Feature 6 | Royal New ZealaNd Navy
New Zealand looks beyond Protector
As the Royal New Zealand Navy (RNZN) continues to introduce a range of
new patrol vessels under Project Protector, it is at the same time pursuing a
series of upgrades for its ANZAC frigates and scoping the requirement for
a new afloat support ship to replace HMNZS Endeavour.
I
t does so against the backdrop of
Defence Review 2009, intended to
produce two published outputs: first,
a Defence Assessment to be reported
to government by early 2010; second, a
Defence White Paper to be published in
the first half of 2010.
The size and shape of the new-look
RNZN now taking shape has largely been
moulded by the outcome of the Maritime
Forces Review, work on which began
in May 2001. This involved all relevant
government departments and agencies
(including the Ministry of Defence
[MoD], the New Zealand Defence Force,
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade,
Ministry of Fisheries, Customs Service,
Maritime Safety Authority and the New
Zealand Police). The MRv Canterbury required remedial work to enable her to perform military functions.
The review identified several
government requirements that were not
being met by current capabilities. The first requirements in New Zealand’s EEZ and rescue vessel previously delivered by
was a patrol capability for New Zealand’s and in offshore waters; and Tenix to the Philippines Coast Guard.
exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and those
•
A number of inshore patrol vessels The introduction of the Project Protector
of the dependent Pacific island states and (IPVs) to meet patrol and surveillance fleet continues to challenge the RNZN in a
also for New Zealand’s interests in the requirements in New Zealand’s inshore number of ways: the complexities involved
Southern Ocean that did not require a zone (out to 24nm). in building three different classes in three
combat-capable frigate to be tasked with different countries; addressing issues
the duty. Provision of a military sealift Following an international tender, around capabilities and specifications;
capability was the second key shortfall. a NZ$500 million (US$345.6 million) absorbing the impact of project delays; and
Out of the Maritime Forces Review contract was signed in July 2004 with the need to manage the entire programme
emerged the capability requirements what was Tenix Defence Pty Ltd, now from within an organisational structure
which shaped Project Protector. The BAE Systems Australia, for the provision and manpower resource set up to support
review determined that these capabilities of seven ships, comprising one MRV, two a fleet that is already in service.
should be embodied in three different OPVs and four IPVs. The MRV, named HMNZS Canterbury was delivered in
types of vessel: Canterbury, was built by the Merwede May 2007 and commissioned into RNZN
•
A multi-role vessel (MRV) to provide Shipyard in the Netherlands to a design service in June 2007. She has since been
a limited tactical sealift capacity for derived from that of the Irish Sea ferry undertaking an introduction to service
disaster relief, humanitarian relief Ben-My-Chree; the two 85m OPVs; Otago programme with the RNZN and a range
operations, peace support operations, and Wellington have been constructed by of exercises around New Zealand, in
military support activities and BAE Systems Australia in Williamstown Australia and the Pacific Islands.
development assistance support in to a design developed by STX Canada/US However, as previously highlighted
New Zealand’s EEZ and the Pacific and Marine; and the four 55m IPVs, named in Warship Technology, the ship’s early
Asia regions; Rotoiti, Hawea, Pukaki, and Taupo, have career has been blighted by a series of
•
A number of offshore patrol vessels been built at Whangerai on New Zealand’s shortfalls in both the ship design and
(OPVs) to meet patrol and surveillance north island to a design based on search the acquisition process. In particular, the
34 Warship Technology October 2009
WT RNZN OCT09.indd 34 17/09/2009 10:36:53
Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52