Feature 2 | AMPHIBIOUS SHIPS
Review fi nds MRV design and acquisition
shortfalls
A review of the safety and functionality of the Royal New Zealand Navy’s
new Multi Role Vessel (MRV), Canterbury, has found shortfalls in the ship
design and the acquisition process, but that with remedial work it will
deliver the primary capability required.
he independent review,
commissioned by the Secretary
Tof Defence and the Chief of
the Defence Force at the request of the
New Zealand Minister of Defence, was
set up to probe problems arising in the
acquisition and introduction of HMNZS
Canterbury into service.
It was foreshadowed by two Courts
of Inquiry (CoIs) investigating separate
incidents involving the ship since its
delivery in May 2007. Th e fi rst CoI, which
reported in late 2007, addressed the loss
of a rigid-hull infl atable boat (RHIB) as a
result of water ingress into a boat alcove
in July 2007; a second CoI, released on 17
April, examined the circumstances which
led to the death of Able Hydrographic The Coles review found shortfalls in ship design and the MRV acquisition process, but
Specialist Operator Byron Solomon concluded that the vessel will deliver the primary capability required.
following the capsize of a RHIB alongside
Canterbury on 5 October 2007.
John Coles, an eminent UK naval What was Tenix Defence – acquired requirements, and has suffered from
architect with a distinguished project by BAE Systems in mid-2008 - is prime shortcomings in project management.
management record, was chartered to contractor for the seven-ship Project Furthermore, there is an assertion that
lead the review earlier in 2008. His review Protector programme. Canterbury, an Canterbury “is unlikely to meet all of
makes a total of 16 recommendations 8870-ton vessel based on the commercial the requirements of the contract”. Th is is
of which 14 have been accepted in full, ferry Ben My Chree, was constructed in attributed to the fundamental unsuitability
with the remaining two acknowledged The Netherlands by Merwede Shipyard of a commercial ro-ro ferry short/fat
and subject to further consideration. under subcontract to Tenix, with hullform to undertake long operational
The MRV was acquired as part of finishing work being undertaken by patrols in the Southern Oceans.
Project Protector, a NZ$500 million Tenix in Williamstown. The report observes: “HMNZS
(US$407.3 million) programme to The Coles review concludes that Canterbury is intrinsically safe but
re-capitalise the RNZN and address Canterbury “will meet almost all of the remedial work will be required to enable
key capability gaps. The MRV was requirements” of the NZDF’s functional her to perform military functions; some
primarily intended to provide the New performance specification, and is operating limitations will also have to
Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) with a “intrinsically safe”. It also confirmed be accepted. Sea-keeping performance
sealift capability to transport troops and that there was no connection between is likely to be poor in higher sea states.”
equipment to security and peacekeeping design and performance issues and the It continues: “From the outset of
deployments, and support operations death of Byron Solomon. the project, there was insufficient
such as disaster relief in the Pacific. However, it also fi nds that the acquisition appreciation of the constraints to
Additional roles were to act as a training was constrained by the initial choice of ship the ship’s operations imposed by the
ship and augment other RNZN units in design, has focused overly on introduction selection of a commercial ro-ro design.
patrol and surveillance roles. to service rather than meeting contract This has been at the root of differences
22 Warship Technology October 2008
WT_Oct08_p22+23+26+27.indd Sec1:22 10/10/08 4:38:42 PM
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  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72