|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jun 4, 2007 0:23:14 GMT 12
I see on the NZDF site that the new HMNZS Canterbury has now been handed over to the Navy www.nzdf.mil.nz/news/media-releases/20070601-nshotn.htmI have to say it is the ugliest boat I've ever seen. Where did the design come from? Is it a NATO standard design? I personally cannot see why on earth the Government has wasted money on all these new ships for the Navy. Navies are so outdated and obsolete unless they are an aircraft carrier force. Anything else is a total waste of defence dollars and irrellevant. If I had my way the Navy would be scrapped entirely and better coast guard and MAF border patrol services would be built up to replace it.
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Jun 4, 2007 1:46:22 GMT 12
"The MRV is intended to provide a sealift capability for the transport and deployment of equipment, vehicles and personnel, and to be capable of transferring cargo and personnel ashore when port facilities are not available."
This seems like a perfectly reasonable capability in regard to potential deployments in the South Pacific and elsewhere. The design is from a commercial RollOn & RollOff (Ro-Ro) cargo vessel according to your weblink.
"Tenix's MRV as a design based on a commercial Ro-Ro ship, BEN-MY-CHREE in operation in the Irish Sea."
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Jun 4, 2007 13:46:47 GMT 12
I personally cannot see why on earth the Government has wasted money on all these new ships for the Navy. Navies are so outdated and obsolete unless they are an aircraft carrier force. Anything else is a total waste of defence dollars and irrellevant. If I had my way the Navy would be scrapped entirely and better coast guard and MAF border patrol services would be built up to replace it. If you have a look at the Government defence outputs the roles of the IPC and OPV very much support the latter tasks. See www.defence.govt.nz/reports-publications/election-brief-2005/votes-defence.htmlEvery one of the new ships is capable of carrying at least one helicopter so the government has brought a whole fleet of mini carriers ;D
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jun 4, 2007 13:58:01 GMT 12
My point is the Navy now has a commercial roll on roll off ferry. For the little it'd be used, the Govt would be better off merely hiring a commercial roll on roll off ferry as and when the emergency arises. Surely it'd be cheaper?
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Jun 4, 2007 16:36:54 GMT 12
Certainly a nice big fat target with those slab sides - looks like an APC on steriods! ;D
But like the RAAF found out, it's not always easy to convince a commmercial operator to let you take their aircraft or ships into war zones during a conflict, or to carry stuff that goes bang as cargo.
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Jun 4, 2007 16:41:28 GMT 12
I think a point has been missed by your question / statement regarding the new MRV. The NZDF website URL above indicates that 'trainees' will be onboard as well as other personnel so I would gather the MRV (as the name suggests - MultiRoleVessel) will be a training ship as well as carrying helicopters / troops / heavy equipment. You name it - I would guess it can carry it as well as take on a Chinook and its cargo. This MRV can discharge the military cargo in difficult sea conditions. I doubt if it is going to be a civilian Ro-Ro Ferry. One trouble with hiring equipment and crews in emergency conditions is that such arrangements imply that the level of risk to the non-military crew is slight. Then there is the matter of training of such crews for the military role. Probably the civilian vessel would need to be modified (and modified back?). If a military force becomes only a peace-keeping force that responds to civilian disasters only then it is no longer a war-fighting defence force. Personally I don't see any issue with the MRV. It appears from the evidence available online to be a very capable ship with plenty of flexibility that will mean it will be well used by the Navy, Army and the Air Force - if that latter service is deployed in a remote island location for example. www.ben-my-chree.fsnet.co.uk/General%20Arrangement.htm__________________________________________________ Interesting historical footnote about the unusual name and use in WW1: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Ben-my-ChreeHMS Ben-my-Chree was built as a fast passenger ferry, the third to bear her name, in 1908 by Vickers for the England–Isle of Man route and taken over by the Royal Navy as a seaplane carrier during World War I. Her name means Lady of My Heart in Manx. As built, she had a capacity of 2,500 passengers in two classes but she was chartered by the Royal Navy on 1 January 1915 and converted to a seaplane carrier by Cammell Laird in Birkenhead. A hangar occupied much of the aft part of the ship with cranes at the back for lifting the seaplanes from the sea. A flying off deck covered most of the forward part, and a workshop for aircraft maintenance was also added.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jun 5, 2007 1:43:34 GMT 12
If a military force becomes only a peace-keeping force that responds to civilian disasters only then it is no longer a war-fighting defence force. . Umm, hello, and your point is? This is New Zealand mate, they're not allowed to do anything that involves shooting nowadays. It's all peacekeeping and no "war-fighting." Especially not the Navy, when was the last time they were deployed anywhere dangerous onboard a ship? WWII? It's a joke purchasing something like the new Canterbury, they should not have bought a ferry for the Navy full stop. They should have bought decent new transport aircraft, and no doubt an entire squadron could be equipped for the price of one bloody ferry. Aircraft - Faster, more usable and more efficient all around. Cargo ships? Total waste of money.
|
|
|
Post by conman on Jun 5, 2007 8:20:31 GMT 12
Yes but it is hard to transport the LAV's very far in the C130's, and unless the government decides to shell out for some nice new shiny C17s then the MRV is not a bad way to go, it just needs a proper gun (76mm) and some defensive systems, apart from that it is a very economical amphibious assault ship and helicopter carrier
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jun 5, 2007 8:32:05 GMT 12
Yes I see your point Conman (welcome to the forum too by the way), but just how often is the Army to be deployed overseas with its vehicles, etc? Not enough to warrant buying a ship in my opinion. Surely chartering a civilian cargo boat for a one-off trip as it arises every couple of years rather than maintaining a ship pottering about in the harbour for decades is more economical?
And we never deploy without allies, so why can they not be asked to help with transport like they always have in the past?
I guess my opinion on the obsolescence of the RNZN and its wasting of precious defence budget is not one shared here. Not a worry.
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Jun 5, 2007 9:23:41 GMT 12
I think my point has been restated by others that the "Ro-Ro" MRV is more than a simple cargo ship.
It is capable of carrying armed helicopters whilst also carrying much spares and ammunition for them. This makes the MRV offensive to targets it can defeat. I would imagine that your Army (if carried) would be interested to augment whatever ship defence is used with their own battlefield anti-air weapons. These are deployed like the armed helos on the flight deck. You may not be aware that in the past (probably too long ago now) that the Australian Army deployed man-portable anti-aircraft missiles on RAN ships as required. Don't know the score today.
Perhaps HMAS Manoora being deployed off Fiji recently did not get the same coverage in New Zealand. However the media went to great pains, as did the Australian Government, to point out that the vessel was not a threat - although it could have been if required. Ostensibly the Manoora was there to evacuate Australian citizens with Army and Navy helicopters. Whether other troops and types of equipment were carried is not clear (deliberately). Although it would be clear that Manoora has a self-defence capability.
Your new MRV can be such an egnigma. It is capable of carrying all kinds of military hardware that can be deployed from the ship itself. Or it can just carry boxes of stuff.
|
|
|
Post by conman on Jun 5, 2007 9:48:39 GMT 12
The MRV concept is one that is being embraced by quite a few countries currently, it gives you alot of options logistically especially around the heavy equipment, where using air transport is not that cost effective (or time is not super critical). The ability to hangar 4 NH90 in addition to an embarked SeaSprite is also pretty useful, hopefully the new LUH when selected will also find a temporary home on this vessel (looks likely an A109 derivative).
Would be good to see at least a CIWS for some degree of anti-air protection in addition to any embarked MANPAD capability, would probably require a Frigate escort if ever deployed to a "hot-zone"
I have to admit it is not the best looking vessel out there but it certainly brings alot of new capability to the RNZN and indeed the NZDF as a whole as both Army and Air Force are also likely to use it.
|
|
|
Post by flyjoe180 on Jun 5, 2007 10:36:23 GMT 12
Well, capability and role aside, it sure is a very ugly ship!
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Jun 5, 2007 21:28:57 GMT 12
so what would you call a beautiful ship...... I think the Canterbury is going to be agreat asset for not only the RNZN but the whole NZ Defence force and other agencies within NZ. It is certainly going to be a force multiplier and so much more than the "lemon" they bought and tried to do the job withunsuccessfully. Yes I will go go down and check it out when it arrives here in Lyttleton at the end of the month.
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Jun 5, 2007 22:14:39 GMT 12
I agree, we have tried the "cheap conversion of a civil vessel" before and found the only thing it usefully do was cart oranges around the middle east. certainly had a citrus flavour to it. The MRV vessel is ideal for NZs needs and I think we'll get great milage out of the new Canterbury. With the new Helos servicing it, it should be adaptable to many roles - more so than a fleet of expensive air freighters (although they would be nice as well....) Reports I have heard suggest that it is very well made and fitted out, and is much awaited by the Navy. I'm sure that defenive firepower upgrades will be considered down the track, especially of the world situation deteriorates.
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Jun 6, 2007 21:24:35 GMT 12
Especially not the Navy, when was the last time they were deployed anywhere dangerous onboard a ship? WWII?
I believe the very recent revelations on the Christmas Island testing certainly qualify as dangerous however perhaps you should read up on RNZN history - Korea and to a lesser extent Borneo. Similarly the 'standby' role of the Skyhawks in the initial lodgment into East Timor was recently raised on this group. The Navy were there as well as was an Indonesian submarine. They should have bought decent new transport aircraft, and no doubt an entire squadron could be equipped for the price of one bloody ferry. Aircraft - Faster, more usable and more efficient all around. Cargo ships? Total waste of money.
I was at a meeting with Air Force today discussing movement of two specific types of heavy equipment. Their judgement was, for most offshore requirements, consider use of MRV in preference to C-130! Aircraft have their place, so do military ships.
Paul
|
|
rocco
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 71
|
Post by rocco on Jun 6, 2007 22:02:56 GMT 12
They should have bought decent new transport aircraft, and no doubt an entire squadron could be equipped for the price of one bloody ferry. Aircraft - Faster, more usable and more efficient all around. Cargo ships? Total waste of money.
It's no wonder it's taken so long to get this capability. The project was conceived in the early 1980s. Defence spent twenty years arguing about what the project should look like, and in the mean time, they got nothing.
Let's get real. Canterbury costs about the same as one herc to purchase, and about the same to operate each year. As a transport asset, one ship trumps one aircraft for most deployments.
And as for the comment about an entire squadron being able to be purchased for the cost of a ferry -the 4 NH90s Canterbury can carry costs more than the ship does.
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Jun 6, 2007 22:04:07 GMT 12
A few other things that the Canterbury can provide that an aircraft or number of aircraft can't:
- remain on station measured in days not hours - make fresh water - provide command and control facilities - provide secure base to lodge from and return to - provide medical treatment facilities - provide meals - carry and store bulk stores including dangerous goods
Paul
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jun 6, 2007 22:09:33 GMT 12
Having read many opinions and comments here, I am fully willing to concede that perhaps I am wrong. Everyone else seems to think this ship is a great idea. I'm yet to be convinced.
My point was never that ships are not useful, and in particular this type of ship is obviously useful for various reasons. I was only saying that buying one instead of the occassional lease of one for specific purposes seems a waste of money. Is it really going to be on the high seas transporting helicopters and troops and LAV's all year around? I doubt it. Someone mentioned it's also to be used as a training ship - why didn't they keep Canterbury (the Frigate) for that purpose instead!!!!??
Anyway, all I was trying to say was it's not like the NZDF doesn't already lease aircraft and hire civilians for certain tasks to save money already, why not ships? Hell, all our troopships in WWII were civil liners borrowd for the purpose. That's all I'm saying.
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Jun 6, 2007 23:50:36 GMT 12
Is it really going to be on the high seas transporting helicopters and troops and LAV's all year around? I doubt it. Someone mentioned it's also to be used as a training ship - why didn't they keep Canterbury (the Frigate) for that purpose instead!!!!?? Thats the whole point it is a Multi role (I hope not roll ;D) ship - transport - patrol - training Anyway, all I was trying to say was it's not like the NZDF doesn't already lease aircraft and hire civilians for certain tasks to save money already, why not ships? Hell, all our troopships in WWII were civil liners borrowd for the purpose. That's all I'm saying.[/quote] You generally can't carry munitions and the lead time to lease a ship is quite significant and . For instance the availability of a ship determined the whole deployment timetable of the NZ force to Bosnia and they won't go into harms way. And guess what, the good old US arms regs limit under what flags you can transport US supplied techonology
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jun 7, 2007 0:12:20 GMT 12
Oh well, I guess everyone's right. I've learned a few things I must say. That's what's good though, we can debate from different points of view and discuss the issues, and some of us learn from it. I've never been much of a fan of the navy so I defer to the greater knowledge here. Thanks everyone.
|
|