customs cutter elsewhere on this site, I suggest you have a look.

Some great photos of the mating of superstructure and hull there.

Great site too, thanks for the link Toby

ZULU
20th March 2006, 23:03
It has a lot of the same lines midships the way they have the deck angle just aft of the superstructure. Suirbheir looks like a similar platform only smaller. I had a good look up close and personal when I went out onboard in cork harbour during some trials / show case excursions. Also had a good look at the hull from the bottom when I was unprop'ing a yacht moored just downriver from it:biggrin:

Goldie fish
20th March 2006, 23:23
Unprop'ing a yacht? You are one of them WAFIs? There goes what miniscule bit of respect I had for you.


Suirbheir is 22m long. (http://www.tyovene.com/patrol,military_and_coastguard_vessels/suirbheir.htm)


IPV1 is 55m long. (http://www.navy.mil.nz/visit-the-fleet/project-protector/default.htm)

Titanic had a black hull and 4 funnels. By your reconing this would make it similar to the Queen Mary 2 which has a black hull and 3 funnels.

Goldie fish
22nd March 2006, 22:08
http://www.rnzna.org.nz/index.php?set_albumName=mrv&id=IMG_3866_M&option=com_gallery&Itemid=60&include=view_photo.php

Do I see the Pennant number L421 on the Ships side, or is it my eyes playing tricks on me?

What logic does the New Zealand pennant numbering sequence follow, if any?

http://www.rnzna.org.nz/gallery/albums/mrv/IMG_3866_M.jpg

Sea Toby
26th April 2006, 01:41
Since the RNZN is a small navy, and in the past have had second hand ships from the United Kingdom, there is no logic in the numbering system.

However, names and numbers have been allotted to the new ships. In their commissioning order:
The MRV L 421 Canterbury
The OPVs P 148 Otago and P 55 Wellington
The IPVs P 3569 Rotoiti, P 3571 Hawea, P 3568 Pukaki, and P 3570 Taupo

These are previous ship names and numbers in its history, although Otago had to steal Taranaki's number as F 111 was given to the Anzac class frigate Te Mana.

In American dollars the MRV cost $110 million, the OPVs cost around $40 million each, and the four IPVs cost around $6 million each.

Goldie fish
4th May 2006, 20:31
More photos of the MRV being fitted out HERE (http://www.geocities.com/rnznhistory/nz_part6a.html)

Goldie fish
5th May 2006, 21:26
This was lost in the downtime.


Navy names seven new ships
The names and affiliated home ports of the Navy’s seven new Protector ships were announced by Defence Minister Phil Goff on Friday 31 March.

The Chief of Navy, Rear Admiral David Ledson said that the announcement of the ships’ names was another significant milestone in the delivery of 7 new ships under Project Protector. “The names that have been chosen for the new vessels illustrates not only the Navy heritage but the enduring links between the Navy and New Zealand”. “These are names that the Navy is very happy with and I’m sure the many ex sailors who served on the original ships will feel exactly the same” he says.

The Navy’s Protector fleet will comprise of seven ships of three different classes; one Multi Role Vessel (MRV), two Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPV) and four Inshore Patrol Vessels (IPV).

All seven ships will be commissioned into operational service for the Royal New Zealand Navy at staged intervals during 2007 with the Multi Role Vessel scheduled for January and the last Inshore Patrol Vessel in October 2007.

MRV - CANTERBURY, Jan 07 (Christchurch/Canterbury)
OPV(1) - OTAGO, Apr 07 (Dunedin/Otago/Southland)
OPV(2) - WELLINGTON, Oct 07 (Wellington)
IPV(1) - ROTOITI, Jan 07 (Napier/Hawkes Bay)
IPV(2) - HAWEA, May 07 (Greymouth/Wesport/West Coast)
IPV(3) - PUKAKI, Sep 07 (Nelson/Marborough)
IPV(4) - TAUPO, Dec 07 (Whangerei/Northland)



http://www.navy.mil.nz/nr/rdonlyres/89ecc32f-b32a-4da2-a783-25a4f1d25107/0/mrvonwater.jpg
Multi Role Vessel (MRV) on the water after launching


Background on the Names
The Multi Role Vessel and two Offshore Patrol Vessels are named after Leander or Otago Class frigates in commission in the Royal New Zealand Navy from 1966 until 2005. HMNZS CANTERBURY was the last to be decommissioned, on 31 March 2005, after 33 years operational service.

“The Navy has historically enjoyed a strong relationship with the Canterbury District, and we are pleased to be continuing this into the future with our Multi Role Vessel.” said the Chief of Navy. “We look forward to re-establishing connections with our capital city and further south in Dunedin, where regional visibility of the Navy has at times been limited.”

The Multi Role Vessel brings entirely new capabilities of military sealift and amphibious operations to the Royal New Zealand Navy. It will operate as an element of the Naval Support Force, around New Zealand and in the South East Asian region.

The two Offshore Patrol Vessels are designed as versatile vessels capable of multi-agency operations in support of national security tasks, with a secondary capability to operate in support of miscellaneous maritime operations.

The names chosen for the Inshore Patrol Vessels (IPVs) reflect two classes of earlier RNZN ships of the same names. They represent four of the six LOCH Class Frigates that fought in the Korean War between 1951 and 1953. The names were also used for the LAKE Class Patrol Craft that carried out 'resource protection' patrols around New Zealand in the 1970s and 1980s.


http://www.navy.mil.nz/nr/rdonlyres/0ba3d64e-1054-4a52-83b1-6c1432cd5952/0/ipvatseatenix.jpg
Image of Inshore Patrol Vessel at sea



The current IPVs are to fulfil a similar protection role, conducting EEZ patrols of New Zealand’s maritime borders, and working in a multi-agency environment to achieve government outputs.

The four names maintain a geographical balance – Taupo and Rotoiti being North Island lakes, Hawea and Pukaki being South Island lakes.

Navy records state that while each Island has a Lake Rotoiti the original ROTOITI was named after the North Island lake.


Regional Affiliation
Each ship is affiliated with a city and region of New Zealand in continuation of current naval practise. Ships traditionally develop a unique and close relationship with their ‘home port’. The locations of affiliated regions were chosen to ensure geographical balance of the Navy’s fleet throughout New Zealand.

Associations are developed between a ship and charities or organisations within their region. The ship may be issued a ‘Freedom of the City’ Charter which allows the officers and sailors onboard the “right and privilege, without further permission being obtained, of marching at all times with drums beating, bands playing, colours flying, bayonets fixed and swords drawn.”

Goldie fish
17th May 2006, 21:39
Protector Update
The Navy’s new Multi-Role Vessel (pictured right), to be named CANTERBURY, has a vehicle capacity for up to 40 NZLAVs (the Army’s new armoured fighting vehicle) along with an embarked force of up to 250 personnel.

The MRV’s commercial design heritage provides a comfortable and flexible level of accommodation for the embarked force, utilising a series of 12 berth cabins (four sets of bunks three deep) which are located in the superstructure on the same level as the flight deck. The ease of movement for fully equipped troops to or from the flight deck has been emphasised within the design criteria. Movement between decks is provided via two wide stair wells or a large centrally located service elevator.

Separate embarked force messing facilities and recreational areas are provided, including:

a gymnasium,
embarked force administration office,
stores areas,
workshops, and
offices for government agency officials.
The embarked force will also have its own armoury and magazine, located forward on the cargo vehicle deck.

As well as the vehicle lanes (total length 403m), CANTERBURY will be able to embark up to thirty three 20 ft ISO containers, of which eight may contain ammunition. Some of the container points are provided with power sockets to allow connection for Reefer Refrigerated containers. There is also space for up to twenty NATO-standard pallets.

In addition, a separate Hazardous Goods Facility is provided, allowing for 2 x 20ft ISO containers, and dedicated paint and petrol stowages. The Army’s LAVs LOVs and Unimogs run on diesel. Petrol is required for only a limited range of Army equipment (motorcycles, Quads and some generators) and so would be embarked for specific purposes only.

Due to the wide range of cargo that may be present in the Vehicle Deck at any one time extensive firefighting systems are being installed, with smoke and flame monitoring as well a Drencher and Sprinkler systems. Four NH90 Utility Helicopters can be carried in addition to the MRV’s own SH-2G helicopter. All of these aviation spaces are afforded AFFF sprinkler fire protection.


Ship - Shore Transfer System
The new CANTERBURY will have a range of methods for moving cargo and personnel from the ship to shore. ‘Cargo’ will generally be either:

vehicles (i.e. LAVs, LOVs, trucks, earthmoving machinery, or trailers with or without ISO 20 ft containers),
separate ISO containers, or
smaller items.
The various methods for ship/shore movement will be:

load/unload Landing Craft Medium (LCM) via stern ramp,
load/unload LCM via the ship’s 60 tonne capacity cranes, with access through hatches in the flight deck,
load/unload MRV via side and or stern ramp on to a wharf,
load/unload MRV via crane through flightdeck hatches direct to a wharf, or
helicopter under-slung loads.
The ship’s two RHIBs can also be used, for small numbers of personnel.

If the ship can’t get alongside, a key aspect for the MRV operations will be the ability to move vehicles and freight across the hydraulic-controlled stern ramp to the Landing Craft.

http://www.navy.mil.nz/nr/rdonlyres/b0e266af-004e-4137-b8df-b90a8580c2b8/0/lcm2.jpg
Two LCM's back to back on the water


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




CANTERBURY’s LCMs
The Landing Craft Medium (LCMs) are significant vessels in their own right, being 23m long and displacing approximately 55 tonnes when empty. When loaded with 2 NZLAVs an LCM will displace 100 tonnes. Weight limit on the empty weight of the LCM is to enable them to be embarked using the MRVs 60 Tonne crane. (To appreciate the size of the LCM it is worth comparing them to the IPCs, which are only a little longer at 27m and displace 91 tonnes).

http://www.navy.mil.nz/nr/rdonlyres/bf45cb56-9cc0-4cce-9823-27ef920091a8/0/lcm1.jpg
Side-on view of LCM
The LCMs will have a crew of 3; the LCMs are designed for beach landings and are fitted with a ballasting system to allow for safe operation when loading and unloading cargo. They also carry a kedge anchor, used to assist hauling the LCM back off the beach.

The Stern Ramp of the MRV has “marriage blocks” that allow the LCM to position itself forward or aft on the ramp and “Flippers” that ensure athwartships alignment. The stern of the LCM will be held in position with steadying lines running to the MRV port and starboard quarters. As can be seen in the photo the LCMs have a near-flat bottom that leads aft to a central fairing with no rudder, but with both azimuth thrusters on either quarter.

Propulsion is by two Azimuth Thrusters, powered by Scania D19 diesels of 235Kw (315hp) driving through z-drives. The LCMs are very maneuverable as the thrust can be directed in 360 degrees from the z-drive thrusters.

Sea Toby
8th June 2006, 23:52
New Zealand's new MRV, L 421 Canterbury, is going to be a very useful ship in the South Pacific. For half the price of a Dutch Rotterdam LPD, and half the sealift, this ship will fit in well in their fleet. Its not too big, but big enough.

Dogwatch
21st June 2006, 21:34
Tenix's PR work on Project Protector which makes reference to the LPV's. Two Kiwi officers spent 6 weeks each in Ireland, predominantly at sea on the LPV's over the past four years.

Goldie fish
21st June 2006, 23:03
As mentioned earlier, a report of the experiences of one of their officers can be found HERE (http://www.navy.mil.nz/nr/rdonlyres/f249bded-7c20-4ca9-8b12-5f64edd4d8b3/0/nt106web.pdf)

Goldie fish
24th June 2006, 22:21
OPVs take next step in construction
Modules of the Navy's two new Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPVs) departed New Zealand on their way to Australia on 12 June 2006.

The hangar, funnel and bridge modules were barged from their construction site in Whangarei to Williamstown, Australia where they will be be joined to the other modules to complete the construction.

The two new vessels, to be named Wellington and Otago, will be delivered into Navy service during 2007.


http://www.navy.mil.nz/nr/rdonlyres/910e00e1-2080-48e5-8536-142b398e405d/0/opv2a1modtn.jpg
Above: A module from OPV 2 (Wellington) is prepared to be barged.
The OPVs will be versatile vessels capable of multi-agency operations in support of national security tasks, with a secondary task of operating in support of various maritime operations.
http://www.navy.mil.nz/nr/rdonlyres/5bfe9318-746d-4441-afb7-bde4fa68f885/0/opvbargetn.jpg
Above: OPV modules being towed by barge from Whangerei.
Several Northland engineering companies won sub-contracts from Tenix for various construction aspects of the project. A programme was developed by Tenix to maximise New Zealand industry involvement in the ship building.

As well as modules of the two Offshore Patrol Craft, all four of the Lake-class Inshore Patrol Vessels are being built in Whangarei.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.navy.mil.nz/

Dogwatch
11th July 2006, 22:04
Two photos of the Kiwi MRV in Holland. Taken from www.shipspotting.com

Goldie fish
11th July 2006, 22:08
Big fuddermucker! Thats a serious crane on the deck...

Sea Toby
24th July 2006, 17:47
Since the LCM-8 landing craft weights 59 tons, the Canterbury's cranes are rated at 60 tons. Here are a few pictures of her during sea trials recently. New Zealand chose not to have a well dock to leave more storage for equipment, the landing craft have to be lifted. The cranes will also be useful in many South Pacific ports that don't have cranes. She can also disembark equipment via her two ramps, one aft and one starboard.

http://homepage.mac.com/donclark/.Public/CanterburySTstar.jpg

http://homepage.mac.com/donclark/.Public/CanterburySTport.jpg

http://homepage.mac.com/donclark/.Public/CanterburySTaft.jpg

Goldie fish
24th July 2006, 20:13
Excellent photos toby. Keep us updated. Which way will she be heading home? East or west? Perhaps she could Pop in the Naval Base Haulbowline so our lads can crawl all over her.

mutter nutter
24th July 2006, 20:38
that's a damn nice looking ship.....if your there Santa, I know what I want for christmas:cool:

kiwiboy
24th July 2006, 23:38
Hello all from NZ this is my first post to your forum and thanks for the oppitunity to comment.On the MRV i know sea trials are ongoing,the Irish naval service has had some of your officers aboard and i hope they come down to nz for its shakedown cruise.On a slightly different note the nz govt has ordered 8 nh90 helos/2 options and 6 light utilityhelos options not sure if Ec 135/145 models.

Dogwatch
24th July 2006, 23:41
There is also a Kiwi officer in Ireland at present looking at the LPV's and CPV's again

Stoker
25th July 2006, 00:00
The vessel mentioned under Design Heritage is the M.V. Ben my Chree owned by the Isle of Mann Steam Packet Co. and often seen in Dublin. They could have mentioned the Isle of Innisfree owned by Irish Ferries,both vessels were built by Van der Giesen de Nord in the mid 90's.This company was taken over by IHC who also own Merwede. The hull is a Van der Giessen design, they used it when ever they could, they lengthened the Innisfree's to 160 meters by adding a section in the mid body, and reduced the Ben my Chree to about 130 meters, by removing this middle section and by cutting about 10 meters off the stern (of the design drawings).
The problem with the Innisfree was that she vibrated so badly, perticulary at low speed that the Engine Room crew may have damaged their knees,but the Ben my Chree was worse. Some of this vibration came about due to the fact that the prop was half out of the water at light loads, a Ro Ro vessel could be full but not carrying much weight. Hopefully this fault has been designed out of the New Zeeland vessel but is is the first thing I would look out for.

Goldie fish
25th July 2006, 08:12
http://www.navy.mil.nz/

The 8000 tonne Multi Role Vessel which is to be commissioned into Naval service in 2007, commenced two days of sea trials in Holland on 3 July.

A total of ten Royal New Zealand Navy (RNZN) and Ministry of Defence (MoD) personnel boarded CANTERBURY at the Merwede shipyard, Holland for 48 hours of sea trials.
http://www.navy.mil.nz/nr/rdonlyres/48a6decc-e261-494f-bc51-f3600e4371f3/0/wn060225011.jpg
The ten representatives embarked were involved in the setting to of machinery and systems prior to the sea trials.

Over the two day trial period, essential sea-going systems such as the main propulsion, bow thrusters, Integrated Platform Management System, radars, navigation and mission systems were progressively set to work, integrated with other systems and trialed.

Not all trial objectives were achieved due to the complexity of the setting to work. The ship was required to return to port for a planned dry-docking to conduct a hull underwater inspection.

It is planned to continue CANTERBURY’s sea trials on 16 July after more setting to work and fine tuning.




http://www.navy.mil.nz/nr/rdonlyres/d1d3a0a0-19c2-40d4-9ce7-2bb3c13fd578/0/canterbuy_bridge.jpg
The Bridge of the new MRV Canterbury.
CANTERBURY was launched on 11 February 2006, she remained alongside in the Merwede canal until the commencement of the sea trials.

Sea Toby
27th July 2006, 22:24
Here is an update picture of the first OPV under construction at Tenix in Melbourne, Williamstown. She is expected to be launched in September. Her superstructure is being barged over from New Zealand. I am expecting Otago will have her superstructure added quickly after she is launched, similar to Canterbury.
http://homepage.mac.com/donclark/.Public/NZOPVbuilding.jpeg

Sea Toby
27th July 2006, 22:35
From what I read they added ballest to the before mentioned ferries which solved their vibration problems a long time ago. Considering the two 60 ton llift capable cranes and two 59 ton landing boats, that's a lot of weight added to HMNZS Canterbury. The landing craft can carry two LAVIIIs each. Many of the Mann islanders perfer the Ben My Chree over their SuperSeacat II fast ferry.

There are also sister ferries: Commodore Clipper serving the Channel Islands and the Danish Dueodde and Hammerodde serving the island of Bornholm. And by the way the Isle of Innisfree was sold to P&O as the Pride of Cherbourg, later sold to Stena Lines as the Challenger, and now Toll Shipping is leasing her as the Interislander Kaitaki, which is Challenger translated into Maori. She is the largest ferry serving the two New Zealand islands crossing Cook Strait. Her picture:

http://homepage.mac.com/donclark/.Public/Kaitaki.jpg

Goldie fish
27th July 2006, 23:05
So as such the Hull design is already well tested in Local waters. Good to hear regular updates from you, http://www.navy.mil.nz/ don't update as often as we would like. Looking forward to seeing the finished product. Even better if we were to see it in our own waters.

Stoker
29th July 2006, 00:44
Re vibration in Van der Giessen de Nord designed hulls;

It is not as simple as adding ballast or a few tonnes of cargo on the after deck. Irish Ferries are been taken to court by P&O because of this problem.

Dogwatch
30th July 2006, 16:00
Recent photo of the Kiwi MRV

http://www.shipspotting.com/uploads/photos/264778.jpg

Goldie fish
9th August 2006, 09:17
Since the LCM-8 landing craft weights 59 tons, the Canterbury's cranes are rated at 60 tons. Here are a few pictures of her during sea trials recently. New Zealand chose not to have a well dock to leave more storage for equipment, the landing craft have to be lifted. The cranes will also be useful in many South Pacific ports that don't have cranes. She can also disembark equipment via her two ramps, one aft and one starboard.



http://homepage.mac.com/donclark/.Public/CanterburySTaft.jpg

Is a 60 tonne crane enough to lift a 59 tonne LCM? Most commercial cranes are only capable of lifting their max weight under ideal conditions, and in practice, the max weight can only be lifted within the cranes minimum radius.

Victor
9th August 2006, 09:29
Is a 60 tonne crane enough to lift a 59 tonne LCM? Most commercial cranes are only capable of lifting their max weight under ideal conditions, and in practice, the max weight can only be lifted within the cranes minimum radius.As I understand it, the answer is no. AFAIK a 60 tonne crane is able to lift that 60 tonnes at a distance of 1m or 10t at 6m or 6t at 10m, etc. - the Law of the Lever. Platform size will of course affect this.

Although with LC, one tends to be lifting quite close to the fulcrum.

Saracen
9th August 2006, 09:58
Have to say the Kiwi ship is a lot better designed than the Blomm & Voss design I saw in an Cosantoir. Definitely better thought put into it.

Goldie fish
10th August 2006, 01:48
I wouldnt say that. The Kiwi ship is a ferry design, used, abused and improved over the years. However, the small armament is causing some concern, given that the ship would be acting alone. I'm not convinced about those cranes either. And Unless I'm mistaken, the funnell layout suggests one engine room. Our NS prefer two seperate engine rooms if possible, in case one should be put out of action, due to fire etc, the other can run independantly.

Saracen
10th August 2006, 03:37
I disagree. The funnel layout, judging by the exhausts, suggests two main engines and three generators. Most ferry designs these days are for two separate engine rooms. Warship specs will look for what your talking about , built in redundancy (one fails you operate on the other),with two independent fire mains, at least 50% survivability on damage control/bilging etc. Main armament isn't a problem, you'd just require extra underdeck strengthening, within reason of course, you couldn't stick a 16" cannon on one of the PV's!

Sea Toby
10th August 2006, 05:41
From the Steam Packets senior sailing master, Captain Ken Crellin:
Earlier on handling was difficult with the Ben My Chree, we had to adjust the ballast and it took more than a year to get her behaving properly. Now the ship is extremely reliable in every respect.

The LCM-8s weigh around 10 tons, they can carry up to 59 tons of cargo, therefore the 60 ton cranes can easily lift and drop the unloaded boats. They can carry one LAV 3 or 2 Pinzgauer light operational vehicles.

Keep in mind New Zealand capped the MRV to $100 million US. If the IPVs cost around $15 million US and the OPVs cost around $45 million US, 100+60+90=$250 million US for all seven ships. I doubt seriously whether the MRV will ever come across a warship in the Southern Ocean on her fishery patrols. If she is lifting the army to a hot location, she'll be escorted by a frigate.

ADI offered a Dutch built small Rotterdam of approximately the same size, one meter larger in beam. Unfortunately, New Zealand chose this design, because it fits into its Calliope drydock, the small Rotterdam (Enforcer design) is too large in beam to fit into its drydock.

Considering there isn't much room to expand New Zealand's naval port, or the drydock, its a good thing New Zealand purchased a ship that would fit.

http://homepage.mac.com/donclark/.Public/DevonportNZ.pdf

Saracen
10th August 2006, 06:32
Can't see you photo, Sea Toby. Where did you get the info on the ship handling of the Ben My Chree?

Sea Toby
10th August 2006, 06:46
From the September 2005 issue of Ships Monthly magazine. I knew I had read it somewhere, but it took a week or more to read through my years of old magazines to find it. The satellite photo of New Zealand's naval port is a pdf. Check to see if you have pdf operational, Acrobat Reader's web page turned on.

The Calliope drydock is 159.m x 83.4 m or 595 ft. x 80 ft.

I'll attempt to change it to a jpg with my Photoshop.
http://homepage.mac.com/donclark/.Public/DevenportNZ.jpg

Saracen
10th August 2006, 06:54
Thanks, Sea Toby. Company work station and I don't have Adminstrator rights....bugger!
As for Ships Monthly where would you be without!

Sea Toby
25th August 2006, 02:00
Here are several pictures of the Canterbury leaving Rotterdam on the 21st of August. She is carrying her landing craft finally, and several hull modules of the second OPV on her flight deck.

http://www.portpictures.nl
Select menu 9.

Goldie fish
25th August 2006, 05:56
How long before she Finds home?

Dogwatch
25th August 2006, 16:29
She doesn't appear to be flying under the RNZN Ensign, she most still be in the hands of the builders.

Sea Toby
25th August 2006, 19:18
Yes, she is still flying the Dutch flag. She probably won't fly a New Zealand flag until she is fully accepted and officially commissioned in January next year.

HMNZS Canterbury is not expected to arrive in Melbourne until late September, I suspect the voyage will last four to five weeks. She appears fully fueled when she left, she is riding much lower now than before.

Tenix still has to complete the final fit out. Then more trials should be expected. Its great to see her finally bearing her landing craft.

Goldie fish
26th August 2006, 10:03
From NAVY TODAY

BUILDING THE IPVS
BY RICHARD JACKSON, EDITOR

Along the tidal reaches of Whangarei Harbour, the Tenix assembly sheds stand tall and imposing, but rather anonymous within the industrial area. Marsden Point oil refi nery is in the distance; further up the harbour, past various waterfront works, the local fishing boats and private yachts are berthed. This side of the harbour is not a scenic highlight, but it’s here that you can see how Whangarei’s economy is thriving.
And a key factor in that industrial health is Tenix Shipbuilding New Zealand Ltd (TSNZ), the company that was established in Whangarei in order to meet the NZ industrial commitments to the Anzac Ship Project. Ultimately the Whangarei firm not only met its NZ industry quotas through building the superstructure modules for the Anzac frigates, but exceeded them.
Their Australian parent company also awarded TSNZ with contracts to build hull modules for some of the later (RAN) Anzac frigates. Now, TSNZ is fully committed to the four Inshore Patrol Vessels of Project Protector; New Zealand-built ships to patrol New Zealand’s EEZ. Already, two-thirds of IPV1 (to be named ROTOITI) stands on the Bay One consolidation area, the paved hardstanding outside the tallest of the Tenix sheds. Even with only part of the hull assembled, the size and shape of the new ships is apparent. For this writer, well used to the Lake-class patrol craft of the ‘80s and the (now legendary) little wooden 72’ MLs, the future ROTOITI looks big, powerful, and mightily appealing. Indeed the finished ship will be longer than the MANAWANUI.

‘They will be like a seagoing Ferrari,’ enthuses WO Steve Bradley, who is the Project Director’s representative in Whangarei. He has watched IPV 1 grow from a pallet-full of precision cut frames and stiff eners, to the identifiable hull modules that are being worked on today. There are five hull modules per vessel, the after three for IPV 1 have been consolidated, one other is in the fully-enclosed painting bay ready to be painted inside and out (the quality of the surface coating is very important for corrosion prevention) and the bow module remains under construction in one of the fabrication shops. The stern module has a visible trim tab built into the hull – Tenix’s designers have applied the latest hydrodynamic theories to their ship.
In Assembly Bay 3 the bow module looks like an exotic sculpture, its carefully cut frames and stiffeners welded upside down. Even so the fine lines of the bow are apparent. In another bay the shiny aluminium panels that will make up the superstructure are being assembled with such precision that a theodolite is used to check the alignments.

The IPVs will have their hull assembled, then under go an internal fit out, ‘More like a super yacht, than like a frigate,’ Steve explains. Instead of shock-mounting components directly to the hull and structural bulkheads, there will be lots of ‘false’ bulkheads to take the internal fittings. He also points out the precision of the steel framing and plating: ‘They are assembled like a Swiss watch and their COs will need to drive them with a light hand,’ Steve comments. [Memo to future COs: no thumping alongsides at Calliope Wharf!]
But behind the steel cutting and welding there is also a success story of Kiwi innova-
tion, by Tenix and their supporting fi rms. Allister Taylor, TSNZ’s Manager General Operations is very proud of this aspect. ‘These will look nice vessels, the advances of panel fabrication [Friction Stir Welding – see sidebar] mean the ships won’t have that dimpled eff ect you often see on alu-
minium structures.

‘As well as Donovans’ friction stir welding, we at Tenix are keeping up with weld-
ing technology, too. We have adopted the Lincoln Electric STT (Surface Tension Transfer) welding technology for the welding of certain areas of the vessel’s hull plating. This technology was devel-
oped for the welding of pipes. We are not aware of any other shipbuilding company currently using STT for the welding of ship hull structures. STT welding allows us to produce a full-penetration weld from one side of the plate, something that could not be achieved with older technology. ‘We have qualifi ed weld procedures with both Lloyds and Bureau Veritas classifi ca-
tion societies. TSNZ fi rst used the process on a 50ft pleasure vessel built for a local Whangarei company in 2004/05. This was at a time when American industry was still coming to grips with the signifi cant gains to be made by using this process.’ Allister explains how work has also been contracted to other local engineering companies. ‘Tank sub-assemblies for IPV modules M3 and M2 are being fabricated by South Pacifi c Industries (SPI) at Ruakaka. The company has also been contracted to build Module M5 for IPVs 2, 3 and 4.’

‘SPI, along with Culham Engineering and McRae Engineering also built sub-assem-
blies of the OPV modules [that recently were shipped from Whangarei to Australia, see NT 112 July - Ed]. At over 14m wide, the transportation of one section from SPI meant that there was very little clear-
ance at bridges and rail crossings along the way. Traffi c (it was after midnight) was held in a passing lane while the section travelled past.’
Allister himself brings a wealth of marine and engineering experience to the fi rm; on completing his apprenticeship as a fi tter-welder he went to sea with Shaw Savill Shipping Company. Returning to NZ he held various positions with Hellabys and McConnel Dowell, along the way partici-
pating in the building of a freezing works in Taumarunui and having various roles for the NZ Steel Stage 1 and 2 expansion projects. Following this was a role as project manager for the McConnel Dowell/WECO Joint Venture which built two tugs for the Northland Port Corporation. Later, as a manager with Marine Steel Ltd he was involved with the building of tugs for the Tauranga and Taranaki Harbour Boards and a 70m general purpose vessel which was delivered to owners in Australia. He points out that TSNZ’s Whangarei facility ‘Has historically maintained a low profi le, yet our people here have achieved magic things.’ Allister comments that ‘Some of our people are formerly of WECO, so we embody much long-term ship building experience. The Protector contract takes us a step further, from assembling modules to being a ship builder.’

http://www.navy.mil.nz/nr/rdonlyres/241fed2d-d3f2-461d-8547-f5b52f42da97/0/nt113web.pdf

Goldie fish
26th August 2006, 10:07
From NAVY TODAY

BUILDER’S SEA TRIALS FOR THE
NEW CANTERBURY

AS THIS ISSUE OF NAVY TODAY IS
PUBLISHED, THE MULTI-ROLE VESSEL WILL
BE TRANSITING THE MEDITERRANEAN,
HEADING FOR AUSTRALIA AND THE FINAL
PART OF ITS BUILDING PROCESS (FIT OUT
OF 25MM GUN SYSTEM AND MILITARY
COMMUNICATIONS, CONTRACTOR SEA
TRIALS, FIRST CREW TRAINING AND CROWN
ACCEPTANCE ACTIVITIES). BEFORE THE NEW
SHIP COULD DEPART ROTTERDAM, THE
BUILDERS HAD TO UNDERTAKE INITIAL SEA
TRIALS, WHICH TOOK PLACE IN JULY.

On 3 July the new MRV, known within the shipyard as NUSHIP CANTERBURY, began 48 hours of builder’s sea trials. The ship had been in the Merwede canal alongside the builder’s facility since her launch on 11 February. CANTERBURY was towed for two hours down the river, under 4 bridges, to the North Sea for commencement of the builder’s trials. [See sidebar]
Over the 48 hours the sea-going es-
sential systems such as main propulsion, bow thrusters, IPMS, radars, navigation and mission systems were progressively set to work, integrated with other systems and trialed. Due to the complexity of the setting to work, not all the trial objectives were achieved before the ship had to return to port for a planned dry-docking for a hull underwater inspection. The ship resumed sea trials on 20-22 July after more setting to work and fi ne-tuning.

A total of ten RNZN and MoD personnel boarded NUSHIP CANTERBURY at the Merwede shipyard in Holland. LTCDR Tim Cosgrove and LTCDR Mark Harvey, together with WO Jeff Reddecliffe, CPO Elliot Kendrick and PO Dan Johnston had been involved with setting to work of machinery and systems leading up to the trials period. MoD were represented by the Project Director, CDRE (Rtd) Gary Collier, CDR Giles Rinckes and LTCDR John Deere. Also from the MoD Project team, CDR Dave Gibbs and LTCDR Steve Gibson had spent the previous two weeks inspecting the ship for design, introduction-into-service, and ILS issues.
Their overall impression of the ship is that she is very comfortable and spacious inside, with good-quality fittings and well-designed cabins, messes and working spaces that will make living and working comfortable, easy and effi cient. They forecast that she is sure to be as memorable a ship as her predecessor.

SEA TRIALS, 3 JULY
0740: underway with tugs - destination Hook of Holland (by 1300)
-first bridge, only 30m wide; the ship has an extreme beam (including bridge wings) of 29.40m!
-the Dordrecht railroad bridge opens at preset times; MRV misses the first opening by only a few minutes – a two hour wait until the next opening.
-pass the fourth and final bridge at 1240; arrive Hook of Holland at 1330
At Hook of Holland the series of sea trials begins:
*adjusting the compass,
*testing the bow thrusters,
*anchoring and,
*test the Integrated Platform Management System software.
1555: Safety drill for all hands in the helicopter hangar.
1800: Proceeds to the open sea for a full power trial
-CANTERBURY reaches over 19½ knots.


http://www.navy.mil.nz/nr/rdonlyres/241fed2d-d3f2-461d-8547-f5b52f42da97/0/nt113web.pdf

Te Kaha
26th August 2006, 12:47
One of the principal reasons why the Project Protector OPV's and IPV's are being built is due to the following type of situation reported in the press here last week.

[ Claim Japan ripping off $2b worth of Tuna

By KENT ATKINSON NZPA 24 August 2006

The Government would be very disappointed if Australia was correct in allegations that Japan has ripped off over $2 billion worth of southern bluefin through deliberate over-fishing, says Fisheries Minister Jim Anderton.

"We view over-catch by any country as a very serious matter," Mr Anderton said yesterday. "As a matter of principle, New Zealand has always believed that if, in international arrangements, you over-catch your entitlement, you should pay it back.

"Wherever New Zealand is involved internationally, we strive to manage fisheries to the same high standards that we would expect at home".

Australian Fisheries Management Authority managing director Richard McLoughlin is reported to have told a private forum on August 1 that "on a 6000-tonne national quota, Japan's been catching between 12,000 and 20,000 tonnes for the last 20 years, and hiding it".

"Essentially the Japanese have stolen $2 billion worth of fish from the international community and have been sitting in meetings for 15 years saying they are as pure as the driven snow," Mr McLoughlin said.

The Australian newspaper reported he also said there were many thousands of southern bluefin tuna being sold to Japanese companies but recorded as northern bluefin tuna or bigeye tuna.

The southern bluefin tuna are migratory, and management of the fishery at an international level is done by the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT). ]

The above case is a sobering reason why responsible nations like New Zealand and Ireland, need to spend money on having modern capable Naval fleets and Maritime Patrol aircraft. Not only does it make economic sense, but environmental sense in terms of the conservation of valuable oceanic resources. I have found the "environmental" approach very much a trump card when debating Defence Issues with the liberal-left over what they see as "wasteful warships that could have been spent on reading programmes and hip replacements."

New Zealand has one of the largest EEZ's in the world, plus it also has the responsibility for the EEZ's of its Dependencies and former Colonies under defence arrangements - Niue, the Cooks Islands and the Tokelau Islands in the South Pacific. My main reservation with the Project Protector programme it is down to the fact that 5 IPV's and 3 OPV's were originally planned for alongside the MRV and this didnt see fruition because of Governments rigid $500 million spending cap. If only for another $50 million it would of greatly increased EZZ patrol capability. Though the case of Japan's alledged over-fishing is disturbing, there are potentially many other countries illegally over-fishing in the New Zealand EEZ, the South Pacific and the Southern Ocean as fish stocks in their own EEZ's are fast becoming depleted. No doubt the offenders are also starting to arrive in numbers off the West Coast of Ireland.

Sea Toby
26th August 2006, 19:08
Yes, the numbers of both OPVs and IPVs were reduced one each when the decision was made during negotiations with Tenix to use six crews for four inshore patrol vessels. Similar to the US Coast Guard, the small inshore patrol boats are limited by their fuel range and food storage capacities. Using crew rotation for the inshore patrol boats allows the navy to deploy the ships at sea more, without placing a burden on the crews.

Furthermore, New Zealand will see more sea days from four IPVs with the rotational crews than with five IPVs with stationary crews. While doing so increases labor costs, it also decreases the capital expenditures for patrol vessels.

I have read on this forum that Irish sailors are facing burdens of too many days at sea. A solution would be to rotate the crews in a similar manner the Kiwis and Aussies do. Three crews for two ships works wonders for sailor morale.

Te Kaha
27th August 2006, 05:50
With the Lake Class IPV's likely to be assigned to the RNZNVR Division it is hoped that the new vessels will generate recruitment interest from people wishing to join the VR which has had trouble finding and retaining personnel over the last decade. The four VR units have now less than 360 involved - well under establishment levels. I think that quite a few keen youngsters will be inspired to join the "Rockies" once they see the new Lake Class arrive. Maybe a few old hands could be motivated back and be involved also. As vessels they are a quantum leap compared to the five 90 ton IPC's we have at present. With an increase in the size of the Rockies over the next while that will help the RNZNVR support and supplement the RNZN in its designated tasks. With the IPV's built locally in Whangarei one cant dismiss a fifth vessel eventually coming into service without relatively much fuss or expense - even under a Clark Government.

From memory I think that the IPV's will be funded for 940 sea days and the 2 OPV's will be funded for 420 sea days under the LTDP. Still there is a huge area to cover and a lot of business out there to be taken care of. Then again its the old NZDF bogey of governments politically maintaining a minimum capability baseline. Translated - "just enough to do so to look as though were doing something useful".

In 2000 the Frigate HMNZS Wellington, at the time one of the four frigates in the RNZN fleet and two IPC's the Tarapunga and Takapu were decommissioned and not replaced. Though tasked primarily for sea training and inshore survey their secondary duties involved EZZ patrol - thus a capability lost to us. Though the official "spin" is that the new MRV HMNZS Canterbury is replacing the old Leander class frigate HMNZS Canterbury as part of Project Protector - the truth is that it is really replacing the ill concieved Sealift ship the Charles Upham. The two new OPV's are in reality belatedly replacing the frigate Wellington. Which leaves the biggest question unresolved regarding Project Protector and the RNZN ship building programme. What will replace the now decommissioned Frigate HMNZS Canterbury currently alongside at Devonport? If the current government survives the next election - nothing as its not on their LTDP. If the opposition gets elected their intention (agenda) is to get at least another frigate next decade.

Marius
27th August 2006, 18:21
CANTERBURY is magnificent. Well done New Zealand.

Te Kaha
28th August 2006, 12:28
Yes the new HMNZS Canterbury will be a wonderful addition to the RNZN. She will have an active life ahead of her. Its a shame she wasn't ready for this years Navy Week held during the first week in October. This years Navy Week will celebrate the 65th birthday of the Royal New Zealand Navy. It would have been wonderful for the new Canterbury to arrive home at Devonport Naval Base on October 1st to start the birthday celebrations. In a couple of years we'll have 12 ships in the fleet - it'll be quite a sight to see them sailing up Rangitoto Channel in formation.

Goldie fish
30th August 2006, 21:26
http://www.navy.mil.nz/nr/rdonlyres/c4308394-af20-47cd-8190-b4e217adfd79/0/mrvpriordepart.jpg
Above: MRV alongside awaiting delivery to Melbourne
The Navy’s future Multi-Role Vessel, currently known as NUSHIP CANTERBURY, sailed from Rotterdam in heavy rain on the late afternoon of 21 August. The formal handover from Merwede to Tenix occurred at 1400 then she sailed later the same day. Since the MRV is sailing to Melbourne as a commercial ship, it is required to be registered. She has been registered in Kingston as NUSHIP CANTERBURY under the flag of St Vincent and the Grenadines (West Indies).

NUSHIP CANTERBURY had successfully completed its second set of sea trials 20-23 July, before the delivery voyage preparations, which included the embarkation of 6 OPV hull modules on to the flight deck. Tenix had sub-contracted the building of these sections to shipyards in Rotterdam, while being able to utilise the transport capacity of NUSHIP CANTERBURY. The hull sections consist of frame and plating assemblies and will be fitted out and consolidated in Williamstown for OPV 2 (the future WELLINGTON).

Goldie fish
28th September 2006, 19:53
Canterbury begins final pre-delivery fit-out
Monday, 25 September 2006, 12:05 pm
Press Release: New Zealand Government
Hon Phil Goff
Minister of Defence
25 September 2006


Defence Minister Phil Goff today announced that the first of the project protector ships, the Multi Role Vessel (MRV), Canterbury, arrived in Melbourne yesterday from the Netherlands for the final phase of construction.

"The Canterbury will remain in Melbourne for the next four months while weapon and military communications systems are fitted and the crew undergo training. Once the work is complete, the Canterbury will be commissioned into the Royal New Zealand Navy and begin the first voyage to New Zealand said Mr Goff.

"During delivery from the Netherlands, the ship encountered a variety of weather, including a series of deep low-pressure systems with 8-9 metre swells and near storm force winds. I am advised that the ship performed exceptionally well in the conditions and provided a very comfortable ride.

"The Canterbury will, for the first time, provide the New Zealand Defence Force with the capability to deploy personnel and equipment by its own means. It will greatly improve New Zealand's ability to respond to natural disasters in the Pacific and elsewhere, and will further enhance New Zealand's contribution to peace and security in our region and beyond.

"The MRV represents yet another significant and careful investment by this Government in our defence force".

"The first of the Offshore Patrol Vessels, one of two being built by Tenix in Melbourne, will be launched in November. The second Offshore Patrol Vessel and the four Inshore Patrol Vessels, being built by Tenix Shipbuilding New Zealand, in Whangarei will be launched and delivered throughout 2007. The total project cost is NZ$500 million with more than $110 million coming to New Zealand industry", said Mr Goff.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/images/0609/bdb10eeddd7ddac51e4c.jpeg

Marius
29th September 2006, 14:28
There's freeboard...and then there is freeboard!

Sea Toby
31st October 2006, 10:10
At the RNZN website, there is a new picture of the Canterbury alongside HMAS Stuart, an Anzac class frigate. You can see and compare the size difference, as the Canterbury is a giant compared to the Stuart.

http://www.navy.mil.nz

While the Canterbury maybe too large for an Irish multi-role ship, it will carry more troops, helicopters, and equipment than a MEKO 200 MRV, which is near the size of the Stuart. I have mentioned this before, is the MEKO 200 MRV large enough to fulfill the army's sealift requirements?

The same link also informs us that the first OPV, the Otago, will be launched on Nov. 18th, this year. There is also a picture of the Otago. She looks as if she can get her duck feathers wet today.

Te Kaha
17th November 2006, 04:42
NZDF News Release - Tuesday 8 November, 2006

Launch of First Navy Offshore Patrol Vessel

The first of the Royal New Zealand Navy’s new Offshore Patrol Vessels will be launched by Lady Sponsor, Dame Silvia Cartwright on Saturday 18 November, 2006.

The ship, to be commissioned into the Navy as HMNZS OTAGO, will be launched at the Tenix shipyard, Williamstown, Australia at 11.20am, to correspond to the most appropriate tides. The Minister of Defence, Phil Goff, will also be attending the launch.

HMNZS OTAGO is one of two 85m long Offshore Patrol Vessels that the Navy has acquired under Project Protector. “The ships provide an enhanced capability and capacity to the Navy in a variety of roles,” said Chief of Navy, Rear Admiral David Ledson.

“They provide to the Defence Force, a Navy with greater versatility and enable us to work more effectively with a range of other Government agencies within our EEZ, and throughout the South Pacific beyond. Importantly, too, they will give us an increased presence around New Zealand and so will make it possible for more New Zealanders to see the Navy making its contribution to the country’s prosperity and security”.

HMNZS OTAGO will be affiliated to the Otago and Southland regions, incorporating the ports of Dunedin, Invercargill, and Bluff.

The Multi Role Vessel, HMNZS CANTERBURY, is also berthed at the shipyard undergoing the final fit-out of communications and military equipment. A media viewing has been scheduled for the afternoon of Friday 17 November; very limited numbers and registrations of interest are required for an invitation.

Media are invited to attend the launch of OTAGO and to view CANTERBURY; for further information, please contact Lieutenant Commander Barbara Cassin, Navy Public Relations Manager, on 09 445 5002 or cell 021 244 0638.

Sea Toby
18th November 2006, 21:44
Here is a video link of the launching of Otago. There are also clips of the new Canterbury alongside, and the sold Charles Upham.

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411319/895217

Goldie fish
19th November 2006, 05:58
A great day for the NZ Navy. Exciting times ahead. Thanks for the clip.

Parts
19th November 2006, 08:11
Brand new ship, and a cracking news anchor to boot :)
Best of luck to Otago, and to all the NZDF, some of the finest people you could hope to meet.

ODIN
19th November 2006, 15:02
wonder will our crowd ever try a program as big and brave

Goldie fish
19th November 2006, 20:02
If you look back this thread..ie read earlier posts, you will see that the NZ navy had to go from were the Irish NS was in the 70s. Two modern ships in the water, one antique, and a lot of water to patrol, and protect.

To embark on a similar size program in this country would mean doubling the current fleet. Something which is not necessary from an economic point of view.

Sea Toby
20th November 2006, 06:27
Ireland does face replacing five of their patrol ships within the next several years. An order for five OPVs being delivered over a three year period of time would not be out of line. I'm sure if Ireland placed a an order for five ships would be cheaper in the long run than ordering three now and than two more at a later date.

But ordering five ships at once maybe too aggressive. Plus, I believe Ireland is also contemplating ordering a multi-role vessel too. I highly recommend at least one sealift type of vessel, a multi-role vessel similar to New Zealand's would be welcomed.

Goldie fish
20th November 2006, 17:53
As Mentioned in the past, three vessels will become due for replacement between now and 2010. The next due for replacement falls in 2014. However the requirment for the smaller type of vessel may change dramatically in the interim, with the phasing out of drift netting. They may need more CPVs , they may need none. Hard to say for sure at this stage. However NZ was not replacing vessels. It was creating a flotilla.

Sea Toby
21st November 2006, 14:43
These new seven ships came at a price, not buying the third Anzac class frigate. While none of these ships may be considered a warfighting warship, they do fill their needs for more patrol vessels, both offshore and inshore, not to mention the long sought multi-role training/patrol/sealift vessel.

While some lament the loss of the third and fourth frigate, many of the other government agencies are overwhelmed by the new patrol ships. For a very long time New Zealand had neglected its patrol forces, choosing to have only a frigate navy, leaving their EEZ and fisheries unprotected. In this case its not a matter of quality, but a matter of quantity.

Considering the 21 different options provided by 21 different shipbuilders, its my opinion New Zealand has chosen well its naval patrol force, plus adding a vital sea lift capability. Ireland would do well to follow New Zealand's lead.

My only regret is that New Zealand did not move quicker, having the new ships operational in 2006 instead of 2007. But that is the price of a long planning process and a revamped naval force.

Kea
22nd November 2006, 04:13
There is also the added role now of protecting the shipping lanes from icebergs :smile: I bet that the RNZN is glad that ice strengthening was part of the design spec :biggrin:

Seriously with the ongoing depletion of the worlds fishing stocks we could well see some level of agression from fishing fleets that would be reminiscent of the "cod" wars, protection of ones EEC will become paramount in the coming years.

Goldie fish
25th November 2006, 23:08
Launch of First Navy Offshore Patrol Vessel.
http://www.navy.mil.nz/nr/rdonlyres/b9ff2f65-986a-47ae-8287-c66723da178d/0/otagocrest.jpg
At 1120 on Saturday 18 November, in Williamstown, Melbourne amidst fanfares, sea shanties, flypasts, welcome speeches from Robert Salteri, CEO of Tenix, The Hon Andre Haermeyer, Minister for Manufacturing and Export, Victoria, the RNZN Chief of Navy Rear Admiral David Ledson and the Hon Phil Goff the Minister of Defence NZ, a rousing haka performed by the sailors of the Royal NZ Navy, cheers and singing of both the NZ and Australian National Anthems, the Launch Lady, Dame Silvia Cartwright said the following words "I name, and am honoured to launch this ship, OTAGO. May God bless all those who sail in her" - the champagne bottle smashed against the bow - and as she started down the slipway with clockwork precision - the OTAGO (pictured right) was launched.

http://www.navy.mil.nz/nr/rdonlyres/4cc210a1-9b93-4e9b-baec-73b865c4c686/0/otagohard.jpg

Above: OTAGO in the slipway.
Tenix opened the shipyard to the public for the event and up to 3800 people attended alongside the VIP's, representatives from the Royal NZ Navy, Australian Defence, Ministry of Defence NZ and Tenix personnel - there was not a cloud in the sky and the launch went off without a hitch - there was a collective gasp and then loud cheers as the pin was removed and OTAGO slipped down the ramp into the sea. OTAGO remained briefly on the opposite wharf to her big sister, the Multi-Role Vessel CANTERBURY, prior to returning to the Dry Dock to commence her extensive fit out.



On his appointment as Commanding Officer of the first Off-Shore Patrol Vessel, OTAGO, Dunedin born and Invercargill bred, Lieutenant Commander John Butcher says, "I am personally delighted to be selected as the first Commanding Officer of OTAGO. I recall the day I received the appointment - I quietly mused, will she be named after OTAGO or SOUTHLAND? Of course, I am very much looking forward to taking her home into both Dunedin and Bluff and to show the people of Otago and Southland - their ship".


http://www.navy.mil.nz/nr/rdonlyres/02f9419e-ba33-4b82-915a-0352c45bce92/0/otagobutcher.jpg

Above: Lt Cdr Butcher with OTAGO.
The launch of OTAGO was summed up by Rear Admiral David Ledson, “It is a memorable day for the ship because as a sailor I can’t resist giving the ship the qualities of a person. In the New Zealand context, OTAGO moves from the realm of Papatuanuku, the Earth Mother, to the domain of Tangaroa, the God of the Sea; the day which OTAGO tentatively kisses the environment that will be her home for many many years”.

http://www.navy.mil.nz/nr/rdonlyres/b8fffe69-4340-4119-a1a4-e0ef859f4b4c/0/otagoafloattn.jpg

Kea
28th November 2006, 03:30
I must say the OPV's are a fine looking ship, the only disappointment is the lack of a decent calibre weapon, the 25mm just does'nt do it justice, the original plan was to employ a weapon in the 57mm/76mm calibre as per the Irish vessels, hopefully they can be retrofitted at a later date, if for nothing else than to show intercepted vessels that they are not to be messed with.

Sea Toby
28th November 2006, 17:57
I think just about eveyone of us will agree the NZ OPVs are under-gunned. However, being intended as patrol vessels, their 25-mm Bushmasters will be as adequate as the IPVs. In NZ minds, their OPVs will be doing the same job as the IPVs, releasing their frigates to do more naval duties instead of coast guard duties. The good news is that they can be up-gunned in the future very quickly if the situation in the South Pacific gets worst. Unfortunately, the strategic situation in the South Pacific today doesn't warrant a larger gun mount.

By buying the smaller cheaper gun mount, NZ was able to also acquire 4 IPVs within their NZ$500 million budget set aside for Project Protector. NZ needs the IPVs more than they need the OPVs. Their current patrol boats aren't up to the capabilities of the numerous Pacific Patrol Boats Australia has provided to many of their South Pacific neighbors. As far as the RNZN is concerned, get the boats now, upgrade later under another government.

Te Kaha
10th December 2006, 11:06
Good points Sea Toby. Below are a couple of things to mull over and recent political events down under add a new dimension to the NZ Defence debate.

Friday, 8 December 2006, 3:29 pm
Press Release: New Zealand National Party
Wayne Mapp MP
National Party Defence Spokesman
08 December 2006

Budget Blowout on the Cards

National's Defence spokesman, Wayne Mapp, is concerned a budget blowout could be on the cards, if there are delays to the Navy's Project Protector programme.

The $500 million upgrade project is supposed to deliver seven new ships in the next two and a half years. "Any hold-ups with the ships will probably mean an escalation in cost.

"Ballooning costs and budget blowouts are a familiar theme with the Labour Government. "Already this year the cost of replacing the Air Force's Iroquois helicopters spiralled to $771 million, despite a budget of $400-561 million to replace both the Iroquois and Sioux. "Adding a replacement for the Sioux trainers could well boost the cost even closer to the billion dollar mark."

This is the first Press Release of the new opposition Defence Spokesman Dr Wayne Mapp. It makes me wonder - does he know something which has not got out yet in terms of the Project Protector programme? He does have a background in the NZDF as a former Intelligence Officer in 3 Batt, and is a strong possibility for the Defence Minister post in the next Government ( If his oppostition party can maintain its clear opinion polling advantage over the current Clark government).

In a NZ Defence and Foreign Affairs seminar a few days ago, Dr Mapp made a brief speech raising three clear questions which would give an indicator to the direction where the Opposition will take the overall Defence portfolio. Politicans always talk in code and have the answer already before they ask any question in public, especially with media around as was in this case.

"First, these operations are manpower intensive. We typically have over 500 people deployed at any point in time, sometimes as many as 1,000. That stretches a force that has only 7,000 full time personnel. Increasingly, reserve forces are being called upon. But the serious question has to be asked, do we need significantly more people?"

"Second, is some of the critical equipment being heavily used? For example, our two frigates are tasked at a much higher rate than originally envisaged."

"Third, we need a better understanding of the usual range of military capabilities. For several years we have parked up the 20 Aermacchi air training aircraft. How do you effectively train naval, army and air force personnel when we have completely denied ourselves the use of relatively cheap jet air training aircraft?"

At a guess the Mapp code here from these 3 statements would be;

1) The next government will look to increase the numbers in the Army.
2) They will look to add at least another frigate.
3) The Aermachi's will fly "officially" again in support of wider NZDF training.

I just hope he adds a fifth IPV to Project Protector.

Kea
12th December 2006, 09:51
The good thing is he has both military experience and is also a pilot, should get those MB339's back in action for sure with a change of government :biggrin:

Goldie fish
23rd December 2006, 20:00
The IPV Rotoiti looks like its coming along nicely.

http://www.navy.mil.nz/nr/rdonlyres/da5b2179-8bfc-44fa-af4c-b36bab5d60d2/0/mc06068601.jpg

Sea Toby
28th December 2006, 05:32
The MRV will be entering service next month, the first OPV has been launched, the second OPV's keel has been laid down, the first IPV has been launched, the second ship's keel has been laid down. Yes, Project Protector is on schedule. New Zealand is reshaping its fleet wonderfully, and at a good price by the way.

Goldie fish
2nd April 2007, 08:58
CANTERBURY’S CONTRACTOR SEA TRIALS

A report by ENS Matthew McQuaid RNZN
On 22 January, the ‘Nuship’ CANTERBURY sailed from the Tenix ship yard in Williamstown to conduct four days of contractor’s sea trials. For many of the newer members of the ships’ company, including myself, this would be our first time at sea on our colossal new ship. On sailing from Williamstown, Tenix and the Ministry of Defence team set out to test that CANTERBURY could provide the capabilities required by the Contract.

CANTERBURY’s primary role will be to provide the NZDF with a tactical sealift capability to enable the transfer of personnel, equipment and stores into a theatre of operations and thence from the ship to shore. CANTERBURY has many inbuilt systems and components to provide that sealift capability to the NZDF, such as the vehicle deck, stern and side ramps, 60-tonne cranes, landing craft, large hangar and flight deck with two ‘spots’ and container size cargo hatches.


Embarked Force Facilities
CANTERBURY has the capability to accommodate 363 personnel onboard. There are 252 bunks set aside for the embarked force, leaving 111 bunks for:

• 53 Naval ship’s company,
• 7 ship’s Army Loading Team,
• 10 RNZAF flight maintainers,
• 36 trainees,
• 1 Flag Officer or VIP, and
• 4 government agency officers.

The embarked forces have their own galley, dining area and recreation spaces. There is a hospital capable of taking five patients including an operating theatre, pre and post-op care, as well as a very well appointed sickbay for the day to day needs of the permanent ships company.
http://www.navy.mil.nz/nr/rdonlyres/20bce836-b811-46f6-8449-e5cb1e761c48/0/mc07011502.jpg
Ship to Shore Manoeuvre
To facilitate the movement of embarked forces ashore, CANTERBURY has four options:

1) berthing at a wharf and unloading through the stern and/or side ramps,
2) helicopter transfer,
3) landing craft utilising the crane and stern door, and
4) seaboat (RHIB).

The preferable option is to berth at a wharf so that vehicles can drive on and off utilising the stern door and side vehicle ramps. This option will definitely provide for ease of operation, however in many situations a port may be unavailable or inappropriate for the mission.

Helicopter transfer of equipment and personnel is also a viable option. CANTERBURY has a storage hangar for up to four of the future NH90 helicopters and a separate hangar for the SH-2G Super Seasprite. The flight deck is capable of taking up to a Chinook-size helicopter, therefore providing interoperability with the helicopters of the Australian Defence Force.

CANTERBURY is equipped with two Landing Craft-Medium (LCM) which are stored on 01 deck just forward of the flight deck. Each LCM weighs 58 tonnes and is capable of carrying 50 tonnes of stores and/or vehicles. The process of transporting equipment ashore by LCM is very simple in principle. The crane lowers the LCM into the water, the crew then drive it around to the stern of the ship. The ship’s stern door is then lowered and the LCM makes its approach with its bow ramp down. Once the LCM is in position on the stern door of CANTERBURY, two hydraulic rams guide the LCM into place. The vehicles and stores can then be driven on and off as required.

As with the other ships of the Protector fleet, CANTERBURY has two new 7.3 metre self-righting GEMINI RHIBS. These can carry 8 personnel with boarding equipment. The power plant is a 300hp Yanmar diesel engine giving a top speed of 35+ knots. It drives a Deon water jet, allowing for shallow water operations. They also have fuel for an impressive endurance of 133nm at 20 knots. In addition to their primary functions of boarding and life saving, the RHIBS will be a very effective way of transporting small numbers of personnel with equipment into areas where the LCMs or helicopters can’t reach.



http://www.navy.mil.nz/nr/rdonlyres/bbc0ada5-d975-432c-9589-b173bf1fe537/0/mc07011501.jpg

25mm Gun is firing (MC 07-0115-01).
A key component of the ship’s capability are the two 60 tonne self-tensioning cranes located just forward of the flight deck. These cranes are capable of lifting a LAV (Light Armoured Vehicle) through one of the two flush hatches located on the flight deck. The onboard cranes mean that we can use ports that don’t have cranes on the wharf.

In addition to all the sealift capabilities CANTERBURY is a very versatile ship in terms of military shipping. She has seven engineering mode configurations giving a top speed of 21 knots.

CANTERBURY is equipped with a 25mm Bushmaster Cannon located on the fo’csle. This is a versatile weapon controlled and fired from the bridge. Firing up to 200 rounds per minute, this weapon will give CANTERBURY a flexible weapon especially when conducting EEZ patrols, which will be a major operational requirement of all Protector vessels. There are two Operations Planning Rooms allowing for effective operational planning and coordination.

CANTERBURY’s sea trials were a learning experience and enjoyed by all. In particular, the main capability, our Ship to Shore Transfer System (SSTS), was demonstrated. This included the transfer of a 20 tonne vehicle from the MRV to the LCM in conditions approaching sea state 2. This was an impressive evolution given that it was undertaken in rougher conditions than was initially intended and by a Tenix LCM coxswain with less than two weeks experience of operating our LCMs. This bodes well for the development of the full SSTS capability once the ship enters RNZN service.

Overall, they were four successful days at sea in CANTERBURY, indicating she is well on the way to being one of the most versatile and robust ships in the RNZN.

from NZDF website

Dogwatch
3rd April 2007, 21:21
http://members.chello.nl/d.jansen24/tenix1.jpg

http://members.chello.nl/d.jansen24/mrv20008.jpg

http://members.chello.nl/d.jansen24/dsc03078a.jpg

http://members.chello.nl/d.jansen24/lasser20009.jpg

http://members.chello.nl/d.jansen24/20017.jpg

Pics of the MRV in Holland from the following website:

http://members.chello.nl/d.jansen24/Tenix.htm

thebig C
23rd April 2007, 19:48
For info., the rank and job of each crew member aboard the RNZN OPVs is given at

http://www.answers.com/topic/protector-class-opv

and a very detailed review of the vessel's design, deck by deck, showing all cabins, offices, workshops, store-rooms etc. is at

http://www.sname.org/sections/pacific_northwest/images/SNAME%20PNW%20-%20NZ%20OPV%20Presentation.pdf

Goldie fish
23rd April 2007, 22:47
Great links there, very informative.

They like Autocad too.

However I don't like the fact that both engines share an engine room. If you lose one in a fire.(which happens....L.E.Aisling) you are dead in the water.

thebig C
24th April 2007, 10:31
The complement of an RNZN OPV includes 3 flightcrew and 7 aircraft maintenance personnel. The high number of maintenance staff is probably due to the type of helicopter they will be operating, the Kaman SH-2G Seasprite:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/142/320251144_53667cf314_b.jpg

This is the latest version of an old US Navy helicopter, which is no longer in service with the USN. It has an extensive military sensor suite and can be armed with torpedoes, depth charges and Maverick anti-ship missiles. The earlier version, the SH-2F, was known for its high maintenance requirement, up to 30 hours per flying hour. The Royal Australian Navy bought similar aircraft and have had major avionics integration problems.

So, in the event that the Irish Naval Service includes helidecks on its new OPVs (hopefully), and gets some helicopters of its own (hopefully), it will probably not need to carry as many personnel to maintain the aircraft.

Goldie fish
24th April 2007, 21:26
Did I hear the aussies have decided not to buy/upgrade their Seasprites due to excessive cost?

$1billion, in 1997, for 11 helis, that may be delivered in 2011..

thebig C
25th April 2007, 09:57
Looks like that whole deal is going to be scrapped. The RAN opted for reworked older airframes, rather than the RNZN's new aircraft, and then specified some unique weapons and avionics. This caused technical problems, which don't appear to have been managed very well, and the whole project is now in doubt.

Te Kaha
30th April 2007, 13:01
The RAN Seasprites are to be replaced by the NRH-90. The RNZN Seasprites will continue mainly with their role supporting the Anzac Frigates and from time to time undertake task related assignments to the OPV's. We only have 5 SH-2's and wont be getting anymore. Therefore the NZDF intention is to also embark the new LUH's as the tender did call for a wheeled undercarriage and ability to cope with a maritime environment. The NZ LUH announcement isn't to far away now as budget day is later this month. The RAN is now flying three Agusta A-109s in a Trainer/LUH role and the smart money also has the A109 slotted for NZ LUH role. By the way the above Seasprite photo is of a RAN example not Kiwi. Spot the Roo on the roundel, plus the hanger is far too new for us anyway.

thebig C
1st May 2007, 19:03
The RAN Seasprites are to be replaced by the NRH-90. The RNZN Seasprites will continue mainly with their role supporting the Anzac Frigates and from time to time undertake task related assignments to the OPV's. We only have 5 SH-2's and wont be getting anymore. Therefore the NZDF intention is to also embark the new LUH's as the tender did call for a wheeled undercarriage and ability to cope with a maritime environment. The NZ LUH announcement isn't to far away now as budget day is later this month. The RAN is now flying three Agusta A-109s in a Trainer/LUH role and the smart money also has the A109 slotted for NZ LUH role. By the way the above Seasprite photo is of a RAN example not Kiwi. Spot the Roo on the roundel, plus the hanger is far too new for us anyway.

Roo replaced by Kiwi - sorry 'bout that.

Goldie fish
1st May 2007, 19:34
The Kiwi Seasprite is dramatically different to the Aussie one. Though I cannot see why the aussies decided to use both the Seahawk and the Seasprite, when most users of the seasprite replaced them with the seahawk.

Te Kaha
2nd May 2007, 11:13
Thats a great photo there Mr Carrington of a Kiwi SeaSprite at Whenuapei AFB. Though you didnt really have to take down the other 'Aussie' Seasprite photo with the guys crawling all over it with 'builders crack' showing. I wasn't offended in the slightest. By all means put it back up.

The Kiwi's bought the Seasprite because the Aussies had selected it for the ANZAC programme and the NZ Govt just followed suit. Though the RNZN actually wanted the Sea Lynx at the time. Still at least the Kiwi Sprites have worked pretty well and were a giant leap forward from the elderly Westland Wasps we had - thank goodness we bought brand new rather than trying to re-engineer and upgrade second hand aircraft like the Aussies did. That was an option evidently at MOD/Govt level as buying 2nd hand would somehow help to appease the strindent anti-defence folk.

Obviously the Aussie Sprites are more 'high tech' than ours but the most dramatic difference of all is that - ours pretty much work the way we want them to and have done for 7 years now. I dont think the same can be said for the Aussie Sprites. I wonder how they are going to dispose of them?

Te Kaha
23rd May 2007, 08:45
A couple of Media Releases Concerning Project Protector out this week from the NZDF.

First Protector ship, HMNZS Canterbury, arrives June
Ministry of Defence Media Statement

21 May 2007

Defence Minister Phil Goff announced today that the first of the Navy’s seven new Project Protector Ships, the multi-role vessel Canterbury, will arrive in New Zealand on 28 June.

"There are three key steps prior to Canterbury beginning working life at the Devonport Naval Base; acceptance, commissioning and arrival in its homeport and the dates for these events can now be confirmed", said Mr Goff.

"The acceptance of the vessel by the Ministry of Defence from the shipbuilders and the subsequent hand over to the Royal New Zealand Navy will take place in Melbourne on Thursday May 31, when Defence Secretary John McKinnon will formally accept the ship from Tenix on behalf of the government.

"On Tuesday June 12 the vessel will be commissioned into the Royal New Zealand Navy and formally become HMNZS Canterbury. The crew will then finalise preparations ahead of the ship’s departure from Melbourne for New Zealand.

"HMNZS Canterbury will arrive at its home port of Lyttleton on Thursday 28 June. She will remain alongside for four days during which a variety of welcome events will be held, including an open day for the public and the ship’s company parading through Christchurch to accept the freedom of the city.

"From Lyttleton HMNZS Canterbury will sail to Timaru for a brief visit between 4 – 6 July before heading to the Devonport Naval Base where it will be based.

"Planning for the arrival of HMNZS Canterbury is already underway and a detailed activity schedule for the port visits will be released by the Navy nearer to the date of each event" said Mr Goff.



Navy eagerly awaits new ship
Media Advisory

23 May 2007

Defence Minister Phil Goff announced on Monday that the first of the Navy’s seven new Project Protector Ships, the multi-role vessel CANTERBURY, will arrive in New Zealand on 28 June.

"The commissioning of CANTERBURY next month represents the formal start of what will undoubtedly be a long period of service with the Navy and the beginning of her story within the Navy's story", says Rear Admiral David Ledson, Chief of Navy.

"It represents, too, another significant milestone in Project Protector and the transformation of the Navy from today's capable Navy to tomorrow's versatile Navy. By the end of next year this will be a Navy of 13 ships - which together bring a range of capabilities that can be applied across the spectrum of operations - and in support of coalition, joint New Zealand Defence Force and multi-agency missions around New Zealand and across the globe", he says.

Commanding Officer of CANTERBURY, Ashburton-born Commander Tony Millar, says "As a New Zealander and a Cantabrian I feel immensely proud to be able introduce our new ship to the people of her home province".

CANTERBURY will be formally commissioned into service on 12 June 2007 and her homecoming will start on 28 June when she berths in Lyttelton for her first homeport visit. She departs for Timaru on 4 July for a two day visit. A full programme of activities will be released prior to the visits.

Background

The Multi-Role Vessel CANTERBURY is the first of seven new ships built for the Royal New Zealand Navy under Project Protector. She is affiliated to the Canterbury Region. She was built at the Merwede Shipyard in the Netherlands, under contract to Tenix. CANTERBURY’s design is based on a commercial RO-RO ship, Ben-My-Chree in operation in the Irish Sea.

CANTERBURY will have diesel-electric propulsion and a maximum speed of just over 19 knots. She will provide a sealift capability for the transport and deployment of equipment, vehicles and personnel, and capable of transferring cargo and personnel ashore in benign conditions (up to sea state 3) when port facilities are not available. CANTERBURY has two 59 tonne Landing Craft Medium (LCM) capable of carrying 50 tonnes at 9 knots with a range of 250 nm.

Particulars of CANTERBURY

Displacement: 8000 tonnes
Length overall: 131 metres
Beam: 23.4 metres
Speed: 19 knots

Complement: Core ship's company: 53
Flight personnel: 10
Government agencies: 4
Army ship's staff: 7
Trainees: 35
Troops: 250
Total: 360

Propulsion: Diesel engines
Flight deck: Space for two helicopters

Armament: 25mm and two .50 calibre machine guns

Helicopter capability

The NH90 Helicopter has been selected as the NZDF’s preferred medium Utility Helicopter to replace RNZAF’S Iroquois. Up to four NH90’s can be carried onboard the MRV for deployment ashore in support of Army operations and disaster relief activities. The MRV is also capable of operating the SH-2G Seasprite and the helicopter deck is able to handle a Chinook-size helicopter.

Te Kaha
1st June 2007, 06:58
Well the MRV HMNZS Canterbury was handed over to the RNZN today. Wonderful news and the start of a new era for the NZDF. After years of gloom the future has got a little brighter for NZ Defence personnel. Here is a couple more media releases / updates to let you guys who have been following the Protector Programme know whats been going on.


New Ship Handed Over To The Navy
Friday, 1 June 2007, 10:34 am
Press Release: New Zealand Defence Force
Friday 1 June 2007

A significant step towards bringing home the first of seven ships being built for the New Zealand Navy under Project Protector occurred in Melbourne, Australia, yesterday (Thursday 31 May). A special ceremony attended by representatives of the Navy, Tenix and the Ministry of Defence was held inside the hanger of the massive multi-role vessel CANTERBURY where she was formally handed over to the Navy.

New Zealand Secretary of Defence, Mr John McKinnon, mentioned how the CANTERBURY is a great step forward in terms of a New Zealand Defence Force capability and said it will be an exciting future for both the Navy and New Zealand. He also took the opportunity to thank Tenix for their hard work to date.

Mr McKinnon also thanked his Ministry of Defence Team, including the Navy personnel on the project, acknowledging their significant contribution to the project thus far. Ashburton-born Commanding Officer of CANTERBURY, Commander Tony Millar, said “Today was a day of firsts; it was the first time that New Zealand has taken delivery of a ship with such capability; it was the first time her new crew had moved onboard and it was the first official duty onboard the CANTERBURY for our sailors.” “We now have full possession of this magnificent new ship ... and it feels great!” he concluded.

Yesterday’s formal handover was the first step in bringing home the CANTERBURY. She is to be formally commissioned into service on June 12 in Melbourne and will arrive in Lyttelton for her homecoming on June 28. She will then visit Timaru between 4 and 6 July before arriving at the Devonport Naval Base, the home of the Navy, in late July.


Newest Ship Accepted into NZ Naval Fleet
Friday, 1 June 2007, 11:29 am
Press Release: New Zealand Government

Friday, 1 June 2007

Hon Phil Goff
Minister of Defence

31 May 2007

Newest Ship Accepted into NZ Naval Fleet

Defence Minister, Phil Goff today welcomed the latest addition to New Zealand's naval fleet.

"The acceptance by New Zealand from Tenix of the new multi-role vessel which will shortly be commissioned as the HMNZS Canterbury is a landmark occasion for the Royal New Zealand Navy", Mr Goff said.

"At over 9,000 tonnes and 131 metres long, the Canterbury will become the largest ship in our fleet.

"It will for the first time give us real sealift capacity.

"It adds a valuable strength to our Defence Force, being able to deploy a fully equipped infantry company, together with its armoured and operation vehicles into an area for security or peace-keeping operations.

"It can carry in addition up to four of the new NH90 helicopters on order for the Air Force, and one Seasprite helicopter.

"In the event of a serious natural disaster, such as hurricane in the Pacific, it will be invaluable.

"It carries two landing craft for islands which, because of reefs, might be inaccessible, and the NH90 helicopter is capable of air-lifting onto the islands the vehicles necessary for relief operations.

"The new ship will be fully manned for it's commissioning.

"The commissioning will take place on 12 June in Australia and by the end of the month, the ship will visit firstly its home ports of Lyttleton and Timaru, and then Wellington and Auckland.

"The acceptance of the ship is a red-letter day for the Navy, which will over the next 12 months see an unprecedented seven new ships commissioned into the Royal New Zealand Navy", Mr Goff said.

ENDS

Goldie fish
16th June 2007, 13:51
HMNZS CANTERBURY Commissioned Into Service
HMNZS CANTERBURY, the Navy’s newest and largest ship, was officially commissioned into service in Melbourne today by the Right Honourable Helen Clark, Prime Minister of New Zealand.

Rear Admiral David Ledson, Chief of Navy, said, "The commissioning of CANTERBURY formalises the ship becoming part of the Navy. It's a great occasion for the Navy and for the Defence Force as we can now start working towards fully exploiting the tremendous range of new capabilities the ship gives us."

Commander Tony Millar, Commanding Officer of HMNZS CANTERBURY, said "The ship’s company can be rightly proud of all of the work they have put in, and all they have accomplished in such a short period. They are great New Zealanders."

HMNZS CANTERBURY’s formal handover occurred on 31 May. She will arrive in Lyttelton for her homecoming on June 28. She will then visit Timaru between 4 and 6 July before arriving at the Devonport Naval Base, the home of the Navy, in late July.

http://www.navy.mil.nz/

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/video_popup_windows_skin/1179677

Goldie fish
15th July 2007, 16:08
HMNZS CANTERBURY, the Navy’s newest ship, completed her homecoming when she sailed into Devonport on Wednesday 11 July.

The ship’s formal handover occurred on 31 May, and she was commissioned into service on 12 June in Melbourne, Australia. She sailed to New Zealand and arrived in her affiliated home port of Lyttelton on Thursday 28 June. From Lyttelton she sailed to Timaru, then stopped for a day in Wellington before arriving in Auckland.

CANTERBURY will be based in Devonport for the next couple of months as the crew complete their training schedule and get to know their new ship.

CANTERBURY Arrives in Lyttleton (video)
We recommend that you right click on this link and choose 'Save target as...' to save the file to your computer.
http://www.navy.mil.nz/downloads/video/cant-lytt.mpg

http://www.navy.mil.nz/nr/rdonlyres/d07677c3-3adf-4efd-9692-527dc9b9f50c/0/mc07026307.jpg
HMNZS CANTERBURY arrives in Auckland (MC 07-0263-07).

http://www.navy.mil.nz/nr/rdonlyres/a9d69b01-f261-4bbb-b9ca-5e085582f86e/0/cantport.jpg
HMNZS CANTERBURY sails in to her home port (Lyttelton) for the first time (MC 07-0245-16).

http://www.navy.mil.nz/nr/rdonlyres/0939c1c5-942d-4ecf-a672-2849cdb3580d/0/mc07022684.jpg
CDR Tony Millar with HMNZS Canterbury in the background at the commissioning ceremony in Melbourne (MC 07-0226-84).

Also there is TV 3 News video coverage of this on the TV3 site, and Stuff.co.nz has streaming video footage.
http://www.tv3.co.nz/VideoBrowseAll/NationalVideo/tabid/309/articleID/29741/Default.aspx?src=email

http://www.stuff.co.nz/videoplayer/104730a21415.html


From http://www.navy.mil.nz/

hptmurphy
15th July 2007, 21:14
"The RAN opted for reworked older airframes, rather than the RNZN's new aircraft, and then specified some unique weapons and avionics. This caused technical problems, which don't appear to have been managed very well, and the whole project is now in doubt"

Nope as reported in this months issue of Warships IFR..the Aussies have decied to continue with the Seasprite program.

Te Kaha
16th July 2007, 14:21
And the worst Billion bucks the RAN has ever spent. They had no choice to salvage it what with the general election just months away and the Govt 20 points behind in the polls. The seasprites and problematic M113 rebuild - all late 90s programmes - over budget and overtime are the reason the Aussies are now only buying new. A lesson to be learnt.

hptmurphy
16th July 2007, 14:48
36 million is the figure quoted.

Te Kaha
16th July 2007, 20:40
36 mil for 11 used Seasprites and 7 years into a retro fit project - dont take the press as gospel. Project cost for the RAN Seasprites so far 1 Billion and counting.

Goldie fish
16th July 2007, 20:57
How old are the airframes?(regardless of the fact thay will have zero hours I assume, on completion). I remember seeing a USN seasprite on a Knox class back in 1985.

Te Kaha
17th July 2007, 11:33
To be honest mate I haven't delved into the OZ Seasprites that far and haven't got a clue the year they were built or the original flight hours the USN put on them. I dont know if they were stored at Kaman or at AMARC after their USN service. I think the USN Reserve operated the SH-G's in the last few years of Service. Maybe somebody out there might have the good oil on that one. That Seasprite on the back of a Knox Class you saw would of been one of the SH-2F's - legendary for their Op hours to servicing hours ratio - got as bad as 1 to 30 towards the end of their service. Where did you see the Knox - did it visit Cork or did you guys go stateside?

Goldie fish
17th July 2007, 18:44
They were frequent visitors to cork in the Cold War days. USS Pharris was one in particular. Arrived with the wrong pennant number the same weekend as a Soviet visitor, the Soobrazitenly. All cloak and dagger.

hptmurphy
17th July 2007, 23:03
have no doubt they were past there sell by date when purchased second hand...36 mill per airframe for conversion and airframe looks more realistic looking at the figures.

USS Phariss viseted her in 1985..as withe the Ruskie.

Te Kaha
18th July 2007, 04:37
With the Russians & Yanks together in an Irish port in 1985 now that would make a great movie plot! Comedy or Thriller?

The SH-2G's the Aussies got were actually in fairly good shape - no corrosion as far as I could see from a Nowra visit a few years ago. There were a number of SH-2Gs put into AMARC at Davis Montham in the early to mid 1990s alongside a huge number of SH-2F's - as the USN wound down its 600 fleet cold war navy. Where the cost of the whole programme has gone out of control is essentially in the tech and software upgrades of all its systems. The OZ decision to go for the SH-2G plus upgrade was more of an indigenous political-industrial decision rather than military. Think marginal electorates, a very strong defence industry lobby group (players such as ADI and Tenix) and a govt flagshipping its 21st Cent Sci/Tech policy - all were powerful reasons rather than going OTS. The SH-2G is an expensive naval ASW piece of kit - the 5th Kiwi one cost NZ$55 million by the time it was parked in a frigate hanger.

hptmurphy
18th July 2007, 13:19
Finally worked out the maths for tbe Equation. the helos day one were supplied at a cost of $i bn dollars the electronics update in order to operate specific weapons systems is to cost a further $36 million...and this is only to let the aircraft operate from frigates in an antisubamarine role.

Its is enviaged that adapted SH 60s will fill the role until the upgrade ius completed in 2011.

Back to the Parris incident in Cork....One foggy morning a guy was sitting out on the focsle in hat and sunglasses reading a newspaper...bedecked with cameras waiting for the Russkies to arrive

Out of the mist the gray dark figure appears..and yer man mad flurry of photos etc..to discover he just taken some of the most fantastic shots of the Cork harbour Dredger....it was hilarious to watch..especily when he returns to his deck chair and news paper and carries on as if nothing had happened.

The Hunt for Red October.

Goldie fish
18th July 2007, 20:16
Ringacoltig. Best disguised spy ship in the world.

hptmurphy
18th July 2007, 22:14
I was there as it happened so funy!

Te Kaha
6th August 2007, 11:44
Press release from NZDF last week.

Hon Phil Goff
Minister of Defence


02 August 2007
Media statement

First new inshore patrol vessel welcomed

Defence Minister Phil Goff announced the launch this week of the Rotoiti, the first of four new Navy Inshore Patrol Vessels (IPVs). Built entirely in New Zealand, the Rotoiti will be formally named at a ceremony at the Tenix shipyard, Whangarei this Saturday.

"This is another significant step in the introduction into the Royal New Zealand Navy of seven new ships under Project Protector. The Inshore Patrol Vessels are an impressive capability. At 55 metres long and with a 3000-mile range, they will contribute significantly to the patrolling of New Zealand’s 15,000 km coastline, and our Exclusive Economic Zone, the fourth biggest in the world", said Mr Goff.

"The design and operation of the IPVs reflects their primary role of multi-agency operations in support of national security tasks. Their versatile capabilities will also include surveillance, response and boarding operations, and search and rescue. Secondary roles for the vessels will be in New Zealand disaster relief and civil defence aid.

"Project Protector exemplifies the importance of a whole-of-government approach to the security of our borders. The IPVs will enhance the capabilities of a broad range of agencies, including Customs, Fisheries, Police, Conservation and Foreign Affairs, to pursue their resource patrol and protection roles.

"The Protector fleet will be tasked by the National Maritime Coordination Centre, which manages agencies demands for maritime assets. The available pool of assets to meet these demands will be greatly enhanced by the arrival of the Protector vessels. They will work alongside Customs and Police inshore vessels, and the RNZAF P-3K and patrol aircraft.

"Project Protector is a tribute to the strength and competitiveness of New Zealand industry. Under the Project Protector contract, New Zealand companies will deliver goods and services worth at least NZ$110 million. To date, $85 million worth of contracts have been awarded to New Zealand industry.

"By the end of 2008, the Navy’s Protector Fleet will comprise of seven ships of three different classes; one Multi Role Vessel (MRV), two Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPV) and four Inshore Patrol Vessels (IPV). Rotoiti will now complete the ship fit-out at Whangarei and will be officially handed over to the Navy later in the year.

"The role of the Inshore Patrol Vessels recognises that the future security of New Zealand is not only about dealing with potential military threats but is also about securing our resources, protecting our biodiversity and guarding our borders against transnational crime", said Mr Goff.

ENDS

Goldie fish
9th August 2007, 05:47
http://www.navy.mil.nz/nr/rdonlyres/ee9d3384-adb2-4f12-89b1-95b0b08fb106/0/mc07031844.jpg

ROTOITI alongside at Tenix in Whangarei (MC-07-0318-44).

The Inshore Patrol Vessels will be used to conduct maritime surveillance in support of other agencies such as Customs and Fisheries. They will be able to patrol the New Zealand coastline from the shore to approximately 24 nautical miles.

ROTOITI will be under the command of Lieutenant Alistair McHaffie (Devonport)
Executive Officer Sub Lieutenant Fraser Toulmin from Napier


ROTOITI, the first of the four Inshore Patrol Vessels being built entirely in New Zealand by Tenix in Whangarei, was launched in Whangarei Harbour on Monday 30 July. This is another significant step in the introduction into the Navy of seven new ships under Project Protector. The first ship, the Multi-role Vessel, HMNZS CANTERBURY, was commissioned into the Navy in June this year and the first Offshore Patrol Vessel, OTAGO, was launched in Williamstown in November last year.

By the end of 2008, the Navy’s Protector Fleet will comprise of seven ships of three different classes; one Multi Role Vessel (MRV), two Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPV) and four Inshore Patrol Vessels (IPV).

ROTOITI had her formal naming ceremony in Whangarei on Saturday 4 August and is affiliated to her homeport of Napier. With the words,”I am honoured to name this ship ROTOITI - May God Bless all those who sail in her”, the Lady Sponsor, Her Worship the Mayor of Napier, Mrs Barbara Arnott, cut the ribbon and the champagne (on a special cradle) smashed over the bow of the ship.

The Chief of Navy, Rear Admiral David Ledson and the Commanding Officer of ROTOITI, Devonport man Lieutenant Alistair McHaffie are pictured with the ship at the naming ceremony. Lt McHaffie is looking forward to taking command of ROTOITI and putting her through her paces, "There could be nothing more exciting than to take the command of a brand new ship and along with your crew of experienced sailors and personnel from other government agencies, patrol the coastlines of New Zealand", he says.

ROTOITI will remain in Whangarei for her fit-out by Tenix and expected to be completed later in the year

http://www.navy.mil.nz/nr/rdonlyres/b0a2e665-632f-414e-8d52-e3525af1e2ad/0/mc07031854.jpg

Displacement: 340 tonnes
Length overall: 55 metres
Beam: 9 metres
Speed: 25 knots
Range: 3,000 nautical miles
Complement: Core ship's company: 20
Government agencies: 4
Additional personnel: 12
Total: 36


http://www.navy.mil.nz/

golden rivet
9th August 2007, 11:48
ROTOITI will be under the command of Lieutenant Alistair McHaffie (Devonport)
Executive Officer Sub Lieutenant Fraser Toulmin from Napier



http://www.navy.mil.nz/
he looks like willie bretts son .. could they get smaller medals.. oh it must be the heat here in majorca,, back to the suntan,,,,

Te Kaha
12th August 2007, 08:16
Lt Alistair McHaffie is the son of former RNZN Chief of Navy (2000-2004) RADM Peter McHaffie. Quite fitting really as Peter McHaffie played a substantial part in these IPV's geting into service. Proud Dad I'd say. Out of the three classes of vessels in Project Protector the IPV's impress me the most.

Te Kaha
26th October 2007, 11:43
The Second OPV from Project Protector the HMNZS Wellington will be launched tomorrow the October 27th in Melbourne. Here is a photo of it ready to go.

http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee276/mlkac7rnzaf/HMNZSWellington.jpg
HMNZS Wellington

The second IPV HMNZS Hawea should be due in a few months. A two month delay Iv'e heard.

Goldie fish
26th October 2007, 19:14
Is the first OPV, Otago, in service yet? It was launched almost a year ago.

Te Kaha
26th October 2007, 20:56
Is the first OPV, Otago, in service yet? It was launched almost a year ago.

Early next year. They have had manning issues across the Navy since many left after the 2 year gap between the old frigate Canterbury and the new Sealift Ship. Its in the skilled trades at NCO level where the numbers are critical. The Wellington will commission late next year. Flash TV ads to lure recruits and old hands back.

Goldie fish
8th January 2008, 05:43
Some difficulties with HMNZS Canterbury since she entered service, it seems.


CDF and SEC DEF Support Review
21 December 2007

Yesterday the Minister of Defence asked that the NZDF and Ministry of Defence begin an independent review into the acquisition and introduction into service of HMNZS Canterbury. The New Zealand Defence Force and Ministry of Defence support and endorse this review.

John McKinnon, Secretary of Defence, says, “The Chief of Defence Force and I welcome this review, and look forward to identifying and rectifying any areas of concern around HMNZS Canterbury. The Ministry of Defence and the NZDF have confidence in this ship and see it as an asset to New Zealand, and this review will ensure the New Zealand public share that confidence.”

It is expected the Terms of Reference and announcement on who will do the review will be released early next year

The Chief of Defence Force, Lt Gen Jerry Mateparae, says, “The results of the first Court of Inquiry into the loss of the ship’s port RHIB indicate there are concerns with the ship which warrant further investigation. However, I am confident that there are no issues with Canterbury that cannot be corrected.”

“Safety of our personnel and equipment are our first priority and this review will provide greater certainty and confidence around the design and performance of Canterbury,” said Lt Gen Mateparae.



http://www.navy.mil.nz/know-your-navy/news/media-release.htm@guid=%7B03caa81b-29ca-479e-b3e0-01dd5cb6ffce%7D.htm

Full report and findings HERE (http://www.navy.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/public-docs/cty-coi.pdf)

Pretty serious impact on her usefulness. Apart from losing the means of boarding, notice also the concerns with slamming and Propellor Submergence.

There have been other concerns in recent weeks, following the death in October of a crewman when one of the RHIBs fell while it was being launched, after a shackle snapped.
http://img.scoop.co.nz/stories/images/0706/65c5099f7e7e948b3a73.jpeg

http://www.navy.mil.nz/nr/rdonlyres/9d24034a-dad4-4e41-85b0-3c32600322ce/0/cantlytt.jpg

See the Location of the RHIB alcove aft, Under the Helideck. I also notice mention of water ingress to the Cargo deck from the RHIB alcove.

easyrider
8th January 2008, 13:19
Looks like they'll have to fit some sort of exterior doors on those RHIB alcoves.

hptmurphy
8th January 2008, 21:10
Looking at it structurally it would seem pure folly to have an openspace so close to the waterline especially when being expected to operate in such heavy sea states.

I make this comment not totally informed as some who have served aboard the Eithne that the after deck was often awash during moderate seas especially when these were following.

The proximity of the deck and the water meant the scuppers and outlest in this area had to be cleared at all times and nothing could be left unsecured.

The boat alcoves on the ship outlined above would seem to be natuaral traps for great quantities of water and one can only imagine the forces that water would have while exiting from these alcoves. Now if the RHIB filled with water the forces on gripes and davits would be incerased by the same weight of water displaced and add the energy behing the water moving in this space.

Shuttering might be one soloution although I reckon the best night be to plate it up altogether and move the davist higher up into the superstructure...problem with this would be the ability to launch the boats in rolling seas as the angle of inclination of the boat s.
would increase

Inherint design flaw in this flush sided design probably given that regular fitted superstructure would allow for greater freedom of water movement around the boat.

Thinking as I type yup,,design flaw a situation which could not be replicated during trials.

Will we learn from this?

Sea Toby
8th January 2008, 23:32
Yes, a design flaw, most likely the shipyard will pay the price for two doors and a shackle, plus a RHIB. Otherwise, the army commander is quite pleased with the ship. In an exercise during late September with the Canterbury, everything went smoothly. They loaded a company group with all its vehicles and manpower, steamed two days into the rough seas, and unloaded the cargo and troops using both the cranes and boats, along with the ramps, testing everything. The Army was impressed with the ship, and the Navy was impressed with the Javelin and Mistral missiles. They unloaded right in front of the eyes of the Beehive, their parliament buiding a few blocks away at Wellington. Needless to say, there was a huge crowd of ministers watching the exercise outside their windows.

Goldie fish
8th January 2008, 23:36
Notice also mention of The Bow slamming excessively, and propellor submergence. These are serious design flaws. I assume the Bow is a redisign from the Ben Ma Chree, which probably has a bow Visor, and ultimately a different shape bow. Also water Ingress to the Cargo deck is a serious problem, at this early stage. In my uneducated opinion, they should have put the Ribs right aft, under the stern of the helideck. At least that way what water found its way in would have a way out also.

But I guess they are stuck with it now. We used to loose firehose boxes from our main deck on a weekly basis in the north sea, in summer. Someone thought that using a heavier plastic box than the usual fibreglass one would be a good idea, however that box damaged the handrails while making its escape...

Sea Toby
9th January 2008, 01:35
While the Canterbury is a military conversion of the Ben My Chree, the Ben My Chree doesn't have an alcove for a RHIB, nor a starboard door ramp. I'm not sure why the propeller is submerging or the bow is slamming. The Defence Minister has made Tenix aware of the problems with their one year warranty. It appears Tenix and Merwede will be burning lights late at night.

Well, you get what you paid for. It now looks as if they chose the wrong ship design. ADI's 8,000 ton Dutch Enforcer design may have been better, but also more expensive and over budget. As one can see the ADI Schelde 8,000 ton Enforcer's RHIBs are beside the superstructure.

http://www.scheldeshipbuilding.com/enforcer

Victor
9th January 2008, 22:53
"propeller is submerging" - OK, explain that to the landlubbers. Aren't propellors meant to be submerged and stay submerged?

Sea Toby
9th January 2008, 23:26
The sea ain't flat in a storm, there are waves and swells. Think of your automobile and standing water on a road. If you drive through the water, a puddle, you will notice your auto will slow down and create a bg splash. Its the same with a snow drift. its more techinical than this, but its the easy explanation to a land lover. On a ship the propellers are the ship's wheels.

Stoker
10th January 2008, 00:03
HMNZ Cantbury,
The report is interesting but leaves a lot of unanswered points.
The RHIB was probably carried away by hydraulic pressure created in the alcove when the vessel rolled excessively and the RHIB alcove became submerged. The Netherlands ship model basin ,who did the origonal model trials, could probably tell why this happened. One way to prevent in happening again would be to fit a hydraulically operated covering plate, hinged on top. I am surprised the door from the alcove to the cargo deck opened under sea water pressure, I would have expected a strong WT door to be fitted.
The stabalizers ceased operating when the rolling period was quicker than 11.9 seconds (it was 11.5), this means the fins stick out and don't move, I'm assuming the vessel has fin stabalizers.Surely the information was on board to load and ballast the vessel down to prevent the vessel being so stiff that she rolled so quickly, 28 degrees in 11.5 seconds is a lot of rolling and puts great stress on the hull and machinery not to mention the crew!.
I'm amazed they were sailing along in such weather on shaft alternators ( driven by the main engines via the gear boxes). The most basic rule is never but your electrical supply at risk. When the prop dug down into the water the engine slowed and the electrical breaker connecting the alternator to the switchboard opened on under frequency trip.Fortunatly they had the main switchboard split in two, maybe they have two seperate boards but they probably lost that engine for a few minutes. could the other engine have been close to coming off the switch board as well? Could this have caused even more excessive rolling and resulted in the RHIB been carried away?
Lots of questions, no need to rush out and buy a sister ship just yet.

Goldie fish
10th January 2008, 02:50
A propellor is designed by its nature to cope with different forces, namely those when it turns, and the force caused by it pushing water from front to rear. Submergence is when the turning prop is forced further underwater due to excessive rolling. A propellor is only designed to operate in a certain depth of water. Submergence forces it into heavier volumes of undisturbed water , reducing its thrust and then the same rolling removes it from the water where it suddenly finds no resistance. This can cause damage to the Blades, and the shaft, and cause severe vibration in the stern area.

This is my understanding of it. Hopefully the resident marine engineers will correct me if I am wrong.

easyrider
10th January 2008, 12:26
HMNZ Cantbury,
The report is interesting but leaves a lot of unanswered points.
.........
The stabalizers ceased operating when the rolling period was quicker than 11.9 seconds (it was 11.5), this means the fins stick out and don't move, I'm assuming the vessel has fin stabalizers........
Lots of questions, no need to rush out and buy a sister ship just yet.

From the Tenix website

http://www.tenix.com/images/mrv.jpg

No stabilisers? "...The Tenix MRV is fully equipped for EEZ patrol and response. Specifically, the design provides for a gentle roll period when empty at loiter speeds through the inclusion of active anti-roll tank stabilisation, bilge keels, and the wide beam and hull lines of a passenger ferry..... Benefits of the wide beam include a gentle roll period.."

Teething troubles, or back to the drawing board? And Tenix is now up for sale...

Goldie fish
10th January 2008, 20:09
No fin stabilisers, however she does have Tank stabilisiation.

One wonders about the quality control at the Merwede shipyard if they identified these difficulties during sea trials, but chose not to do anything about them. I also believe there is a single engine room, for both main engines, which seems unusual.

hptmurphy
10th January 2008, 22:08
The area behind the the highest superstructure would look to be far more sheltered from a boat storage point of view and would possibly be more stable given it seesm to be closer to the centre of the ship..assuming thats where the centre of gravity would be.

The idea of a single engine room from a damage control point of view is pure madness.

I would have assumed a military spec in line with modern doctrines would have specified two engine rooms.

I am now assuming that the vessel is indeed registered as a Warship rather than a civilian type vessel in grey paint?

Sea Toby
10th January 2008, 23:18
Looking at the Canterbury, despite the grey paint she isn't a warship. It has never been the intention of the New Zealand government to consider her an LPD. The government has considered her a cheap multi-purpose ship capable of being used as a training ship for her recruits, as a patrol ship in the Ross Sea, as a resupply ship for the conservation corps, and as a transport ship for a company group of her army. She didn't have near as much problems slamming and propeller submergence when loaded during the expercise. She carried the army admirably. Whatever her problems are as a patrol ship, steaming empty, and losing her RHIBs will most likely be sorted out. Its more of a teething problem, and some misguided design flaws, but she can do her missions she was designed for.

If the New Zealand government wanted an amphibous ship they would have probably bought the 8,000 ton Enforcer. Instead, the government wanted a ro-ro ship for strategic sealift, and with the capability of tactical sealift when a port wasn't available. It was never intended the ship ever be involved in a opposed landing. Back in late September almost all of the army she carried for the first time had never been to sea before.

Goldie fish
11th January 2008, 00:13
A propellor is designed by its nature to cope with different forces, namely those when it turns, and the force caused by it pushing water from front to rear. Submergence is when the turning prop is forced further underwater due to excessive rolling. A propellor is only designed to operate in a certain depth of water. Submergence forces it into heavier volumes of undisturbed water , reducing its thrust and then the same rolling removes it from the water where it suddenly finds no resistance. This can cause damage to the Blades, and the shaft, and cause severe vibration in the stern area.

This is my understanding of it. Hopefully the resident marine engineers will correct me if I am wrong.

A Marine engineer tells me:

"well ideally props are designed to work in the disturbed water caused by the wake of the vessel......hang on, naval arc book coming out....erm naval arc book on the missing list, but your right in saying the prop will have more friction and therefore greather thrust in deeper water caused by rolling resulting in incosistant loads on shafts bearings and eventually gearboxes and engines/turbines.

twin shaft ships are prone to this but are designed with this in mind and the problems usually manifest themselves in an auto slowdown of the engines or a stepped down response on the govorners."

Sea Toby
11th January 2008, 08:17
This magazine article has more on the engines:

http://www.rnzncomms.net.nz/navy/documents/Canterbury%20article%20for%20HSB%20magazine%20.pdf

easyrider
11th January 2008, 12:59
Wasn't the Canterbury's Captain worried that the propellors would 'emerge', rather than 'submerge'? Presumably if they were to emerge - come out of the water due to an excessive pitching motion - they would suddenly spin much faster and possibly damage the shafts, bearings, engines or whatever?

Goldie fish
11th January 2008, 20:00
Same problems caused by submergence and emergence.

Stoker
11th January 2008, 20:48
No fin stabilisers, however she does have Tank stabilisiation.

Well that tells us why she rolled so badly, I should have known when the report kept referring to the Anti Roll system that they had a tank system not fins.

When writing the design philosophy the NZ Navy put more emphasis on reducing rolling when the vessel was at anchor or loitering than when she was underway in heavy weather.(I expect the NS will have it the other way around.) Fin stabalizers do not work when the speed is under 6 knots. obviously tank systems don't work too well when the vessel is rolling badly. I sailed on two ships which were fitted with Flume tanks (anti roll systems), we did not use them much as they were not considered worth the trouble, but we did not go to anchor or do any loitering.It is not a big deal to house the fins if you were doing any boat work, not something you would want to forget though.

Te Kaha
12th January 2008, 12:50
Feedback from a couple of old RNZN hands over Christmas beers is that the new Canterbury is another Govt disaster like the previous sealift ship HMNZS Charles Upham, should be painted white with a blue and green funnel and have the words Interislander Ferry painted on the side or at least renamed the HMNZS Chunderbury and class it as a Multi Roll Vessel. But the real views of CPO's with 15+ years service are not the endorsement that Govt wants the public to hear about (especially when they are on the grog and in good form). Funny how the MoD press release of the inquiry came out on the Friday afternoon before Christmas. Since there is an election later this year down here maybe the press might pick up on it.

Goldie fish
12th January 2008, 13:09
Well it must be said that it was noticed over here, and not by just us on this site.
Combined with the death of a crewman, the future is not good. The inquiry into his death could coencide with the election.

Its not even a useful ferry any more. The bow visor thats on Ben Ma Chree was removed for Canterbury.

Te Kaha
13th January 2008, 09:18
I take it Goldie that the NS have been scratching there heads over how this ship has ended up as well and are at pains to avoid making the same mistakes. From what I have heard (RSA Gossip) the RNZN actually wanted a different ship to what they got and were pushing for a vessel in the 300 - 400 million range.

The good news (looking on the bright side of things) is that because the RNZN is now way short of EZZ Patrol days ( at least 100) and that two Anzacs have been trying to do the work of three (since the original Canterbury was decommissioned in 2005) - there is now a clear cut case come election time for the Conservative opposition (who are way ahead in the polls by the way) to get the third blue water vessel they have long promised. So it could be a blessing in disguise. What that will be or could be is a moot point.

The new Canterbury with some expensive retification probably will suffice as a straight sealift and support ship. As a patrol vessel in the Ross Sea and sub-antartic fishing grounds - nada.

The locally built 55m Lake Class IPV's have been well received which is good news. The RNZN has retained the HMNZS Kahu one of the old Moa class IPC's. This is likely to be replaced circa 2011 with a 5th Lake Class. Also in the early half of next decade the fleet supply ship Endeavour and MCM/Dive ship Manawanui are due for replacement.

So lets hope Project Protector Part 2 is driven by operational and strategic realities and not the fiscal and ideological constraints imposed by the Veitnam era hippies and feminists who have been running my country of late. Thats were I put the blame.

Goldie fish
13th January 2008, 23:16
Will the New OPVs have much of an impact on patrol days, or is there too few of them to make a difference too?

Sea Toby
14th January 2008, 03:16
As I recall if you read the maritime review, the patrol days will be met with multiple crews, but not without the Canterbury doing patrols. Without multiple crews New Zealand needed in tne maritime review 3 OPVs and 5 IPVs. Only 4 IPVs were bought, using multiple crews the patrol days can be met, with 6 crews for 4 IPVs. As noted, currently there is a shortage of personnel to create these crews.

To be quite honest, there is a shortage of the right people for the right jobs with all the services, not just the navy. The solution of higher pay scales and reenlistment incentives are common around the world. New Zealand will man the ships and boats, but not as effectively as any commander will want. Do you suggest bringing back the draft and/or impressing citizens to fill the requirement?

Kea
14th January 2008, 03:20
Should be a major improvement when the OPV's are online, seems to be taking ages with Otago launched in Nov 06 and still not delivered, I believe the original Maritime review suggested 3 OPV's rather than 2, hopefully they don't suffer the same kind of problems of the MRV, the 2 ANZACS spend most of their deployments further afield and only do the odd EEZ patrol currently, the IPVs will be a major improvement in capability when operational.

Sea Toby
14th January 2008, 03:38
In the maritime review I believe they wanted what Singapore got, a $400 million ship, but they could not afford that. The government went into the tender process, and placed a low price on the project. At the end they were reduced to two ships and shipyards, Tenix/Merwede and ADI/Damen Schelde, the Canterbury MRV and the 8,000 ton Enforcer LPD.

Emphasis was placed on sea lift, and having the ability to do lcm tactical operations. To keep the price low the government chose a ship without a well dock, i.e., the converted ferry ro-ro design. Simply put, the government bought what it wanted, a ship which can carry 150 men company group plus 390 lane meters, along with 4 NH90 helicopters and their crew, at a very low price. In fact, price mattered more than capability. The money available was the money that was going to be spent on the third Anzac class frigate. No new real money, but any substitute.

Te Kaha
14th January 2008, 09:45
Its not that they could not have afforded a Singaporean type vessel. They can with ease. New Zealand has been running monthly Govt surpluses of around the 0.75 Billion mark since 2004. It was more a question of not wanting to afford it. An artificial Defence spend ceiling of around 1% of GDP has been the main political denominator.

Yes the 2001 Maritime Review required 3 OPV's and 5 IPV's plus a Sealift ship. So the impact then of the loss of the Canterbury's patrol days puts critical pressure on the ability for the Navy to carry out its EZZ patrol outputs. What is not explicit in the maritime review is that the set patrol day outputs were also set on an artificial benchmark based on costing factors and on survelliance data that was already out of date. The EEZ patrol coverage percentages bear that out. Huge areas of the NZ EEZ the worlds 4th largest are not even covered on a regular basis. Frankly its open season within the NZ EEZ 24/7/365 and will remain that way for some time to come.

The reduction of the frigate fleet to just two ships also has had repercussions as there is currently no operational flexibility in meeting maritime policy. The dire manning issues are compounding this problem. They figured that multi-crewing the OPV's and IPV's would save money and that they could get away a 2 & 4 fleet and not a 3 & 5. Experienced NCO specialists are so short that they wont be able to both man the Protector fleet, the Anzacs, as well as provide for the shore based training of replacements. From what I have been told the multi crew approach was going to impact on the shore based training anyway. Yes, better pay would help, but also a proper funded Navy with well equiped vessels to do a proper job would also help with morale.

Kea
14th January 2008, 19:05
Are the IPV's not to be partially crewed by Reservists, if not this would seem a good solution to help solve the crewing issue, especially if the terms were attractive, and hopefully you would lure back experienced personnel to share their knowledge.

Te Kaha
15th January 2008, 09:47
Yep that has been the plan Kea. To use the RNZNVR to plug the gaps, but there are less than 300 active VR at present including the medics, lawyers, and administrative types. There aren't that many around who are qualified for the type of specialist trades needed. What is required is a recruitment drive for joining the VR similar to the TV ad campaign run for the Navy at present to entice school leavers. The public doesn't know it exists such is its low profile. It could also drag back a few old salts to help out if the job protection and income replacement conditions for Reservists were sorted out.

Toby, to reply to your views on the draft. I'd bring back a balloted 2 year National Service in a flash if it was up to me. They pay off being for those lucky enough to serve would be a free university education or trade training institute. But unfortunately my views would be about as popular as a fart in an astronaut suit in the 2008 world we live in.

Sea Toby
15th January 2008, 12:27
The whole point is is that most countries operate their frigates in a rotation process of three. Of course, these nations can afford three frigates, and are much larger than New Zealand. Just to sail to Perth, Western Australia requires a ship with good range. And to operate in the Indian Ocean, requires a warship, a frigate. The OPVs are for patrol areas close to New Zealand. New Zealand does have treaty commitments unlike Ireland. New Zealand only needs the OPVs to nail the illegal fishing, New Zealand does have P-3 Orions to watch the fisheries. A good portion of the patrol requirements involve the Ross Sea, especially during the summer months, much of the patrol days being handled by the new large MRV. During the winter months ice becomes a problem in the Ross Sea, keeping most illegal fishing vessels away.

I expect the RHIBs problem to be solved with a door or moving them up to the flight deck. I am expecting some more ballast may help with the excessive rolling and propeller submergence and/or emergence. The ship did do well during the exercise with the army. Usually the civilian ferry she is based upon, Ben My Chree, has more cargo weight than Canterbury did sailing empty during the storm in question. One thing is certain, I do not expect another ship will be purchased. The New Zealand Navy will have to make this ship useful at sea lift, and as a Ross Sea patrol/training vessel for the next 25-30 or more years. With another tanker and diving tender in the next LTDP buy, another OPV or two could be purchased. Without doubt, the Anzac class frigate ESSM upgrade for two ships, or mid-life refit, will cost as much as another new frigate.

I think the OPV or even an IPV could possibly improve the mine countermeasures capability, mine warfare containers can be included similar to Canada's corvettes, or the American LCS. I do not see a true mine warfare craft being bought. However, its my view that placing mines in the Straits of Hormuz would do much more damage than any port in New Zealand.

Te Kaha
16th January 2008, 11:51
Toby. There is plenty money in the NZ Government coffers for affording another Frigate or two. You may not be aware of the size of the monthly government surpluses and the current dairy boom down here. Its just that the current government who are very much likely to be in their last few months of power have chosen to politically cap defence spending at 1% of GDP. The next LTDP from a different Government is likely to include a large "strategic patrol vessel", a new tanker, an extra IPV and a MCM/Dive ship with greater utility.

Sea Toby
16th January 2008, 18:14
Let's hope a new large patrol ship is as nice as the new Dutch ones. It might be needed to patrol the Ross Sea.

I don't think many governments are interested in spending more on defense projects. I am not even sure New Zealand with the current government can afford to man their new ships. People should come first.

Sea Toby
16th January 2008, 18:25
Let's hope a new large patrol ship is as nice as the new Dutch ones. It might be needed to patrol the Ross Sea.

I don't think many governments are interested in spending more on defense. I am not even sure New Zealand with the current government can afford to man their new ships. People should come first.

Goldie fish
16th January 2008, 19:38
Toby. There is plenty money in the NZ Government coffers for affording another Frigate or two. You may not be aware of the size of the monthly government surpluses and the current dairy boom down here. Its just that the current government who are very much likely to be in their last few months of power have chosen to politically cap defence spending at 1% of GDP. The next LTDP from a different Government is likely to include a large "strategic patrol vessel", a new tanker, an extra IPV and a MCM/Dive ship with greater utility.

I do know of many from these parts heading to NZ to work in the dairy industry. There is actually a worldwide milk shortage at the moment. Those who can get the quantity out stand to make massive profits.

Looking at the Rolls Royce site earlier, I see most of the ships that use the Tank Stabilising system are types which would spend much of their time stationary in heavy weather, such as cable layers, Rig support ships, buoy tenders(including the ILS Grainuaille). Surprising that it was selected for use on a ship that is also expected to spend much of its time patrolling.

http://www.rolls-royce.com/marine/downloads/mano/tank_broc.pdf

Edit: The Danish "Thetis" Type is also equipped with such a system. Does thetis have fin stabilisers also?

I still cannot understand how the NZ navy can only manage 100 EEZ patrol days.

Kea
17th January 2008, 03:00
I think the fact that we have been down to 2 Frigates for the past couple of years, and they spend a good proportion of their time deployed to destinations outside the EEZ, part of the rationale for the 2 dedicated OPV's, the frigates have only been undertaking EEZ patrols on a piecemeal basis, and the existing Inshare patrol vessels have had limited utility in this repect. The P3K's do however conduct frequent extensive patrols of both the local EEZ as well as deployments to Antartica and the Pacific Islands.

Sea Toby
17th January 2008, 11:47
Yes, the P-3Ks Orions cover a lot of water in a very short time. Surface ships and even submerged submarines can be detected. While New Zealand's Air Force may not be upgrading their anti-submarine capability, the six P-3Ks are receiving their new surface sensors. Frankly, there aren't many enemy submarines in South Pacific waters near their EEZ.

The whole purpose of Project Protector is to have the surface patrol ships to catch and prosecute illegal fishing vessels, not take pictures of the illegal fishing vessels. And its not as if there are hundreds of illegal fishing vessels either, probably only a handful or two over a period of a few months. Keep in mind New Zealand is a long ways from the Asian mainland and Japan. Even a longer distance from America, North and South. And of course even further from Europe and Africa,

The inshore patrol vessels will mostly be used to patrol the north and around New Zealand, while the ocean patrol vessels will mostly be used to patrol the east and south. However, they were depending upon the Canterbury to patrol the Southern Ocean of the Ross Sea. The Canterbury being a large ship for patrol duties, up to 8,000 tons displacement whereas the ocean patrol vessels are of around 2,000 tons displacement.

Back during the early 1980s, many of the new independent island states of the South Pacific had problems with United States tuna boats. At that time Australia and New Zealand started patrolling their EEZs with P-3s. Eventually Anerica agreed to the new UN EEZs. If you ever go to Pago Pago, American Samoa, Bumblebee and Starkist have huge tuna canneries located there, along with an American Can factory between the two canneries.

You can check this out at Google Earth, which also shows the Canterbury alongside at Williamstown, Victoria with it appears the Otago, and the two LCMs.

Sea Toby
18th February 2008, 12:51
I found this pdf image of the Canterbury at the NZ army website. Its interesting. Notice that the role of their navy is changing. During the first half of the last century it was to support the Royal Navy. During the second half it was mostly anti-submarine. Today its for a versatile multi-role navy. The link:

http://www.army.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/army-news/hmnzscanterbury.pdf

Sea Toby
18th February 2008, 13:11
I think the fact that we have been down to 2 Frigates for the past couple of years, and they spend a good proportion of their time deployed to destinations outside the EEZ, part of the rationale for the 2 dedicated OPV's, the frigates have only been undertaking EEZ patrols on a piecemeal basis, and the existing Inshare patrol vessels have had limited utility in this repect. The P3K's do however conduct frequent extensive patrols of both the local EEZ as well as deployments to Antartica and the Pacific Islands.

I believe you will discover that the new OPVs are of similar size to the old WWII Loch class frigates intended for local off shore patrols. The Anzac frigates are intended for world wide escort duties. And the new IPVs are for inshore patrols, they are much larger than previous classes which didn't have good sea keeping qualities for the seas around NZ. While the MRV has done the sea lift well, its utility to help with the off shore patrol requirement is in doubt.

There used to be a time there were only two light cruisers in the RNZN, along with the local frigates. I do not recall the RNZN ever having destroyers. It appears today NZ will have two Anzac class frigates for world wide escorts, plus two or maybe three OPVs for local off shore patrols, and four IPVs for inshore patrols.

New Zealand could end up buying another OPV to fill the requirements for off shore patrol. New Zealand started Project Protector to spend only $500 million in NZ dollars. Recently, its been released that the MRV cost $177 million, the OPVs $89 million each, and the IPVs $35 million each in NZ dollars. At close to the end of the program, NZ has spent exactly what they wished to spend, $500 million. Thats around twice as much for the US dollar or Euro figures.

Goldie fish
18th February 2008, 21:50
Thats a nice Picture there toby, If large(10mb). It makes a nice poster.

Sea Toby
20th February 2008, 06:16
Yes, its quite small for a letter sized paper, I can barely read it with a business sized paper. A 17 inch long paper, or newsprint, is almost necessary for that image. I can barely read it with my 21 inch monitor.

When I read the maritime review, I was under the impression New Zealand wished for 300 days of off shore patrols. A bit over a hundred with the two OPVs each, and a bit less than a hundred with the MRV. With the MRV utility in doubt for patrols in the Southern Ocean, New Zealand will probably come up short on off shore patrol days. I suspect an OPV will end up doing the Southern Ocean patrols with the MRV doing patrols in less dangerous seas, but I wonder about this due to the MRV's inability to sail from Wellington to Auckland safely in the noted storm. At least the P-3s are still around and flying.

With many more ships, and the need for more technical personnel to man these ships, the problems keeping such staff is raising my doubts whether New Zealand will be able to fill them in the future. It may take awhile for the navy to man these technical positions with new personnel.

easyrider
7th March 2008, 18:37
According to Jane's, the New Zealand government has ordered an independent review to be carried out into areas of concern surrounding the safety and operability of the Royal New Zealand Navy's (RNZN's) recently acquired Multi-Role Vessel.

Sea Toby
18th March 2008, 15:57
The Canterbury hosted the Australian admiral for the whole month of February for the month long Sea Lion exercise with Australian and French ships. The Australian admiral and his staff were impressed with the ship's command and communications capability. While major storms were avoided, the Canterbury showed her worth as a sea lift ship, time and time again.

As a sea lift ship I think she has proven her worth. Unfortunately, the jury is still out as far as being a Ross Sea patrol ship.

Dogwatch
18th March 2008, 22:05
Here's a recent photo of Otago fitting out in melbourne, taken from the shipspotting website.

http://gallery.irishmilitaryonline.com/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=3718&g2_serialNumber=1

Lucasnz
28th March 2008, 19:05
Hi Everyone on my 1st post.

The ODT (www.odt.co.nz) is reporting that the delivery of all ships has slipped by six months. All vessels require new insulation, while Otago has engine problems identified during sea trials. There is also a bridge redesign happening on the IPV, but no reason was given.

The ODT online version is pay per view, and dates back to Wed last week.

Sea Toby
1st April 2008, 18:07
Finally a good video has arrived on the scene of the HMNZS Canterbury, mostly of the exercise with the Aussies during the month of February. We finally get to see more of her insides.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FwcIHoz9V9I&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FwcIHoz9V9I&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Mod:Edited to embed movie clip. Hope you don't mind Toby.

Goldie fish
1st April 2008, 20:27
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/93fdXg-dMUk&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/93fdXg-dMUk&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Otago's Launch, courtesy of Youtube.

Sea Toby
21st October 2009, 00:09
The Canterbury, NZ's MRV, moved many more tons to the Tsunami stricken Samoa and Tonga recently than NZ's air force. 225 tons vs 22 tons. NZ's navy buttoned her up from a planned maintenance period in five days. Her small landing craft were useful transferring cargo to the northern Tonga island, as her draught is too large to enter the reef surrounding the island. Her Seasprite helicopter was also used to deliver aid as well.

She then proceeded to Samoa delivering aid using her roll on roll off capability, along with using her crane to unload 12 containers at the pier. The crane was also used to deliver hundreds of utility poles and water pipes as well. Read about her humanitarian mission at this website.

http://www.3news.co.nz/Kiwi-Defence-Force-starts-to-pull-out-of-devastated-Samoa-/tabid/423/articleID/126270/cat/64/Default.aspx

Sea Toby
21st October 2009, 02:18
A few photos of the Canterbury relief's work.

http://img.scoop.co.nz/stories/images/0910/samoa1-1.jpeg

http://img.scoop.co.nz/stories/images/0910/c5185959b9ef7ebb97f5.jpeg

http://img.scoop.co.nz/stories/images/0910/ddcfddef09f02dd1af39.jpeg

Te Kaha
22nd October 2009, 12:07
The Navy did a great job getting her ready as she was alongside DNB under maintenance. At least this will get the media off the Navy’s back about the Canterbury what with all the problems she has had. It wasn’t until the 10th that she sailed, 10 days after the Tsunami and not 5 days as the local media said, but a CPO mate told me it was a huge effort as all the comms, radar and electrical systems were pretty much dismantled when the MCC put them on standby. The Air Force did a great job as well as their fast response got the critical Red Cross and Medical staff up to Samoa within hours. BTW the Canterbury is officially now an “Amphibious Support Vessel” in the NZDF and no longer known as a Multi-role Vessel. The Navy are discussing building a similar support ship based on an improved Canterbury design but with a mix of underway replenishment and sealift to replace the Endeavour in a few years. As a quick update all the locally built IPV's are in service and doing well however the Aussie built OPV saga is dragging on nearly 3 years late. Lucky the reliability of the eighties era ships Resolution and Manawanui have been enough to cover some of the patrol gap.

Sea Toby
22nd October 2009, 16:50
For her cost in the neighborhood of NZ $170 million, around 100 million Euros, she has been a great buy considering a Rotterdam LPD type would have ran over NZ $350 million, twice her price. While she isn't the greatest amphibious ship about, she does deliver what she was built for: a sea lift ship capable of delivering her goods, over a beach and at a pier. The former Charles Upham would not have been able to deliver the aid to the northern Tonga island surrounded by a reef. And if the reef was somehow licked, the Charles Upham would not have had a crane to lift much of the goods. Nor did the Charles Upham have a hangar to house a helicopter...

Te Kaha
23rd October 2009, 02:23
As a basic sealift and training vessel she will do alright. She has had a very good run up to Timor and was in Samoa assisting a Humanitarian Support Training Mission in July. However she was oversold on her ability to long range patrol and replace her namesake. That is vital weakness in the current navy that even when the two OPV's get on board it will still be way down on whats required. I was lucky enough to attend the Defence Review forum on the North Shore, the DefMins home electorate and home to Devonport NB. Boy did the DefMin get it laid out bare by some former senior sailors.

Sea Toby
26th October 2009, 20:35
As a basic sealift and training vessel she will do alright. She has had a very good run up to Timor and was in Samoa assisting a Humanitarian Support Training Mission in July. However she was oversold on her ability to long range patrol and replace her namesake. That is vital weakness in the current navy that even when the two OPV's get on board it will still be way down on whats required. I was lucky enough to attend the Defence Review forum on the North Shore, the DefMins home electorate and home to Devonport NB. Boy did the DefMin get it laid out bare by some former senior sailors.

Frankly, her main design fault is having RHIBs to begin with for fishery patrols. A sea lift ship should never be considered a patrol ship. I have more worries over the OPVs ice strengthening installation error which is to low to be effective. The OPVs were supposed to be designed to withstand and patrol the Southern Ocean.

Despite these errors, the Canterbury is a much better ship than the previous sea lift ships, and the OPVs will still be great doing fishery protection patrols in seas without first year ice. Chances are any illegal fishing boats fishing can still be caught and boarded in the seas without first year ice. New Zealand in my opinion did a great job getting seven ships for the price of one Anzac class frigate. The Canterbury's operations during her first year have proved her worth time and time again. At least her ice strengthening was done correctly.

Are they the best ships available. Well no. But did New Zealand get good value for their money, yes....

Te Kaha
27th October 2009, 14:19
The ice belt is the problem what with 100 tonnes overweight it brings. And it’s too low to be considered within safe operating margins even for first year ice. Also the weight distribution makes it not ideal for sustained patrols south of Stewart Island in winter and Auckland Island in the summer.

I’m of the view that maybe the whole Southern Ocean tasking should be abandoned by the Protector Vessels and the OPV’s Ice Belt removed losing the excess 100 tonnes of weight, and hopefully curing the vessel of its stability issues. There is more than enough patrol work for the OPV’s north of 47 degrees South around our EEZ as well as the South Pacific Dependencies, which have not seen regular RNZN patrols for over a decade. New Zealand, along with Australia and Brazil, is one of just three countries to be granted sovereign rights to its continental shelf by the United Nations. We now have rights over 5.45 million sq km of our continental shelf - an area three times the size of France.
Of course it would mean that at least a new vessel would be required.

The Australian Customs vessel Ocean Viking would have been the right vessel for the tasking needs in the Ross Sea or NZ’s National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) a government entity, which operates the 70m, ice strengthen (1-C) RV Tangaroa. Both also would have also been able to stow and deliver all those awkward and larger items down to Scott Base during the busy summer season on the ice for the Antarctica NZ programme that the US currently assists with when they have spare capacity. The Ocean Viking is putting on over 200 patrol days a year in the South Ocean which is quite an impressive workload. The RV Tangaroa has a respectable 60 day endurance and was bought new in 1991 for $27 million as a specialist research ship. Much of that cost though was due to the specialist scientific equipment required. I wonder what a good large 70 to 80m no frills commercial Trawler with 1-C ice strengthening would cost. Actually does the Navy have to pay and operate a Ross Sea ship? Could the Ministry of Fisheries, Antarctica NZ, Customs, DOC operate it and pay for it? I have also heard the argument lately that does the NZ Navy really have to do Oceanographic Surveying and pay for the replacement of the Resolution? These were good issues raised during the recent Defence Forum I attended. It’s not like the Navy has a mortgage on maritime activities.

ZULU
27th October 2009, 18:39
These were good issues raised during the recent Defence Forum I attended. It’s not like the Navy has a mortgage on maritime activities.

Do you mind me asking what you do in relation to attending these Defence Forums? And who attends and organises these forums?

Just curious.

Te Kaha
27th October 2009, 23:05
Do you mind me asking what you do in relation to attending these Defence Forums? And who attends and organises these forums?

Just curious.

No problem. They are organised by the Defence Ministry. We in NZ are going through a Defence White Paper process. The first time in 13 years. The public and various departmental officials are invited to attend the forums throughout venues spread around the country. It gives the public the chance to give their opinions about the future defence direction. The forums are attended by the DefMin, Assoc DefMin, senior DefMin officials, and usually a Senior NZDF officer. They get to present there 'where its at' speech and the public who made written submissions get to challenge them and say their bit. You get the loonies of course but you also get people with real knowledge, recently retired Brigadiers and Rear Admirals who give the DefMin / Politicians side a bloodly good going over, which is actually great entertainment.

ZULU
28th October 2009, 02:31
If only we could take a leaf out of your operating manual! Or does something like that happen here? I've never been aware of it. Thanks for the info. Sounds like a great way of engaging some who might have some good advice.

Te Kaha
29th October 2009, 03:29
If only we could take a leaf out of your operating manual! Or does something like that happen here? I've never been aware of it. Thanks for the info. Sounds like a great way of engaging some who might have some good advice.

We actually stole the idea from the Australians,:eek: who have had a solid history in involving the general public and ex defence people their input into Defence. The result being that over time Australia has evolved into a first class military that has strong public support, a public who understands what national security is about and generally do not mind a measured and robust spending plan. Essentially the White Paper in 1997 also had the public forum format as well as Public Submissions and the publics opportunity to appear before the Foreign Affairs and Defence Select Committee as part of the process. Its a very good open transparent system that tests the officials and also gives the politicians a reality check.

Sea Toby
1st November 2009, 05:02
We actually stole the idea from the Australians,:eek: Its a very good open transparent system that tests the officials and also gives the politicians a reality check.

Well the Australians developed this process after totally blowing their defense preparations before WWII. A nation learns much about the usefulness of an air force after being bombed over two hundred straight days with their best fighter being a few gypsy moths. There for a while their only fighter aircraft were ex-German Messersmiths which had been captured on the ground. They weren't of much use defending Australia being in North Africa.

As I recall Australia at the beginning of WWII didn't have any tanks, any submarines, or much of any fighter aircraft. I know the depression wasn't of any help building up their defense forces....many other nations had the same problems financially....

paul g
1st November 2009, 12:43
If only we could take a leaf out of your operating manual! Or does something like that happen here? I've never been aware of it. Thanks for the info. Sounds like a great way of engaging some who might have some good advice.

the department called for submissions from all parties regarding the last defence white paper, and recieved one from a golf club

Test Pilot
2nd November 2009, 19:25
the department called for submissions from all parties regarding the last defence white paper, and recieved one from a golf club

Brilliant! :biggrin:

ZULU
2nd November 2009, 19:59
the department called for submissions from all parties regarding the last defence white paper, and recieved one from a golf club

From all political parties? Or from public? Where did they advertise this request? Just interested to know. Thanks.

Heres the Aussie method

http://www.defence.gov.au/whitepaper/readsubmissions.htm

DeV
2nd November 2009, 21:53
It could have been the Curragh Golf Club

Sea Toby
6th November 2009, 18:44
The ice belt is the problem what with 100 tonnes overweight it brings. And it’s too low to be considered within safe operating margins even for first year ice. Also the weight distribution makes it not ideal for sustained patrols south of Stewart Island in winter and Auckland Island in the summer.

I’m of the view that maybe the whole Southern Ocean tasking should be abandoned by the Protector Vessels and the OPV’s Ice Belt removed losing the excess 100 tonnes of weight, and hopefully curing the vessel of its stability issues. There is more than enough patrol work for the OPV’s north of 47 degrees South around our EEZ as well as the South Pacific Dependencies, which have not seen regular RNZN patrols for over a decade. New Zealand, along with Australia and Brazil, is one of just three countries to be granted sovereign rights to its continental shelf by the United Nations. We now have rights over 5.45 million sq km of our continental shelf - an area three times the size of France.
Of course it would mean that at least a new vessel would be required.

The Australian Customs vessel Ocean Viking would have been the right vessel for the tasking needs in the Ross Sea or NZ’s National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) a government entity, which operates the 70m, ice strengthen (1-C) RV Tangaroa. Both also would have also been able to stow and deliver all those awkward and larger items down to Scott Base during the busy summer season on the ice for the Antarctica NZ programme that the US currently assists with when they have spare capacity. The Ocean Viking is putting on over 200 patrol days a year in the South Ocean which is quite an impressive workload. The RV Tangaroa has a respectable 60 day endurance and was bought new in 1991 for $27 million as a specialist research ship. Much of that cost though was due to the specialist scientific equipment required. I wonder what a good large 70 to 80m no frills commercial Trawler with 1-C ice strengthening would cost. Actually does the Navy have to pay and operate a Ross Sea ship? Could the Ministry of Fisheries, Antarctica NZ, Customs, DOC operate it and pay for it? I have also heard the argument lately that does the NZ Navy really have to do Oceanographic Surveying and pay for the replacement of the Resolution? These were good issues raised during the recent Defence Forum I attended. It’s not like the Navy has a mortgage on maritime activities.

I am of the opinion an Otago OPV can be designed for multiple purposes with plug in containers built for different missions, similar to the Spanish BAM or the US LCS. I can see such an OPV being capable of not only patrolling, but mine hunting, oceanographic, dive tendering, and/or hydrographic missions properly one mission at a time. One ship, not five ships. Change the container modules to use the ship for a different mission. Of course this would require five container modules designed specifically for each of the missions. Plug and play.... Keep in mind the Otago's can carry three containers and has a workdeck below the helicopter deck. I would think NZ would require two such vessels. One for patrolling/mine hunting, with the other geared more for oceanographic/hydrographic work. But when faced with a huge mine hunting task, both can be used as such with a switch of the container modules. Not to mention the current two OPVs. From zero mine hunters to four, although at a cost of doing other missions for a short period of time.

Canada is doing something similar with their new patrol boats/corvettes, at a smaller scale, being able to be switched to a mine hunting role with a change of a container and equipped with mine countermeasures equipment. Most of the time they are used as patrol boats, but one of the twelve always has mine countermeasures gear aboard. I believe the Canadians have bought four mine hunting container mission modules.

While I will admit its not the best whatever, being able to multi-task when appropriate is nice with a small number of ships especially for a small navy. Even the largest navy is thinking in the same terms. More bang for the buck.

Lordinajamjar
6th November 2009, 23:08
More bang for the buck.


It's a great idea. :biggrin:


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lMEuEF9-UbU&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lMEuEF9-UbU&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

ZULU
7th November 2009, 16:48
Foud a video of HMNZS Canterbury doing Amphip drills

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/U4HiClWmils&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/U4HiClWmils&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

madmark
7th November 2009, 19:18
nice video

Lucasnz
12th December 2009, 03:01
The RNZN has deployed the delivery crew for the first OPV HMNZS Otago. Reports in the Dominion post say that BAE have solved the weight problem and that other issues are stil to be resolved.

Lucasnz
22nd February 2010, 03:51
The RNZN has taken delivery of its first Ocean Patrol Vessel HMNZS Otago. It is due to arrive in New Zealand late March. The final ship in Project Protector HMNZS Wellington is due to be handed over to the RNZN in April.

The OPV's are less than 100 tonnes overweight that delayed their delivery but still heavier than first planned. The RNZN has also assigned the OPV's the roles of Military Hydrography, MCM and Diving support vessels.

Sea Toby
7th March 2010, 23:21
The agreement to finally receive the OPVs, including the shortfalls of the contract specifications, BAE is returning NZ $85 million of a NZ $470 million contract. New Zealand will use much of these funds to fund fixing the problems with the Canterbury....

Turns out the ice strengthening of the OPVs isn't as bad as they thought, that the vessels will be useful in the Southern Ocean, although any additional weight will have to be watched and prevented in the future. :n:)

easyrider
8th March 2010, 10:59
.....
Turns out the ice strengthening of the OPVs isn't as bad as they thought, that the vessels will be useful in the Southern Ocean, although any additional weight will have to be watched and prevented in the future. :n:)

Just wondering how that squares with what was mentioned earlier, that "The RNZN has also assigned the OPV's the roles of Military Hydrography, MCM and Diving support vessels." Would these responsibilities not all involve carrying extra weight?

ZULU
8th March 2010, 11:02
I'm thinking it relates to structural additions rather than payload packages such as containers for ROV control, re compression chambers, towed side scan sonar arrays etc.

Goldie fish
8th March 2010, 16:20
Kiwi Navy need to start learning about loadlines then.

ZULU
8th March 2010, 16:39
Agin, I'm thinking that they've taken into account their possible mission payloads and then referring to any additional weight is what their mentioning. Meh

yooklid
8th March 2010, 16:51
Kiwi Navy need to start learning about loadlines then.

That comment is going to draw flack in 5... 4... 3... 2...

Lucasnz
9th March 2010, 07:10
Kiwi Navy need to start learning about loadlines then.

And indeed they are and more.

The RNZN like the RN left the stability issues to the Marine Engineers. I can remember the MEO walking up to the foscle and reading the depth and doing the same with the stern on the Leanders (Load line and I suspect stability checked). With the advent of Canterbury and review of seamanship in the wake of the loss of a RHIB all Seaman officers, in addition to Marine Engineers, now receive training in stability.

The lack of knowledge about stability etc in the RNZN was evident when an RNZNVR officer who held a Master Mariners ticket did a stability caculation on one of the old Moa class patrol craft about 8 years ago. Shortly afterwards the boats received additional ballast.

Sea Toby
11th March 2010, 07:27
If only the Irish Naval Service could do as well as the RNZN. Considering at the moment a Euro is worth 1.9 NZ dollars, the Project Protector fleet of seven ships were bought with 247 million Euros, with 45 million Euros being refunded. In other words they did well with seven ships for 202 million Euros. Two OPVs, four IPVs, and one MRV. Not bad at all...

The Irish Naval Service currently operates three former UK Peacock patrol ships whose length is only 62.6 meters while the four NZ IPVs are 56 meters in length as are the new RAN Armidale class patrol boats. If they are good enough for Australia and New Zealand EEZ's, they are probably good enough for the Irish EEZ....

I shall compare the eventual price for the OPVs Ireland will order soon with what New Zealand acquired. I expect the new Irish OPVs will run over 50 million Euros each.... One wonders whether the INS could use some IPVs as well with some OPVs.

DeV
11th March 2010, 08:41
The CPVs are of limited use to the NS due to there size it is more cost effective to replace them with OPVs.

Goldie fish
11th March 2010, 09:22
The OPVs were looked at by INS people, they recoiled in horror when the internal bulkhead layout was shown to them. Two engines in one space? Thats a recipie for disaster.

zone 1
11th March 2010, 16:45
If only the Irish Naval Service could do as well as the RNZN. Considering at the moment a Euro is worth 1.9 NZ dollars, the Project Protector fleet of seven ships were bought with 247 million Euros, with 45 million Euros being refunded. In other words they did well with seven ships for 202 million Euros. Two OPVs, four IPVs, and one MRV. Not bad at all...

The Irish Naval Service currently operates three former UK Peacock patrol ships whose length is only 62.6 meters while the four NZ IPVs are 56 meters in length as are the new RAN Armidale class patrol boats. If they are good enough for Australia and New Zealand EEZ's, they are probably good enough for the Irish EEZ....

I shall compare the eventual price for the OPVs Ireland will order soon with what New Zealand acquired. I expect the new Irish OPVs will run over 50 million Euros each.... One wonders whether the INS could use some IPVs as well with some OPVs.

can we see our project of new ships going ahead with the state of the country i did but not now beds in hospital wards or a LPV ship hospitals wins this goverment does not give a SXXT about our navy ..................

Goldie fish
11th March 2010, 17:15
The Irish Naval Service currently operates three former UK Peacock patrol ships whose length is only 62.6 meters while the four NZ IPVs are 56 meters in length as are the new RAN Armidale class patrol boats. If they are good enough for Australia and New Zealand EEZ's, they are probably good enough for the Irish EEZ.....


We operate two Peacocks, and they were bought by an opportunist Taoiseach, to fulfil a role that is now more practically carried out by much smaller, inshore craft. They replaced(albeit with a gap) Second Hand Consiton class Minesweepers, which were of similar size, and acceptable for the time.
The Peacocks were never considered EEZ patrol vessels, and concentrated on coastal work. They are wholly unsuitable for Offshore patrolling, where the majority of our work lies. We do not have sheltered tropical islands to be protecting. What NZ protectorates lie at 51-52 South??

THREAD SPLIT ALERT!!!

zone 1
11th March 2010, 19:05
but Goldie as the saying goes take what you are given . i mean when we got those 2 ships they were state of the art for us proper warships.. sea Toby would want to see the south or west coast in bad weather on a peacock its not nice

Goldie fish
11th March 2010, 21:30
Not really. The only thing that was better than what we already had aboard was sprint speed and main armament. Everything else was a step back.

zone 1
11th March 2010, 21:51
Not really. The only thing that was better than what we already had aboard was sprint speed and main armament. Everything else was a step back.

accommodation. size of ship i cant see how the peacock could have been a step back they were only 4 years old when we got them

Goldie fish
12th March 2010, 03:38
accommodation. size of ship i cant see how the peacock could have been a step back they were only 4 years old when we got them

Accom was a huge step back compared to the P20s and Eithne.

zone 1
12th March 2010, 13:22
but Goldie it had to be alot better than what it was after replacing wooden ship

Goldie fish
12th March 2010, 16:06
but Goldie it had to be alot better than what it was after replacing wooden ship

Not really. The wood hull was never a disadvantage. It was a direct replacement, in that it had "messdecks" and more space for machinery than for crew. However, the Minesweepers were also the last "true" warships of the Naval Service.

But neither of us served on them, though the more senior types on here may like to give their opinions.

zone 1
12th March 2010, 16:22
never said i did Goldie i heard great stories about them... but how can u say a wood hull is better than steel when we got the minesweepers they had there time done when we got the corvettes they were finished the peacocks were outstanding purchase for our navy .

Goldie fish
12th March 2010, 16:24
Given the options available, they were. But that was long ago.

What was your point again?

zone 1
12th March 2010, 16:33
not trying to make one????

Goldie fish
12th March 2010, 17:06
Blasted interweb stalled as I was replying.

In any case, my reply has **** all to do with the NZ situation..

MODS!! Thread split!

golden rivet
13th March 2010, 12:02
you could not compare a sweeper with a peacock... having served on both the comparisions with accomadation and mess decks are huge .. messmen had to use a bucket to wash all the delph.. a large cylinder was all we had for showers and washing.. one television for all the crew in an area designed as accomadation .. if certain hatches were open diesel/engine fumes flooded all areas..when a shoot took place the vent system sucked in all cordite fumes into accomadation. no laundry facilities only down aft with deck scrubber and bucket.. these are just a small few that come to mind but we had great crews and once the cook was good it made a huge difference.. 2 seamen refused a transfer to p23 as they preferred the unity of the crew on the sweeper .as for the peacocks they have a lot of good points with a few minor ones

sofa
13th March 2010, 22:41
also the sweepers I'am told would roll on a wet dishcloth

Goldie fish
13th March 2010, 22:42
No, thats the corvettes.

golden rivet
15th March 2010, 00:15
not to go on about them as im sure other members sailed on them one advantage was they had a seperate wheelhouse . so only voice contact with the bridge and the helmsman and stand by were there so normal conversation could take place and smoke your heart out without any complaints from the officer of the watch

Kea
22nd March 2010, 23:43
We operate two Peacocks, and they were bought by an opportunist Taoiseach, to fulfil a role that is now more practically carried out by much smaller, inshore craft. They replaced(albeit with a gap) Second Hand Consiton class Minesweepers, which were of similar size, and acceptable for the time.
The Peacocks were never considered EEZ patrol vessels, and concentrated on coastal work. They are wholly unsuitable for Offshore patrolling, where the majority of our work lies. We do not have sheltered tropical islands to be protecting. What NZ protectorates lie at 51-52 South??

THREAD SPLIT ALERT!!!

Auckland and Campbell Island Groups / Ross Sea Dependancy

Dogwatch
29th March 2010, 22:17
The Navy's new ship, HMNZS Otago, has delayed its New Zealand arrival after engine problems hit it over the weekend off Australia.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_GEtV6gA23xk/S6c3zuZEFeI/AAAAAAAABY4/RUdV9gUfFbQ/s1600/2007-annual-report-opv-otago.jpg

HMNZS Otago, an offshore patrol ship (OPV), was to have arrived in Auckland on Friday.

Instead it is back at Williamstown in Melbourne where it has been tied up for two years in a financial dispute with its builders.

Navy spokesman Commander Phil Bradshaw said Otago was doing sea trials off Melbourne when they had a fuel injection problem on one engine. They were fixing it when an alarm went off on the other engine.

"They felt it prudent to return to dock to ensure the engines were perfect before they left," he said.

He said the ship is under-warranty.

The ship returned under its own power and there was no danger.

The first engine has been fixed but the second engine needs a new manifold gasket.

It has to be obtained from MAN Engines in Germany but Commander Bradshaw said it was possible that one could be found in Australia.

"If that is so then Otago could be heading for home by the end of the week."

Otago, part of Project Protector, had been caught in a dispute with Australian shipbuilder BAE Systems.

It has agreed to pay nearly $85 million to fix problems with the navy's fleet of seven new ships.

Much of this money will be needed to modify the new multi-role ship HMNZS Canterbury to enable it to operate as designed and cope with rough weather without suffering damage.

The Offshore Patrol Vessels deliver substantial new capability to the Royal New Zealand Navy.

The ships can go further offshore, stay at sea longer, and conduct more challenging operations than the Inshore Patrol Vessels, and will enable the RNZN to conduct patrol and surveillance operations around New Zealand, the southern ocean and into the Pacific.

The OPV's are capable of many roles including maritime patrol, surveillance and response. They have the ability to conduct helicopter operations using a Seasprite SH2G helicopter and boarding operations using the ship's Rigid Hull Inflatable Boats.

The OPV's have strengthened hulls which enable them to enter southern waters where ice may be encountered. They are not designed as ice-breakers or to enter Antarctic ice-packs, but have the range and capability to undertake patrols in the southern ocean where ice may be encountered.

The ships are highly automated and operate with a core crew of 35, plus a flight crew of 10 to operate a helicopter. The ships power and control systems are fully computerised.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3488865/New-navy-ship-breaks-down

Lucasnz
10th April 2010, 06:18
HMNZS Otago arrived in Auckland yesterday. I've included a photo below, curtsey of the the RNZN on Flickr. HMNZS Canterbury has undergone modifications to her funnel to improve stability and sea keeping in a beam sea.

Goldie fish
11th April 2010, 10:03
Looks good. Apart from dinky gun of course.

zone 1
11th April 2010, 10:48
would that be 30m gun on her. and a crew of 35 we should learn from them

Goldie fish
11th April 2010, 11:42
No. They should learn from us. These vessels are based on the Design of Roisin, and they have had nothing but trouble from them since they were first launched, in 2006! Four years on they finally enter service, with huge restrictions on their capabilities, compared to what they were designed to do. One engine room is a very bad idea too.
The gun is a 25mm Bushmaster.

Stoker
11th April 2010, 12:22
They have to send to Germany for a gasket! They must be having worse cutbacks than us.

PS I am sure there is more to it than that.

zone 1
11th April 2010, 12:40
No. They should learn from us. These vessels are based on the Design of Roisin, and they have had nothing but trouble from them since they were first launched, in 2006! Four years on they finally enter service, with huge restrictions on their capabilities, compared to what they were designed to do. One engine room is a very bad idea too.
The gun is a 25mm Bushmaster.

we still have ships with one engine room we should have been changing that when we had purchased aisling back in the 80s.. why is there only one engine room bad design ?

Goldie fish
11th April 2010, 12:55
We built aisling with one engine room, it had an engine room fire. 2 men got DSMs saving the ship. All ships built since then for the Naval service have had 2 Engine rooms. If one engine goes U/s due to fire or even flooding, the other can continue operating unaffected.

It's all about damage control.

I notice the Kiwi OPVs use commercial MAN engines and Gennies. Only slightly more powerful than our Wartsila/Cat combination. I wonder was there much advantage, as it doesn't seem like there was much difference in the engineering space required.

zone 1
11th April 2010, 13:27
could it be down to good deal they got from MAN maybe..we seem to use alot of cat engines we have them on the LPV HPV and the CPV if it works keep it .. what would be the better choice MAN or wartsila plus are warsila used in alot of navies as choice of engine......

Marius
11th April 2010, 18:29
Looks good. Apart from dinky gun of course.

Yes. The gun is pathetic. Chalk up another one for the bean counters.

Kea
12th April 2010, 06:39
The original intent was a 57mm/76mm I think, the 25mm does make sence from a logistical perspective with the army having the same weapon (25mm) on the LAV's (I agree a bigger gun would look alot better), the ANZACS of course have the 127mm.

The weapon still gives the ability to send a strong message accurately out to a kilometre or so, and as likely recipients would either be unarmed or lightly so it should be more than adequate for the job, having the helicopter deployed should make up for any shortcomings from the gun. An AGM-65 can be then used on the more troublesome customers.

Lucasnz
12th April 2010, 21:22
The original intent was a 57mm/76mm I think, the 25mm does make sence from a logistical perspective with the army having the same weapon (25mm) on the LAV's (I agree a bigger gun would look alot better), the ANZACS of course have the 127mm.

You are correct. The Maritime Forces review indicated that a 76mm was required on both the OPV and MRV. Apparently the need to replace the Moa class IPV contributed heavily to the deletion of the 57/76mm requirement.


The weapon still gives the ability to send a strong message accurately out to a kilometre or so, and as likely recipients would either be unarmed or lightly so it should be more than adequate for the job, having the helicopter deployed should make up for any shortcomings from the gun. An AGM-65 can be then used on the more troublesome customers.

Agree that a 25mm would be able to deal with most situations. However the lack of a dedicated air weapons magazine hinders the ability to deploy the AGM-65. There are ways around it, but there must be issues about getting them onto the flight deck (eg the container poisiton aft).