Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
Posted the wrong link sorry guys my bad face palm try this one
Navy vessels on the chopping board - One News | TVNZ
t68
Well-Known Member
If true that NZ buys another OPV would linking a deal with Aus/Damen as an additional build for the OPV 2400 make any sence or would you should build another existing Protector fleet OPV, wonder if it could be ice strengthen as well?
T68: from the interview with Dr Coleman in CD's link, another OPV would be 5 years away - so I guess not. That also shoots holes in my theory that the frigates could provide the crew. The frigate upgrades should hopefully be over by then. 5 years seems a long time to have another OPV built.
Thinking about who would buy the IPVs - I would assume most of the Pacific states would be out (being linked to the Pacific Forum class patrol boat programme). An IPV would be uncompetitive economically against those boats in any case - and many of the Pacific states already struggle with keeping the Pacific Forum boats at sea for long periods of time. Perhaps a subsidy would be required.
If we keep them in-house so to speak (ie. within NZ-linked territories) - could the Cook Islands be an option? Niue or Tokelau are probably too-small population-wise to support operation of an IPV.
Otherwise I assume we will have to look further afield, to richer nations (maybe somewhere in South East Asia).
Chis73
t68
Well-Known Member
I should have said it better as a training ship I had a fair idea that it would most likely be minus the combat sensor and armament, but the basic vessel should be near identical. My theory was build the basic hull in the same production line as the Australian build then fit out with all the other bits and pieces in New Zealand in a similar fashion to the LHD build. That should be on the capabilty of New Zealand.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
The Canada frigate upgrade is scheduled to begin in 2016, according to publicity at the time. This is probably driven by LockMart's existing work progamme on the Canadian Halifax frigates - we are slotting onto the end of their 12 ships. The LockMart media release claimed it was a four-year programme although other NZ docs (Capability Plan 2014?) seem to show it ending in 2018. So there may still be a frigate out of service 5 years from now.
The navy already has two new vessels in the pipeline - the Endeavour replacement and the diving/mine/littoral ship. The five year estimate on a new OPV may be designed to slot in after these vessels have been acquired.
The Aussies have just announced a second round of the Pacific Patrol Boat scheme, which will lead to the constructon of about 20 very basic steel-hulled light patrol boats. This rules out NZ selling any spare OPVs in the Pacific, as you correctly note.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
I think there are three broad replacement options:
1) Have BAE (formerly Tenix) build another Protector-class OPV, as they built the existing two.
2) Have a different yard build another Protector-class, or closely-related derivative. Who owns the plans/IP would be a key factor here.
3) Buy an entirely different design, which could be either a Euro or Asian design, but probably constructed in an Asian yard.
All have advantages and weaknesses. The first two should give commonality with existing ships, which is a bonus. The first option would be good for Trans-Tasman defence relations, but Aussie is an expensive place to build ships.
We could probably get best 'bang for buck with the third option, but would have a single 'orphan' ship in the fleet.
There is one intriguing possibility for the second option - Appledore yard in the UK is currently building three ships for the Irish Naval Service. The first ship (LN Samuel Beckett) has been handed over and the keel is down the seond. A month or so back Ireland announced it was taking up an option for a third ship. They are a stretch of the Protector design (90m vs. 85m?), but with no helicopter capability or ice strengthening. The yard is owned by Babcocks, who already do extensive work for RNZN at Devonport. The design could pretty readily modified to re-fit helicopter capability. I'd rate this as a very long shot, but there are certain advantages in buying from an existing production line - as witness the rapid delivery of the new training aircraft. A couple of links here:
New Irish Naval Service Patrol Boat Laid down at Babcock Marine
Samuel Beckett-class OPV - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Appledore shipyard awarded contract for a third Irish Navy vessel | North Devon Journal
Joe Black
Active Member
I agree and this is probably a very sensible option to consider. If funding could be found earlier, I think dovetailing the last of the Irish ship could be the most cost effective way to do it.
As for the unwanted and unloved IPVs, wanna sell some to the Philippines Navy?
Gracie1234
Well-Known Member
In terms of a new design, another option is to build two Littoral Warfare Support Vessels. But have one fitted with all the equipment required and the other fitted for. That would mean we would have two vessels of the same class and could have one always available.
As for disposal of the IPV, why not gift them to a govt agency such as the Police, Customs etc. That would probably be better value that if we sell them offshore.
I think we need to question how well the govt depts work together in terms of capturing their demand for these assets and making request to the Navy that they could actually fill.
From my experience there is always a bit of chicken and the egg senario with a new capability. Can i use, how can i use, are we funded to use it and then the what do you want to use it for , can we do that, what if it is already being used etc etc etc. Then we end up with the IPVs not being used as much as they could be because we have not figured out how to use them and what benefit there is for them. The business case always says one thing and then after time poeple find a way to use things differently, usually better. I am not convinced they have been around long enough for poeple to figure out how to make the most use of them. Speaking about all the various govt deps here not just the RNZN.
As for disposal of the IPV, why not gift them to a govt agency such as the Police, Customs etc. That would probably be better value that if we sell them offshore.
I think we need to question how well the govt depts work together in terms of capturing their demand for these assets and making request to the Navy that they could actually fill.
From my experience there is always a bit of chicken and the egg senario with a new capability. Can i use, how can i use, are we funded to use it and then the what do you want to use it for , can we do that, what if it is already being used etc etc etc. Then we end up with the IPVs not being used as much as they could be because we have not figured out how to use them and what benefit there is for them. The business case always says one thing and then after time poeple find a way to use things differently, usually better. I am not convinced they have been around long enough for poeple to figure out how to make the most use of them. Speaking about all the various govt deps here not just the RNZN.
My thought is that if the story is true and the regular RNZN cannot crew them, then why not give one to the South Island RNZNVR Divisions (HMNZS Pegasus, Christchurch & HMNZS Toroa, Dunedin) to use between them and one to the RNZNVR Division in Wellington (HMNZS Olphert). That still keeps the ships in RNZN service and it gives the Reserves ships to utilise. They should be able to crew them and it would enhance their recruitment capabilities. The Reserve Divisions had the Moa Class IPCs until the Navy took them off them in the 1990s to use for seamanship training. I know from my own experience that the three Divisions mentioned would put them to good use.
Nothing yet except the RFT for the support for the tendering process. Methinks we will be back at square one to a certain degree because I think, and this is just my view, that they will have reached, maybe a modicum of certainty, of what the need in the ship, what they want in the ship and what they would like in the ship. All of that they will have to fit into a dollar range that Cabinet have given them authority to spend. So they'll base the MSC RFT on that. Nobody connected with the project will leak anything so we just wait and see. As Yoda says "My patience son." Well that's my take on it.
2 x LWSV (1 x 'fitted for') I like that idea! My concern is constant budget pressure will see a 3rd OPV rolled into the LWSV and we see only 1 vessel. The crew of an OPV is about that if 2 IPVs so the crewing issues woun't be resolved IMHO - maybe it just comes down to 1 x OPV gives RNZN more real world options that 2 x IPVs!?!
I happen to like the IPVs & I certainly hope if 2 go, that the remaining start getting some serious amount of use.
Ngati's idea of the RNZNVR would be ideal IMHO to provide a local, available surge patrol capability, but I can't see budgets would stretch that far.
Just so long as Govt don't later renege on the 3rd OPV....:ar15
I personally think NZ should hand one IPV to the VR, keep three in service, use the current OPV in the littoral support roll and purchase 3 new OPV. They only issue with giving the IPV to the VR is they are going to have to do some serious recruiting and training. Purchasing a one OPV of a similar design or different design is not my preferred option. We should make the most of the opportunity to improve OPV capability overall and deal with some of the shortcomings in the existing design.
Zero Alpha
New Member
The finance system rears its head again -
The impact of the reserves taking over one or two of the IPVs would be to blow out their budget on the capital charge and depreciation alone. Assuming they could crew and maintain them, is that money best spent with the reserves? What's the cost per sea day going to work out at?
The impact of the reserves taking over one or two of the IPVs would be to blow out their budget on the capital charge and depreciation alone. Assuming they could crew and maintain them, is that money best spent with the reserves? What's the cost per sea day going to work out at?
They will have a current operating budget for the ship, and yes it is money best spent on the Reserves considering the main function of the Reserves is to back up the Regular Navy. If the Reserves don't have regular access to a ship to learn and exercise their basic seagoing skills then they become an asset to the Regular Navy helping alleviate the current crewing shortage. At present we are relying on RAN personnel to help keep our ships at sea whilst we have the RNZNVR which if given regular sea time through the year in order to complete their task books and keep their skills current. You will also find that on a per diem basis Reserve crews cost lest than Regular crews.
We've taken a lot of time to try and give you information that was intended to give you an understanding of platforms and why certain things are done certain ways. However it appears you have made no attempt to avail yourself of this and instead have refused to accept any advice and / or guidance from people who are far more knowledgeable than you or I in these matters. This leads me to the conclusion that you appear not to actually know what you are talking about.
Zero Alpha
New Member
Ngati, I'm doing my best to avoid this degenerating into some sort of debate about personalities. When I'm asking questions, it's to stimulate debate. The post I made above was intended to get people thinking about the opportunity cost of handing the ships over to the reserves. I strongly suspect that the cost of ownership, if directed elsewhere, would be sufficient to fly large proportions of the reserve divisions to Devonport to use the training and simulation equipment on base, as one example. The recent spend on shore-based rigs for basic seamanship training is another example. Those rigs are intended to reduce time at sea for basic skills training.
Given that handing the ships to the serves to operate isn't something the brass are prepared to do suggest it's not just me that holds this view.
What would really add to the quality of debate is publication of what ranks and trades navy is actually short of, and how those gaps equate to the reserves skill set.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I agree that the Capital Charge would seriously distort things. Which raises the issue of the Capital Charge really an effective way for NZ to determine if "good value" is being gotten from the NZDF.
Consider the bolded text and then the questions I ask which follow:
Now if the Capital Plan is spending 11% of the budget on real estate, where is this "spending" going? Is property/real estate being purchased from individuals, businesses or other Gov't bodies/agencies? Is that much actually being spent building new facilities or renovating existing ones, on real estate already owned by Gov't/Defence? Or is it that the cost of operating and upkeep on the real estate is really that high? I somehow suspect that to have a Capital plan expense for real estate that significant, the money is not actually going to any of the things I have mentioned.
From what I have gathered regarding US military/gov't real estate, such real estate is typically held onto by the military or gov't, until the real estate is no longer useful for anything which it can be efficiently repurposed to. A case in point is the former military base on Governors Island in New York Harbour, which had been an active military post held first by the Continental Army, the British Army, then a US Army, then USCG post, from 1773 until 1996, and up until it closed, was the oldest continously active military base in the US. Part of the reason it was held onto for so long, well after it was no longer needed to defend New York Harbour, was that it was land already owned by the military, in a useful location. Money was spent to enlarge the island, as well as to construct differing facilities depending on the era. In some cases with current military real estate, minimal funding is spent if it is the site of a formerly active but now closed facility, depending on the value of on site infrastructure and likelihood of a need to reactivate/reuse existing infrastructure.
What seems to be happening in NZ, is that Defence not only has to pay upkeep on Defence real estate, but "pay" for the fact that it owns real estate. I could be misunderstanding the situation, but Gov't taxing and having to pay itself for something just seems... Silly.
Zero Alpha
New Member
11% of the capital spend (not opex).That's reinvestment in existing property - refurbishing what has been described as the 'dilapidated' property estate. I suspect it's basically new bricks and mortar...and boring things like electrical, water and sewerage systems.
The document basically said it was spending up-front to reduce the maintenance costs, and that is represented 90% of the cost of refurbishing or replacing everything that justified it on economic grounds. It specifically mentioned moving the investment earlier than previously scheduled for to reduce ongoing maintenance expenditure. There was also specific mention of earthquake strengthening for some facilities that were now below code.
It's not a fast process, that's for sure. Once property (land) has been declared surplus, the disposal process depends on how it was acquired, and when. Typically the process involves offering the land back to the original owner (if compulsorily acquired), then land-banked for Treaty settlements. I'm a bit foggy on the details, but from memory once the land is declared surplus by the owning department, it's transferred to another Crown entity and they stop incurring charges from that point. Once a sale or transfer is eventually made the original department receives the proceeds.
Not just defence, the entire public sector. Unlike a lot of countries, NZ operates its Crown accounts much closer to a business model, with depreciation being a charge against the department, and the capital charge being levied, which represents the cost of the capital tied up. In reality though, departments are funded specifically for the capital charge, and it's effectively neutral. It wasn't imposed on them without compensation. the system is what it is, like it or not. Plenty of people like it, and plenty don't.
In the defence context, it should encourage defence to only invest in things that it actually needs to own. The new Defence HQ for instance is leased from a private sector company, saving the Crown the upfront cost of the building. Not sure how well it works in practice though - Whenuapai air base is only valued at around $50M if it were to be sold, and it's home to the C130s, Orions and Seapsrites.
Part of me thinks that if the quality of the work environment was improved it might help retention rates. I look at the old 3 squadron hangar at Ohakea and compare it to the new building and its light years ahead as a work environment. Slumming it on operations is one thing, but clapped-out facilities at base locations isn't great for morale. Even a 1% change is worth something.
Depending on how much money they are willing to throw at this proposed OPV it could go either way, status quo with current OPVs, aligned closely to LWSV replacement or splash out and bring up to a more combat orientated standard to bridge the gap more to the frigates. Each has its own merits in terms of cost and effectiveness.
I would love to see something like Navantia BAMs with a dummed down version as LWSV which would eventually lead to current OPV replacement later on down the track. This would avoid whole class obsolesence all at once and spread the cost somewhat, class commonality benefits whilst also bringing the overall standard of NZ OPV up closer to the ANZACs than is currently the case. Could backfire and be seen as an adequate lead in frigate replacement however to save on costs of an actual frigate but hopefully not.
I do like Ngatis idea of sending the excess IPVs south rather then losing them completely as per days of old. Surely could only aid in recruitment and retention in these areas and only benefit RNZN in the long run. Although yes a lot more technical then the IPCs is a IPV such a different concept that RNZNVR would struggle? Post a cadre of regulars in key roles to CHCH and Wellington to form a base for crews as I'm sure there would be at least some old salts who would want to get out of Auckland for a posting. I'm sure Ngati could even take care of the CHCH one aye Ngati?
Again I guess it all comes down to cost but capability loss is a cost in it's own right and could cost a lot more to try and bring back later on next review when times again change with some new brains figure out we need something smaller to support government agencies and perform inshore duties........meanwhile the circle keeps turning.
I would love to see something like Navantia BAMs with a dummed down version as LWSV which would eventually lead to current OPV replacement later on down the track. This would avoid whole class obsolesence all at once and spread the cost somewhat, class commonality benefits whilst also bringing the overall standard of NZ OPV up closer to the ANZACs than is currently the case. Could backfire and be seen as an adequate lead in frigate replacement however to save on costs of an actual frigate but hopefully not.
I do like Ngatis idea of sending the excess IPVs south rather then losing them completely as per days of old. Surely could only aid in recruitment and retention in these areas and only benefit RNZN in the long run. Although yes a lot more technical then the IPCs is a IPV such a different concept that RNZNVR would struggle? Post a cadre of regulars in key roles to CHCH and Wellington to form a base for crews as I'm sure there would be at least some old salts who would want to get out of Auckland for a posting. I'm sure Ngati could even take care of the CHCH one aye Ngati?
Again I guess it all comes down to cost but capability loss is a cost in it's own right and could cost a lot more to try and bring back later on next review when times again change with some new brains figure out we need something smaller to support government agencies and perform inshore duties........meanwhile the circle keeps turning.