|
|
Post by foxcover on Nov 11, 2019 22:39:51 GMT 12
Pair of Makassar class would do nicely! When you replace a capability, the accepted defence procurement theory is that you replace it with something that so that you don't lose any capability and that it will improve your capabilities for the next 20 years or so, because it will have room for upgrading during a MLU. This means not just in quality but also in quantity because when you acquire in low numbers like NZ does then quantity definitely has a quality of its own. We see that with the frigates, OPV, P-8 & C-130J. You mean like how NZ are replacing 5 hercs with...5 hercs!! There’s 8+ Makassar/Tarlac type in service now, can’t be that bad and they’re good value. |
|
|
|
Post by nighthawknz on Nov 11, 2019 23:13:47 GMT 12
Pair of Makassar class would do nicely! The only real enhancement they really give over Canterbury is that has a well dock... While Makassar LPD meets some of the requirements (well dock) it actually lacks in others area's ie; HMNZS Canterbury can carry 250+ Troops vs Makassar 218 but upto 500 personal (including crew) for short term. There is no number given for Canterbury short term for troops. The DCP 2019 asks for the ability to carry more (and that would be long), and in my opinion the Makassar is not much more than what Canterbury can do now and would not be much of an enhancement to what we have other than having the well-dock. HMNZS Canterbury can carry three medium-sized NH-90 (use to be 4) plus a Seaprite, while Makassar states it can carry five helicopters, it doesn't actually say what size. Although the actual flight deck would be about the same as Canterbury and land x2 Mil Mi 7 apparently ie; Canterbury could probably fit five SeaSprites into the hangar... as they smaller than the NH-90...(not saying she actually can) but you get the idea . Overall they are slightly smaller & slower than HMNZS Canterbury.
| Canterbury | Makassar | | Length | 131m | 125m | | Beam | 23.5m | 22m | | Draught | 5.4m | 4.9m | | Displacement | 9000t standard | 8400t standard
11,394t full | | Speed | 20kn | 16kn | | Range | 8000nm @ 16kn
6000nm @ 18kn | 10,000 @ 12kn | | Troops | 250 long | 218 long |
With the troop number if Canterbury is not carrying any trainees she can take on a few more troops, (including crew total of 366). As stated Canterbury has not got a number for short term troop numbers. The advantage Canterbury has with not having a well dock, is that space is used for taking vehicles and equipment, the ship has cargo space of 1,451 square metres of cargo space which is actually quite a lot so Makassar having a well dock ... it only says up to 40 infantry vehicles... not really stating size of the vehicles... how many LOV, or LAV Here is a typical load for Canterbury...The indicative cargo would encompass (as one possible loadout): 14 Pinzgauer Light Operational Vehicles, 16 NZLAV light armoured vehicles, 7 Unimog trucks, 2 ambulances, 2 flatbed trucks, 7 vehicle trailers, 2 rough terrain forklifts, 4 ATV-type vehicles and up to 33 20 ft TEU containers... If the containers aren't there... there is more space for vehicles and equipment... but the load is roughly 40 infantry vehicles (if not more) plus the containers. Again the DCP 2019 wants more a larger load capacity... These vessels are built pretty cheaply as well (35-45 Million USD) although would be more than this now as that was 2004/5... The DCP 2019 stats it is setting aside NZD 1 Billion+ you could probably get 8 or 9 of these, or get a decent truly enhanced sealift, with enhanced flight operations as well. My point is 1 Billion+ is a hell of a lot for and LPD (unless you get it built in the US, Canada or Europe...then well) Overall the only thing I can see the Makassar class can do better is it has a well dock. |
|
|
|
Post by nighthawknz on Nov 11, 2019 23:32:08 GMT 12
You mean like how NZ are replacing 5 hercs with...5 hercs!! There’s 8+ Makassar/Tarlac type in service now, can’t be that bad and they’re good value. Replace C-130H with C-130J-30 Super Hercules... The C-130J-30 Super Hercules is a bigger better, slightly faster more modern aircraft... So it is an improvement?    |
|
|
|
Post by foxcover on Nov 12, 2019 6:38:05 GMT 12
You mean like how NZ are replacing 5 hercs with...5 hercs!! There’s 8+ Makassar/Tarlac type in service now, can’t be that bad and they’re good value. Replace C-130H with C-130J-30 Super Hercules... The C-130J-30 Super Hercules is a bigger better, slightly faster more modern aircraft... So it is an improvement? [0% Can a super herc carry an LAV or NH90? Can it fly to Antarctica and return past the point of no return if there’s bad weather? |
|
|
|
Post by nighthawknz on Nov 12, 2019 11:33:36 GMT 12
Replace C-130H with C-130J-30 Super Hercules... The C-130J-30 Super Hercules is a bigger better, slightly faster more modern aircraft... So it is an improvement? Can a super herc carry an LAV or NH90? Can it fly to Antarctica and return past the point of no return if there’s bad weather? Whether it can or not isn’t really the issue... they are an upgrade to what we currently have... are they the best option is another issue and there is thread for that... The LAV striped fits int the current c-130h meaning they can in the c-130j-30 super here... and take it further... most of the time both LAV and NH-90 will go by sea hence this ...thread... As for Antartica that is why HMNZS Aotearoa has ice ice belt and ❄️ winterisation features taking fuel and 12 containers of dry goods and personnel in... then take back waste personnel and any cargo in one trip ... The point being it is still better than what we currently have. |
|
|
|
Post by senob on Nov 12, 2019 12:28:55 GMT 12
Replace C-130H with C-130J-30 Super Hercules... The C-130J-30 Super Hercules is a bigger better, slightly faster more modern aircraft... So it is an improvement? [0% Can a super herc carry an LAV or NH90? Can it fly to Antarctica and return past the point of no return if there’s bad weather? The C-130J-30 is for tactical airlift, not strategic airlift. In the NZ context moving the LAV or NH90 by air is a strategic airlift tasking. The main tasking requirements of the C-130J-30 are for tactical airlift do not include OP DEEP FREEZE PSR. That requirement is part of the strategic airlift requirement. It is thought that an airliner based capability similar to the B757-200 Combi will be the strategic airlift replacement and something along the lines of a B767 / A330 would be the contenders because they both have the range / payload capabilities desired. The term that the govt have used is "like for like". Whilst an A400M / KHI C2 platform would be the optimal solution, current govt statements, suggest that will not happen purely because of cost - budgetary concerns is the term usually bandied around. |
|
|
|
Post by nighthawknz on Nov 12, 2019 15:51:03 GMT 12
The C-130J-30 is for tactical airlift, not strategic airlift. In the NZ context moving the LAV or NH90 by air is a strategic airlift tasking. The main tasking requirements of the C-130J-30 are for tactical airlift do not include OP DEEP FREEZE PSR. That requirement is part of the strategic airlift requirement. It is thought that an airliner based capability similar to the B757-200 Combi will be the strategic airlift replacement and something along the lines of a B767 / A330 would be the contenders because they both have the range / payload capabilities desired. The term that the govt have used is "like for like". Whilst an A400M / KHI C2 platform would be the optimal solution, current govt statements, suggest that will not happen purely because of cost - budgetary concerns is the term usually bandied around. I would also say they didn't want to take the risks as the A400m is still having issues, the Kawaski C-2 is un-proven, and the Embraer's KC-390 is still in development... But this is off topic and should be another thread... |
|
|
|
Post by beegeetee on Nov 13, 2019 6:24:23 GMT 12
Pair of Makassar class would do nicely! Prior to the DCP I thought two Makassar class vessels would be a good option to replace the Canterbury, solely because we could get two vessels for the price of one. Having two sealift ships is vital to maintaining that capability even when one ship is down for maintenance. But the DCP states the new additional vessel will have a greater lift capability than the Canterbury and other advanced capabilities. The Makassar class doesn't meet those requirements and given the (surprisingly) generous budget, we're in the market for something much more capable. Having said that, Daesun might take their Makassar design and evolve it into a larger vessel that does meet NZ's requirements and submit that design. Who knows, but it will be interesting to see what designs the SK shipyards submit for the requirement. It could be anything from an evolved Makassar to a Dokdo lite. |
|
|
|
Post by pepe on Nov 13, 2019 19:51:49 GMT 12
When you replace a capability, the accepted defence procurement theory is that you replace it with something that so that you don't lose any capability and that it will improve your capabilities for the next 20 years or so, because it will have room for upgrading during a MLU. This means not just in quality but also in quantity because when you acquire in low numbers like NZ does then quantity definitely has a quality of its own. We see that with the frigates, OPV, P-8 & C-130J. You mean like how NZ are replacing 5 hercs with...5 hercs!! There’s 8+ Makassar/Tarlac type in service now, can’t be that bad and they’re good value. To play Devil's advocate, has it actually been confirmed we are getting 5 new aircraft? All the quotes/references I have seen refer to " up to 5 aircraft". A slowing economy and politicians being politicians... |
|
|
|
Post by gibbo on Nov 13, 2019 20:47:04 GMT 12
You mean like how NZ are replacing 5 hercs with...5 hercs!! There’s 8+ Makassar/Tarlac type in service now, can’t be that bad and they’re good value. To play Devil's advocate, has it actually been confirmed we are getting 5 new aircraft? All the quotes/references I have seen refer to " up to 5 aircraft". A slowing economy and politicians being politicians... You're right to ask because publicly at least there's is no confirmation of numbers... Govt probably has a 'preferred' number... I'd suggest that is indeed 5. AIUI RNZAF have apparently long felt 8 was the ideal...which I'd agree with as after the Andover withdrawal the Hercs got seriously busy so now RNZAF do a lot less in the Pacific than they used to. Maybe Ron Mark could push for 6...that'd be a move in the right direction... meanwhile Treasury etc will be arguing for 4...'they go faster, further & can carry more, so you need less' will be their argument. What a joke... supposedly years spent doing a 'FAMC' scoping project only to get an upgrade of current capability... I'm sick to death of NZ Govt weasel words about 'pulling our weight' & 'pacific reset' but then not making the once-in-a-generation purchase, that would meet those objectives, really count. Anyway to bring it back on topic, remember a well dock vessel generally has less internal deck space than a conventional vessel of the same length... the well dock consumes a fair chunk of space. |
|
|
|
Post by nighthawknz on Nov 13, 2019 21:47:36 GMT 12
What a joke... supposedly years spent doing a 'FAMC' scoping project only to get an upgrade of current capability... I'm sick to death of NZ Govt weasel words about 'pulling our weight' & 'pacific reset' but then not making the once-in-a-generation purchase, that would meet those objectives, really count. I have been saying that since I left the Navy... and then only 2 ANZAC's, then loss of the ACF, then continuously upgrading C-130 and P-3s instead of replacing... Anyway to bring it back on topic, remember a well dock vessel generally has less internal deck space than a conventional vessel of the same length... the well dock consumes a fair chunk of space. Yes, you are correct, this is where Canterbury when fully loaded can take quite a lot and where she shines compared to vessels of the same size... I remember back in errr 2007/8 ish a test embarkation and disembarkation was 250 troops and 50 vehicles, including 20 NZLAV's and I thought damn that's quite a few vehicles... So with a well-dock and wanting to take at least the same amount of equipment, if not more as well as a well-dock, she becomes a sizable ship. The one thing people also forget (even I do at times...) is what she actually has and can actually do, it is not just the vehicles she also can carry she can also take 33 containers 8 of which are for ammo and have fire protection and 2 with hazardous materials etc... Has a five-bed hospital ward, a two-bed sickbay, an operating theatre, a medical laboratory as well as a morgue. The ship also contains a gym, various workshops, an armoury and magazine, as well as offices for embarked government officials, such as DoC or NIWA scientists. She is Multi-Role... I just wish they choose another design instead of basing her on a ferry and I truly hope for the love of (insert name here) that they get it right for the enhanced sealift... but with more than a 1 billion being budgeted one would think so... Speaking of value for Money... if bean counter actually did say yes to a LHD like the E-170 or evolved version of it, it would be a ship you should be able to keep going for 35-40 years, no your standard 25-30... I am so hoping they got the design right for HMNZS Aotearoa...  |
|
|
|
Post by senob on Nov 13, 2019 21:52:49 GMT 12
To play Devil's advocate, has it actually been confirmed we are getting 5 new aircraft? All the quotes/references I have seen refer to " up to 5 aircraft". A slowing economy and politicians being politicians... You're right to ask because publicly at least there's is no confirmation of numbers... Govt probably has a 'preferred' number... I'd suggest that is indeed 5. AIUI RNZAF have apparently long felt 8 was the ideal...which I'd agree with as after the Andover withdrawal the Hercs got seriously busy so now RNZAF do a lot less in the Pacific than they used to. Maybe Ron Mark could push for 6...that'd be a move in the right direction... meanwhile Treasury etc will be arguing for 4...'they go faster, further & can carry more, so you need less' will be their argument. What a joke... supposedly years spent doing a 'FAMC' scoping project only to get an upgrade of current capability... I'm sick to death of NZ Govt weasel words about 'pulling our weight' & 'pacific reset' but then not making the once-in-a-generation purchase, that would meet those objectives, really count. Anyway to bring it back on topic, remember a well dock vessel generally has less internal deck space than a conventional vessel of the same length... the well dock consumes a fair chunk of space. Yep it does, and they have the money yet projects are being pushed out. The SOPV has been pushed out from 2023 to 2027 / 28 for no real reason and it's needed sooner rather than later, to replace the 2 IPVs that have been decommissioned and the other 2 will be going long before the SOPV hits the water. I just see it as force hollowing out and reduction by stealth, and like you say weasel words, that everybody knows are absolute lies. |
|
|
|
Post by senob on Nov 13, 2019 22:14:58 GMT 12
What a joke... supposedly years spent doing a 'FAMC' scoping project only to get an upgrade of current capability... I'm sick to death of NZ Govt weasel words about 'pulling our weight' & 'pacific reset' but then not making the once-in-a-generation purchase, that would meet those objectives, really count. I have been saying that since I left the Navy... and then only 2 ANZAC's, then loss of the ACF, then continuously upgrading C-130 and P-3s instead of replacing... Anyway to bring it back on topic, remember a well dock vessel generally has less internal deck space than a conventional vessel of the same length... the well dock consumes a fair chunk of space. Yes, you are correct, this is where Canterbury when fully loaded can take quite a lot and where she shines compared to vessels of the same size... I remember back in errr 2007/8 ish a test embarkation and disembarkation was 250 troops and 50 vehicles, including 20 NZLAV's and I thought damn that's quite a few vehicles... So with a well-dock and wanting to take at least the same amount of equipment, if not more as well as a well-dock, she becomes a sizable ship. The one thing people also forget (even I do at times...) is what she actually has and can actually do, it is not just the vehicles she also can carry she can also take 33 containers 8 of which are for ammo and have fire protection and 2 with hazardous materials etc... Has a five-bed hospital ward, a two-bed sickbay, an operating theatre, a medical laboratory as well as a morgue. The ship also contains a gym, various workshops, an armoury and magazine, as well as offices for embarked government officials, such as DoC or NIWA scientists. She is Multi-Role... I just wish they choose another design instead of basing her on a ferry and I truly hope for the love of (insert name here) that they get it right for the enhanced sealift... but with more than a 1 billion being budgeted one would think so... Speaking of value for Money... if bean counter actually did say yes to a LHD like the E-170 or evolved version of it, it would be a ship you should be able to keep going for 35-40 years, no your standard 25-30... I am so hoping they got the design right for HMNZS Aotearoa... I think that they have got Aotearoa right, because they have a more hands on approach to the build with a project team in South Korea at the ship yard. Apparently they also had the design independently checked before it went near the shipyard. The MOD acquisitions team and process is very professional now and is even used by Treasury as the exemplar for the rest of the govt to aspire too. When Ron Mark is praising the acquisition team and process you know that they are doing well, because for years he was their harshest critic, and he had that enquiry / review done of them when he first took over as Minister. The report is here: Review of Defence Procurement Policies and Practices for Major Capability Projects. The associated Cabinet papers that were released are here: Procurement Review Cabinet Papers.
I agree with your suggestion of the Singapore Technologies E-170 for a RNZN LHD. It's about the right size, wouldn't cost a fortune, and would be a good foreign policy choice as well. Fit it with a 3D radar and the LM ExLS for Sea Ceptor and decoys, plus at least a 30 mm CIWS like Goalkeeper or the Millennium gun, would be a great platform.
|
|
|
|
Post by foxcover on Nov 14, 2019 1:25:24 GMT 12
Isn’t the 170 a helicopter carrier? NZ doesn’t have any navalised helicopters other than a few seasprites?
|
|
|
|
Post by senob on Nov 14, 2019 13:59:18 GMT 12
Isn’t the 170 a helicopter carrier? NZ doesn’t have any navalised helicopters other than a few seasprites? Nope it's a proper LHD with a full length flight deck and a well dock. At present No 6 Sqn operate 8 x SH-2G(I) Seasprite naval helicopters and No 3 Sqn operate 8 x NH90TTH and 5 x A109M helicopters. All of those would be capable of operating off any LHD / LPD that we were to operate. The NH90s do need to be marinised and should have been as should have the A109, however the GOTD (Govt of the day) decided in its infinite wisdom to go for the basic cheap option and not do although they knew that would be going to sea. Likewise, with Canterbury, they should have gone with a proper design instead of a bastardised car ferry. |
|
|
|
Post by macnz on Nov 14, 2019 16:20:39 GMT 12
Ironic historical footnote: It was NZ First as coalition partner with National, that opposed exercising the option on the 2 additional ANZAC frigates back in 1989. Now, as the coalition partner with Labour, NZ First find themselves announcing some pretty substantial (overdue) defence procurements over the last 2 years.
One only hopes commitments to the; SOPV, Strategic Sealift, Strategic airlift, & Frigate replacement programmes are allowed to proceed 'unmolested' over the next 3 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by nighthawknz on Nov 14, 2019 16:41:36 GMT 12
Isn’t the 170 a helicopter carrier? NZ doesn’t have any navalised helicopters other than a few seasprites? As senob said, the Endurance 170 is a proper LHD, yes looks like a small pocket helo carrier, but she is more... the important part is it also carrys 400 troops and equipment, and 4 landing craft that land troops and equipment ashore via the well-dock Length is 170m, Beam 30.8, Drought: 6.6m, Displacement of 19,000t Max speed 20kts with a range of 7000nm. She is technically smaller than HMNZS Aotearoa. (unless NZ decide to get an evolved version...) And she is pretty lite on crew numbers 140 plus 150 for the aircrew However she has 1,000m² medical facility, with three operating theatres, ten intensive care unit beds and 17 ward beds. Command and communication systems planning rooms. Armament is well what ever we want, so I guess it will be a few saliors shooting rubber bands... More info can be found here
 |
|
|
|
Post by gibbo on Nov 14, 2019 16:57:53 GMT 12
Isn’t the 170 a helicopter carrier? NZ doesn’t have any navalised helicopters other than a few seasprites? As senob said, the Endurance 170 is a proper LHD, yes looks like a small pocket helo carrier, but she is more... the important part is it also carrys 400 troops and equipment, and 4 landing craft that land troops and equipment ashore via the well-dock Length is 170m, Beam 30.8, Drought: 6.6m, Displacement of 19,000t Max speed 20kts with a range of 7000nm. She is technically smaller than HMNZS Aotearoa. (unless NZ decide to get an evolved version...) And she is pretty lite on crew numbers 140 plus 150 for the aircrew However she has 1,000m² medical facility, with three operating theatres, ten intensive care unit beds and 17 ward beds. Command and communication systems planning rooms. Armament is well what ever we want, so I guess it will be a few saliors shooting rubber bands... More info can be found here
Is there a figure for vehicle lane metres? |
|
|
|
Post by senob on Nov 14, 2019 19:11:38 GMT 12
Not sure about the lane metres gibbo . I can't recall seeing any when I've looked at material, because what's been openly published has been somewhat sparse. |
|
|
|
Post by macnz on Nov 14, 2019 20:00:29 GMT 12
ST (Engineering) Marine seems pretty competent shipyard. Just launched the eighth and final Independence-class Littoral Vessel (LMV) for the RSN. Contract was signed in 2013, first LMV delivered in 2017, 2 yrs and 8 vessels later... job done.
|
|
