UDT - NZ Navy platforms: Troubled seas for NZ | ADM Oct 08
At first glance the Royal New Zealand Navy (RNZN) has done well to obtain seven new Project Protector ships for just NZ$500 million dollars. Except there are some teething problems . . .
Nick Lee-Frampton
Coping - both in material and in personnel terms - with so many new platforms arriving in a matter of months, is not going to be at all easy for the RNZN which, unofficially, would have been content with a wider delivery schedule.
Some practical problems are significant enough that just days after announcing HMNZS Canterbury’s imminent departure on 9 June for three weeks of “aviation, seamanship continuation training and core mariner skills’ in the South Pacific area came the news that she would instead remain within coastal waters “while remedial issues, including the RHIB sea boat launch system, are worked through with the prime contractor, Tenix.”
ADM understands that New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) lawyers advised against “doing risky things” with Canterbury given the combination of unresolved matters and a warranty that expired on 31 May 2008.
New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) spokesperson Dave Courtney told ADM that the issues included getting the rigid hull inflatable boat (RHIB) launch and recovery system “up to scratch.”
Other outstanding issues include [the RHIB] alcove doors and replacing bow ramps for the LCMs.
“Once RHIB issues have been resolved [Canterbury] can enter the next phase of its Introduction to Service,” Courtney said.
Commander Shaun Fogarty told ADM that Tenix is developing a sliding door design for the alcoves “to protect the RHIBs from water ingress” while new bow ramps for Canterbury’s landing craft (LCMs) are being built in the Netherlands under warranty.
Another matter - unofficially described to ADM as “an issue under action and not a fundamental source of dispute between supplier and customer” - is the integrated logistics support (ILS) deliverables.
Fogarty says ILS documentation outstanding from ship delivery includes: final as-built drawings, maintenance plans “for some components of some systems” and ILS data resulting from warranty and other post-delivery engineering changes.
“The majority of the contracted ILS data has been accepted from Tenix and loaded into the RNZN logistical information system … and made available both at sea and ashore for in-service support.”
NZDF lawyers are not the only ‘suits’ involved with Protector issues.
A team headed by John Coles, erstwhile team leader of the Royal Navy’s CVF Integrated Project Team, has been conducting a review of the acquisition and introduction into service of HMNZS Canterbury.
Coles’ team is expected to finalise its enquiries at the end of July and those who have seen it in action report “tense” body language …
Scrutiny
Another, broader, enquiry - the Auditor General’s assessment of the quality of the monitoring and reporting systems of the NZDF and MoD - recently concluded and included coverage of the Protector program.
The AG’s report says that the Treasury believes the Protector budget has been exceeded and mentions “delays” of 18 months in the case of Canterbury and 10 months for patrol craft.
However, “overall … this is not unexpected for a project of this complexity,” notes the report.
Interestingly, ADM was officially informed that Canterbury was only three months later than its contracted delivery date.
Other Protector fleet issues identified when ADM took a closer look include overweight Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPVs), certification problems with the Inshore Patrol Vessels (IPVs) and concerns about the frequency of use of RHIBs for boarding operations.
The court of inquiry (COI) into the July 2007 loss of one and damage to the second of Canterbury’s RHIBs revealed that water had entered the sea boats twice before; on the delivery voyage to Melbourne and on the subsequent voyage across the Tasman to New Zealand (Replacement RHIBs - assembled in Australia using hulls from South Africa - cost around NZ$275,000).
The COI noted that Canterbury’s RHIB enclosures are only 3.3m above the waterline and several sources pointed out to ADM that sea boats on other recent amphibious sealift ship designs are located both higher and further forward in comparison.
As described in the COI, Canterbury’s stabilisation system is ineffective if the period between rolling is less than 11.9 seconds.
Apparently Canterbury has rolled to 21° in sea state four and to 28° in sea state six; in the latter case waves exceeded the top of the RHIB alcove and the COI said that a flooded RHIB was effectively the same as a total loss.
The roll statistics are significant given that Canterbury is expected to patrol in sea state seven (ie waves between six and nine metres high)!
Also of concern, as one naval specialist told ADM, are the davits used to raise and lower the RHIBs.
“The davits are designed for a fast rescue craft… but [the] Navy are trying to use the RHIB/davit as utility boats for boarding parties.
In a resource protection role being able to send a boarding party to a suspect ship is your main armament, [it] is your main purpose.
The question is, can our davits go all day lowering and raising?”
“My own opinion is that the RHIBs supplied are the best available,” said the naval specialist.
“They meet, if not exceed, the requirements of SOLAS but … Navy have demanded, quite rightly, that this is all sorted before they accept the IPVs and OPVs from the Ministry of Defence.”
"To which the official response is that “Navy does not endorse these views.”
Fogarty told ADM there is no concern about the davits performance: “Tenix are not aware of any limitations on the davits that indicate that they cannot be used for sustained boarding operations.”
RHIB construction
However, ADM understands that the Protector fleet RHIBs are foam filled rather than having pneumatic collars and that dockyard hearsay was of greater frequency of damage to the new sea boats, arguably reflecting a decline in seamanship standards as established by a recent inquiry into RNZN standards, Lieutenant Commandert Barbara Cassin refuted this allegation and told ADM that “there is no evidence of any more requirement for extra repairs as a result of damage.”
Cassin also said that the Navy was appointing an officer in the new position of Fleet Seamanship Executive Officer FSXO - in addition to the existing Fleet Seamanship Inspector, currently a Warrant Officer.
Nevertheless, the RNZN appears likely to face further investigation over this and other matters should the opposition National party win this year’s election, which recent opinion polls suggest is probable.
National's Defence spokesman, Wayne Mapp told ADM that he is happy with Project Protector’s intent: “I have no problem with the concept.
The idea has always made sense to me, it is the execution of the contract that is the problem and that occurs at multiple levels.
“The first major flaw was choosing the wrong design for the multi-role vessel.
"They had two options, both to be built in Holland; the option we did not chose was the option the Royal Navy, the Dutch and the Spanish navies have and essentially what the Singaporean navy has too: A vessel with an internal dock … an inherently safer and superior concept to craning the [LCM] from 15-20m above the water line.
“It is not to say [Canterbury] has no utility but that the choice we have made have limited its utility somewhat.
"Then you have the two OPVs and four IPVs; the latter were the unsuccessful tenders for the Australian Armidale project.
"I understand that Tenix is quite keen to demonstrate that these vessels will end up being better than the Armidale vessels - they look almost identical.
“So there are capability problems.
"The Government has always said [Project Protector] was locked solid at NZ$500 million.
"A little bit more flexibility in the contract may have been useful.
“They are very lightly armed, there is not a lot of Milspec equipment on board other than the communications.
"Very senior RNZN officers have told me the vessels are capable of further upgrading in a military sense.
"They are a little bit undercooked in terms of their armaments.”
Further concerns
Mapp has publicly expressed concern about the Protector fleet’s certification.
“To date, three ships in the Project Protector fleet - the Canterbury, the Rotoiti and, now, the Otago - have been deemed unfit for Lloyd's [certification]”.
However Fogarty told ADM that Canterbury (and thus its RHIBs) have already been certificated several times: “[Canterbury] has been certified by Lloyds on three occasions; before it departed the Netherlands in 2006, on 15 May 2007 for the ship's annual survey and extension of its registration period and again on 31 May 2007 at the change of Flag State (to NZ).”
Fogarty added that neither the OPVs and IPVs have yet been certified because “this doesn’t occur until delivery.”
At the time of writing, the four IPVs are in various states at Whangarei (where the Anzac frigate modules were built).
Of the three that have been launched, two have completed sea trials and the third is being fitting out. The fourth IPV is to be launched in July.
ADM understands that building the IPVs lagged behind Tenix’s forecast timetable and that with the Whangarei shipyard destined to close once the Protector work is completed, the work force has little incentive to beat the clock.
As well, Tenix processes have turned out to be more sophisticated and complicated than first thought.
“Some of the sub-contractors were literally doing a design and build to the Tenix specification,” ADM was told.
A Lloyds specification sticking point with the IPVs has been the structural fire protection of the bridge.
Tenix had proposed to consider the bridge and the bridge equipment room (BER) as a single compartment from a structural fire protection perspective.
“Tenix thought they were meeting the specification in having the smoke and fire resistant arrangements to the bridge and [BER] as two separate compartments separated by the deck and Lloyds … said it has to be one envelope, in a vertical sense,” ADM was told.
Fogarty confirmed that Lloyd’s required an additional fire detection and fire suppression system in the BER, which have been installed by Tenix at no cost to the Protector project.
“Lloyds have since approved these changes and the design of this compartment,” he said.
The reason for Lloyds certification is for overall maintenance of standards.
“With a warship you don’t worry about Lloyds, the standard is set by the parent Navy.
"The decision that our non-combatant ships be kept to Lloyds standards is to ensure that maintenance refits are done to a standard that can be checked against a requirement for fundamental sea worthiness,” a source told ADM.
The RNZN replenishment ship Endeavour was Lloyds certified in 1989 so there is experience in this area.
“What we are going through is not an uncommon experience: our IPVs are not your day-sailor boats, they have very sophisticated equipment even though it is COTS and the internal fit-out is superb,” ADM was told.
“It is not uncommon to have significant hiccups, fundamentally because the ships are complex and the contract is quite complex.”
Certifcation
Answering a Parliamentary question earlier this year Minister of Defence Phil Goff said that in order for the IPV Rotoiti to be certified … Lloyds required an external sound detection system, another gyro compass [and an additional] fire detection and suppression system in the [BER] only.
The original planned delivery date of the Rotoiti was 31 January 2007 said Goff: “I am advised that the ship is still planned to be delivered before any of the other [IPVs].”
Both OPVs are in the water in Melbourne; one has completed sea trials, the other is fitting out and ADM understands the design is over weight.
Fogarty confirmed the OPVs are heavier than expected but denied suggestions that it is a result of ice-strengthened hulls. Exceeding the design weight has obvious implications for growth margins.
So when will the Protector fleet be fully operational? “Whilst it is not a time bound process, the Chief of Navy continues to plan for all ships to be in Service before the end of the year,” Fogarty told ADM.
Given that regular Navy personnel figures had dropped at the beginning of this year from mid-2007, despite intensive recruiting efforts, it will be interesting to observe how the RNZN deploys its greatly expanded fleet next year.
The core ships company for the IPVs is 20 and for the OPVs is 35, so that requirement alone calls for 150 sailors.
How much is that ship over there?
Canterbury NZ$175 million,
Two OPVs NZ$85 million each
Four IPVs NZ$36 million each
Spares NZ$15 million