Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[recce.k1]

The MSC tender document shave been released. Safe to say the minimum requirements are at the lower end of the spectrum:

-1,500 tonnes of F-44
-900 tonnes of AGO
-7,100 tonnes of F-76
-Not less than 12TEUs
-1 Hangar for one NH90/SH-2

As well as conventional fleet replenishment taskings, could the MSC be tasked in certain situations to also support an overseas deployment of the RNZAF's NH90 helicopters and associated logistical support items eg fuel/storage and containerised spares/operational tech hardware etc (once the NH90's reach FOC of course)? Be that for an Army deployment, but also for HADR (as per recent discussions in the RNZAF thread about the Vanawatu situation and NZDF not having the appropriate logistical support assets readily available thus priority needs to be given to other more pressing needs etc).

In terms of the MSC's proposed hanger space, surely at a minimum it should be able to comfortably house at least 1x NH90 sized helicopter (not the Seasprite), if not larger eg Merlin-type size? The MSC would have a useful life of at least 30 years and the NZDF is yet to be given the green-light to select a fit-for-purpose ship-borne rotatory asset for the MSC. It wouldn't necessarily be the Seasprite (as enough numbers were acquired recently to only properly sustain operations on the two ANZAC Frigates and HMNZS Canterbury). The thinking could then turn to a NH90 variant, but if the upcoming Air Mobility review (or future reviews) suggest larger rotary assets for the NZDF (heavier Chinook/Merlin types etc) then it seems unwise to limit the MSC hanger to the current NH90 (just as it was unwise 13 or so years ago to limit the Project Protector "MRV" and OPV vessels to Seasprite sized type helos, particularly when there was also another project looking at the UH-1 replacement, which recommended the larger NH90).

Just seems for the small cost of larger hanger space on such a large vessel it would warrant some forward thinking (or more likely, getting it approved by the bean counters etc). Then the next question could be, for such a large vessel, would it be prudent to have two hangers? Whilst of course accommodating two helos wouldn't be the norm most of the time, the extra space would allow two medium/heavy helo deployments to support Army/HADR efforts or at least provide space for other stored goods to be airlifted by the on-board helo etc.

Again we didn't see that forward thinking back in the 80's when HMNZS Endevour was designed for potential Wasp helo operations, then some 8-10 years later the "larger" Seasprite was chosen and the Wasp's retired!

 

[Zero Alpha]

As well as conventional fleet replenishment taskings, could the MSC be tasked in certain situations to also support an overseas deployment of the RNZAF's NH90 helicopters and associated logistical support items eg fuel/storage and containerised spares/operational tech hardware etc (once the NH90's reach FOC of course)?

Yes. There are a number of requirements for equipment stores to suit longer-term operations. The F-44 cargo tanks are extensive.

Again we didn't see that forward thinking back in the 80's when HMNZS Endevour was designed for potential Wasp helo operations, then some 8-10 years later the "larger" Seasprite was chosen and the Wasp's retired!

Endeavour was a civil design. The challenges of modifying a civilian tanker design with a hangar and a pad that's actually usable with ships motion aren't trivial. I'd be surprised if a larger hangar would have been possible with a modified civil design. With the Anzac debate raging at the time I doubt the budget would have stretched to a military tanker design.

Edit:

I got curious. The working papers (which will include the options that went to Cabinet, will be available from Archives NZ in 2017.The link to the records is here .

 

[Todjaeger]

The problem IMO with forward-thinking, is that it would require Gov't (both elected and civil service/bureaucrats) to look at a greater timespan than just the next year, or next election cycle.

This IMO is part of the reason why a number of the cheap (not necessarily inexpensive) budget decisions have been regarding defence. In NZ especially, but the same applies to Oz, the UK, and even the US in some areas.

While I truly would like to see the RNZN spend a bit more tin, and get a more flexible and overall capable AOR, which would allow more options over the replacement AOR's service life, I am not yet convinced that those in gov't or the general public have yet caught on to the potential savings of spending a bit more upfront, so that less has to be spent over the long term.

From my perspective, I would like the AOR have a helipad large enough to lilypad and refuel at least a CH-47 Chinook, and preferably a CH-53 Super Sea Stallion and/or a V-22 Osprey. Not that I anticipate either enteringservice in the NZDF any time soon, but the ability to support allied assets can multiply. both their, and NZDF asset utility. Similarly, if the AOR could ferry on in as deck cargo, that could allow more options. A multi-mission deck which could function at times as a hangar for an NH90 sized helicopter (or two...) which could also have an ISO containerized modular for other roles connected when appropriate. A containerized emergency clinic could come in very handy in HADR situations. Or even just additional space that could be reconfigured to carry additional bulk stores safely. While munitions and/or fuel would not be appropriate given safety concerns, a container of potable water or dry goods like clothing, spare parts, sealed food or rations packs, could all be carried in such a way if the hangar space was not required by a helicopter on a given mission.

Time will tell though, whether or not people realize the potential advantages to getting a better product initially.

 

[Zero Alpha]

Tod, have a read of this presentation

 

[aussienscale]

Were BMT shortlisted? I would have thought their Aegir would have a chance especially as it the design may have had the bunkerage changed to meet the requirements. IMHO the Koreans have a good chance because the other companies will want the work to be done in their yards.

BMT is actually building the Tide Class (Aegir) at DSME (Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering), So I would be guessing the Daewoo submission would be along those lines ? I still believe timings will tie up nicely for the Australian buy, but would the Aegir 18A be too big for NZ ?

This is the brochure from the original ASC proposal a couple of years back

http://www.asc.com.au/Documents/News/ASCAegirBrochure_FINAL.pdf

Just thought I would ad this in as well, what it may look like in RAN/RNZN ? service

http://defencemodels.com.au/Projects/Aegir.php

 

[Todjaeger]

Tod, have a read of this presentation

Thanks for the link ZA. I think someone (LucasNZ?) might have listed this, or something similar earlier on in the thread perhaps 18 months ago.

I will look through the link several times to be thorough, but I do have a question if you, or anyone could answer it. Under some of the options there was an entry of Medical Care with HMNZS Endeavour being listed with "Role 1" and some of the other options having "Role 2 + Surgical", any idea what the difference in standard of care for Role 1 vs. Role 2, and other potential listings?

Also perhaps the major concern/problem I have about some of the decisions on kit ends up getting purchased, is that it almost seems like the decisions get made by accountants and/or bookkeepers. The services likely know just what they want or really should have, while the people signing the cheques ignore the service advice and seem to go with the cheapest offering which as many know is often not the lowest costing whole-life-of-service option.

-Cheers

 

[Zero Alpha]

NATO Logistics Handbook:

1611. Role/Echelon 1 medical support is that which is integral or allocated to a small unit, and will include the capabilities for providing first aid, immediate lifesaving measures, and triage. Additionally, it will contribute to the health and well-being of the unit through provision of guidance in the prevention of disease, non-battle injuries, and operational stress. Normally, routine sick call and the management of minor sick and injured personnel for immediate return to duty are a function of this level of care.

1612. Role 2 support is normally provided at larger unit level, usually of Brigade or larger size, though it may be provided farther forward, depending upon the operational requirements. In general, it will be prepared to provide evacuation from Role/Echelon 1 facilities, triage and resuscitation, treatment and holding of patients until they can be returned to duty or evacuated, and emergency dental treatment. Though normally this level will not include surgical capabilities, certain operations may require their augmentation with the capabilities to perform emergency surgery and essential post-operative management. In this case, they will be often referred to as Role 2+. In the maritime forces, Echelon 2 is equivalent to the land forces' Role 2+, as a surgical team is integral to this echelon. Maritime echelon 2 support is normally found on major war vessels and some larger logistics or support vessels, and at some Forward Logistics Sites (FLS).

1613. Role/Echelon 3 support is normally provided at Division level and above. It includes additional capabilities, including specialist diagnostic resources, specialist surgical and medical capabilities, preventive medicine, food inspection, dentistry, and operational stress management teams when not provided at level 2. The holding capacity of a level 3 facility will be sufficient to allow diagnosis, treatment, and holding of those patients who can receive total treatment and be returned to duty within the evacuation policy laid down by the Force Surgeon for the theatre. Classically, this support will be provided by field hospitals of various types. Maritime Echelon 3 is equivalent to land/air forces Role 3, though it will normally have increased specialty capabilities. Echelon 3 is normally found on some major amphibious ships, on hospital ships, at Fleet Hospitals, at some FLS, and at a few Advanced Logistics Support Sites (ALSS).

1614. Role/Echelon 4 medical support provides definitive care of patients for whom the treatment required is longer than the theatre evacuation policy or for whom the capabilities usually found at role/echelon 3 are inadequate. This would normally comprise specialist surgical and medical procedures, reconstruction, rehabilitation, and convalescence. This level of care is usually highly specialised, time consuming, and normally provided in the country of origin. Under unusual circumstances, this level of care may be established in a theatre of operations.​

I wouldn't blame the accountants/book-keepers so much. Personally i feel that a lack of a clear mission (and hence lack of political support and public opinion) has been the main reason, followed closely by inter-service politiking. The NZ Army has shot down more RNZAF fighters than the enemy managed to in the last 60 years!

 

[Lucasnz]

Thanks for the link ZA. I think someone (LucasNZ?) might have listed this, or something similar earlier on in the thread perhaps 18 months ago.

I will look through the link several times to be thorough, but I do have a question if you, or anyone could answer it. Under some of the options there was an entry of Medical Care with HMNZS Endeavour being listed with "Role 1" and some of the other options having "Role 2 + Surgical", any idea what the difference in standard of care for Role 1 vs. Role 2, and other potential listings?

Also perhaps the major concern/problem I have about some of the decisions on kit ends up getting purchased, is that it almost seems like the decisions get made by accountants and/or bookkeepers. The services likely know just what they want or really should have, while the people signing the cheques ignore the service advice and seem to go with the cheapest offering which as many know is often not the lowest costing whole-life-of-service option.

-Cheers

Role 1 is described in the LWSV RFP is described:

Role1 provides for primary health care, triage, resuscitation and
stabilisation. It manages minor sick and wounded for immediate
return to duty. A Role 1 health facility can collect and care for
casualties from the point of injury / onset of illness and prepare them
for evacuation to a higher role of care. It is also capable of
psychological first aid and limited occupational and preventative
health advice to supplement measures taken by individuals and
commanders. Depending on the operational requirements a Role 1
health facility may be supplemented with limited casualty holding,
primary dental care, basic laboratory testing and first aid.

Canterbury has a role II capability - consist of surgical / post op care and medical. I'd swear black and blue that I had a list in some navy / rfp document about what the roles were but do you think I can find it.

My reading of the docs so far suggest they've gone with the Commercial Renew with elements of the Commercial with elements of the enhanced and enhanced + (i.e. Typhoon and CIWS Capability) based on page 19 of the BMT document.

 

[Zero Alpha]

Options

Interesting looking at some of the parameters for the support ship. For instance, there isn't a maximum/minimum size specified. Obviously the potential vendors give some insight in to the options they will provide. AEGIR being one (not necessarily the 18a), and the Damen/Schedule Joint Support Ship being another.

Purple wasn't specified in the paint scheme, but indications are that it will be much more capable of joint ops than Endeavour was.

 

[Todjaeger]

NATO Logistics Handbook:

1611. Role/Echelon 1 medical support is that which is integral or allocated to a small unit, and will include the capabilities for providing first aid, immediate lifesaving measures, and triage. Additionally, it will contribute to the health and well-being of the unit through provision of guidance in the prevention of disease, non-battle injuries, and operational stress. Normally, routine sick call and the management of minor sick and injured personnel for immediate return to duty are a function of this level of care.

1612. Role 2 support is normally provided at larger unit level, usually of Brigade or larger size, though it may be provided farther forward, depending upon the operational requirements. In general, it will be prepared to provide evacuation from Role/Echelon 1 facilities, triage and resuscitation, treatment and holding of patients until they can be returned to duty or evacuated, and emergency dental treatment. Though normally this level will not include surgical capabilities, certain operations may require their augmentation with the capabilities to perform emergency surgery and essential post-operative management. In this case, they will be often referred to as Role 2+. In the maritime forces, Echelon 2 is equivalent to the land forces' Role 2+, as a surgical team is integral to this echelon. Maritime echelon 2 support is normally found on major war vessels and some larger logistics or support vessels, and at some Forward Logistics Sites (FLS).

1613. Role/Echelon 3 support is normally provided at Division level and above. It includes additional capabilities, including specialist diagnostic resources, specialist surgical and medical capabilities, preventive medicine, food inspection, dentistry, and operational stress management teams when not provided at level 2. The holding capacity of a level 3 facility will be sufficient to allow diagnosis, treatment, and holding of those patients who can receive total treatment and be returned to duty within the evacuation policy laid down by the Force Surgeon for the theatre. Classically, this support will be provided by field hospitals of various types. Maritime Echelon 3 is equivalent to land/air forces Role 3, though it will normally have increased specialty capabilities. Echelon 3 is normally found on some major amphibious ships, on hospital ships, at Fleet Hospitals, at some FLS, and at a few Advanced Logistics Support Sites (ALSS).

1614. Role/Echelon 4 medical support provides definitive care of patients for whom the treatment required is longer than the theatre evacuation policy or for whom the capabilities usually found at role/echelon 3 are inadequate. This would normally comprise specialist surgical and medical procedures, reconstruction, rehabilitation, and convalescence. This level of care is usually highly specialised, time consuming, and normally provided in the country of origin. Under unusual circumstances, this level of care may be established in a theatre of operations.​

I wouldn't blame the accountants/book-keepers so much. Personally i feel that a lack of a clear mission (and hence lack of political support and public opinion) has been the main reason, followed closely by inter-service politiking. The NZ Army has shot down more RNZAF fighters than the enemy managed to in the last 60 years!

Thanks for that. Now I am just trying to translate that into an actual standard of care, to get a grasp of what the different roles can, and cannot do. I have three different levels of first aid/emergency medical training, and depending on which 'hat' I am wearing at a given time, I have three completely different standards of care and scopes of practice.

Regarding whom to "blame" certainly some of it falls upon the NZDF and the respective services and leadership, past and present. Between inter-service rivalries and politicking, as well as at times failing to lucidly and comprehensively explain the potential and probable ramifications of Gov't decisions impacting defence, and of course at times not standing up to members of Gov't who are acting based upon ideology and/or their (as opposed to New Zealand's) political needs and desires.

However, it still does seem that the decisions are being made (or at least heavily influenced) by the finance people who seem to know SFA about defence and instead are just looking at the sticker price.

The Project Protector IMO is a fairly good example of this, where it appears that the RNZN was told it was being given NZD$500 mil. to purchase up to seven vessels for inshore/littoral, EEZ and Southern Ocean/Antarctic patrolling, sealift/amphibious ops, Antarctic resupply/support, and HADR. While I am glad that the NZDF did get the funding to regenerate, add (or regain) these capabilities, as we know the reality, the choices available given the limited amount of funding meant that none of the choices would really be a quality piece of kit. The vessels are of course better than not getting any of them at all, but if perhaps just a little more funding was allocated or allowed, then perhaps there would have been less of an attempt to tick off as many roles per vessel as possible and as a consequence getting some vessels that are not really well suited to any of their proposed roles.

The C-130H Hercules LEP is another example. Quite aside from how much the programme timeframe slipped and costs ballooned, the initial concept seems to have been just to spend more money on them to extend their nearly end-of-servicelife, while not making any long-term decisions towards their ultimate replacements. Please keep in mind that Gov't made the initial decision to go ahead with a LEP in Dec. 2004 with an approval of NZD$226 mil. for the LEP, roughly three months before the first three RNZAF C-130H Hercules reached their 40th birthdays, and the "young" Kiwi Hercs would have been 'only about' 36. The objective was also only to get an additional decade of service out of already worn platforms, after spending nearly NZD$45 mil. per aircraft. This was apparently done because it was seen as a less expensive option than spending a bit more coin for new, up-to-date transports, which could be expected to service for 30 years. Now it is just a little over a decade latter, the fourth LEP Hercules was accepted back in RNZAF service ~4 months ago after over NZD$257 mil. was spent on the programme, the first two LEP Hercules reach their +10 year service lives in five and a half years, and no replacement decisions have been announced, contracts signed, or orders placed.

Given that it can take a number of years between an aircraft order being placed, and the ordered aircraft reaching IOC (especially if it is a new aircraft/design to the service) it is quite possible that the first two upgraded Hercules could have to be withdrawn from service prior to any replacement airlifters enter service.

 

[Zero Alpha]

Beltway rumour has it that for Protector, the recommended option from Defence (and supported by Treasury) was for 3 vessels (Approx half the budget going on what was to become the MRV, and the balance on two OPVs). That option was rejected by Cabinet because it didn't meet the concurrency and overall sea day requirement Cabinet wanted. You might recall that the original concept for the IPVs was that they would share two crews to maximise time at sea. In this case it appears Cabinet made the conscious decision to forego depth of capability and focus on breadth. We could speculate that the political calculation was made that 7 ships sounded like a more serious investment than 3, but I'm not sure anyone outside a select group of people will ever know.

With regard to the Hercules refurbishment, the decision was a choice between refurbishment or new J models. At the time the J was far from mature and was suffering from serious software problems, and hadn't been certified in the tactical role. The upgrade was supposed to address some of the reliability and operating limits, at a low level of technical risk. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and with the business risks around the refurbishment coming to fruition it's fairly clear that delaying any work and purchasing the J when mature would have been the better choice, but I'm not sure anyone knew that at the time. A further complication would have been the impact on capital that the Protector programme was having - effectively 500M of unscheduled spending hitting the forecast that wasn't available for airlift.

The $250M on the Boeings is more of a mystery!

 

[Zero Alpha]

Thanks for that. Now I am just trying to translate that into an actual standard of care, to get a grasp of what the different roles can, and cannot do. I have three different levels of first aid/emergency medical training, and depending on which 'hat' I am wearing at a given time, I have three completely different standards of care and scopes of practice.

Not sure it makes terribly much difference for ship design, apart from some obvious issues like hygiene/sterilisation standards for certain compartments, a 'bare' surgical ward, and accommodation for embarked pers. There will be a medical store of some description, and I know the spec calls for a morgue space (which CY has). As you'll probably already know, the scope of practice for defence medics is substantially wider than civilian roles. A mate of mine spent time as an army medic, then later became a civi ambulance crewman. He wasn't allowed to come close to doing in civi street compared to army.

 

[Todjaeger]

Not sure it makes terribly much difference for ship design, apart from some obvious issues like hygiene/sterilisation standards for certain compartments, a 'bare' surgical ward, and accommodation for embarked pers. There will be a medical store of some description, and I know the spec calls for a morgue space (which CY has). As you'll probably already know, the scope of practice for defence medics is substantially wider than civilian roles. A mate of mine spent time as an army medic, then later became a civi ambulance crewman. He wasn't allowed to come close to doing in civi street compared to army.

Well aware that civilian vs military/tactical scope is very different, as is the types of conditions and trauma treated.

What I was thinking of was more along the lines of whether there would be facilities aboard ship for diagnostic kit and the personnel/technicians to operate ultrasound, x-ray, CAT or MRI machines. Or a pharmacy and personnel to diagnose and dispense antibiotics, antihistamines, etc. Would there be appropriate facilities and personnel to stabilize, or treat, a significant loss of blood volume (hypovolemic) and the associated hypoperfusion aka bleeding/shock.

Depending on the medical standards and area, there can be quite a difference in what is considered "first aid" vs. "treatment" as well as what is considered definitive care.

 

[Zero Alpha]

No idea! But I assume some of those skills would be with the trauma surgeon and anesthisiologist?

 

[Todjaeger]

No idea! But I assume some of those skills would be with the trauma surgeon and anesthisiologist?

Honestly I am not sure either, at least not in an NZ context.

I would expect though that a trauma surgeon and an anesthesiologist would be present would only be serving aboard the vessel if there was a surgical facility aboard, which means a hospital facility and Role 2 + Surgical or higher

For the 'normal' Role 2 or Role 1, based off my current understanding, I would not expect there to be a trauma surgeon. Whether or not there would be another (non-trauma specialty) doctor aboard, or instead a nurse or medic, and even what a nurse or medic could do, is what I wonder about. It is not only about what their level of training and scope is, but also what the onboard facilities and supplies would allow. Setting a bone, even in the field, is relatively easy to do. Setting it properly, especially without x-rays to determine the location and size/number of fractures, is another matter.

At which point the question would then move on to, at what point does patient treatment stop and medevac begin?

 

[Cadredave]

Well aware that civilian vs military/tactical scope is very different, as is the types of conditions and trauma treated.

What I was thinking of was more along the lines of whether there would be facilities aboard ship for diagnostic kit and the personnel/technicians to operate ultrasound, x-ray, CAT or MRI machines. Or a pharmacy and personnel to diagnose and dispense antibiotics, antihistamines, etc. Would there be appropriate facilities and personnel to stabilize, or treat, a significant loss of blood volume (hypovolemic) and the associated hypoperfusion aka bleeding/shock.

Depending on the medical standards and area, there can be quite a difference in what is considered "first aid" vs. "treatment" as well as what is considered definitive care.

Not sure on the other two services but i gather they are the same as NZ Army, Army recruit X-Ray, CAT or MRI trained specialist direct from civi street where they do a Spec Officer course and then posted to one of the Army hospitals or use the skills located in the TF regiments.

The following is from the NZDF recruitment site:

THE DEFENCE FORCE HEALTH SCHOOL

On completion of recruit training, you will be posted to the Defence Health School (DHS), Burnham. This part of your training will take just over two and a half years. Here you will gain work experience and credits on a variety of military and civilian clinical placements.

In your first year of training you will gain the level 6 Diploma of Paramedic Science (Dip Para Sc) followed by the Level 7 Graduate Diploma of Health Science (Grad dip Hsc). Both are conducted by DHS in partnership with the Auckland University of Technology (AUT). You will then graduate as a Medic, be posted to your unit and will be eligible to serve overseas.

A three year Return of Service obligation will be required as part of the training. It now mandatory to be trained to that level due to the health practitioners act which forced NZDF to raise the bar for our medics so having that level of facility on board ship makes sense.

CD

 

[Todjaeger]

Not sure on the other two services but i gather they are the same as NZ Army, Army recruit X-Ray, CAT or MRI trained specialist direct from civi street where they do a Spec Officer course and then posted to one of the Army hospitals or use the skills located in the TF regiments.

The following is from the NZDF recruitment site:

THE DEFENCE FORCE HEALTH SCHOOL

On completion of recruit training, you will be posted to the Defence Health School (DHS), Burnham. This part of your training will take just over two and a half years. Here you will gain work experience and credits on a variety of military and civilian clinical placements.

In your first year of training you will gain the level 6 Diploma of Paramedic Science (Dip Para Sc) followed by the Level 7 Graduate Diploma of Health Science (Grad dip Hsc). Both are conducted by DHS in partnership with the Auckland University of Technology (AUT). You will then graduate as a Medic, be posted to your unit and will be eligible to serve overseas.

A three year Return of Service obligation will be required as part of the training. It now mandatory to be trained to that level due to the health practitioners act which forced NZDF to raise the bar for our medics so having that level of facility on board ship makes sense.

CD

Hmm... Not quite sure how to compares to the US and what the equivalents would be. Part of that is just the differences in the education systems, as well the awarding of diplomas, degrees, licensure and certification.

If I read the bit about the DHS correctly, then a civilian x-ray tech (or whatever the equivalent is in NZ) who joins the NZDF would spend an additional 30 months in training, to learn the skills the NZDF requires of personnel, plus what a Medic is required to know/have, then gets the Grad dip Hsc (whatever this is in terms of qualifications), before being available to serve. This of course is occurring after all the schooling and training required to become a civilian x-ray technican or specialist.

OTOH, would the requirements to become the civilian x-ray tech or specialist already provide the required Dip Para Sc and/or Grad dip Hsc?

And the question still remains, which types and numbers of medical personnel would actually be aboard ship, along with the appropriate kit, for Role 1, Role 2, etc.

Incidentally, if people fell the discussion of medical care, standards, roles, and training is OT and would prefer it moved to another thread or via PM, please let me know.

 

[ngatimozart]

Hmm... Not quite sure how to compares to the US and what the equivalents would be. Part of that is just the differences in the education systems, as well the awarding of diplomas, degrees, licensure and certification.

If I read the bit about the DHS correctly, then a civilian x-ray tech (or whatever the equivalent is in NZ) who joins the NZDF would spend an additional 30 months in training, to learn the skills the NZDF requires of personnel, plus what a Medic is required to know/have, theun gets the Grad dip Hsc (whatever this is in terms of qualifications), before being available to serve. This of course is occurring after all the schooling and training required to become a civilian x-ray technican or specialist.

OTOH, would the requirements to become the civilian x-ray tech or specialist already provide the required Dip Para Sc and/or Grad dip Hsc?

And the question still remains, which types and numbers of medical personnel would actually be aboard ship, along with the appropriate kit, for Role 1, Role 2, etc.

Incidentally, if people fell the discussion of medical care, standards, roles, and training is OT and would prefer it moved to another thread or via PM, please let me know.

The civilian xray techs are radiographers and undertake 3 years training at a Polytechnic. Upon successful completion they graduated with a Bachelor's Degree in Radiography. They are required to undertake further training in order to progress such as ultra sound sonographer, CT technician and finally MRI technician. IIRC they have to be registered as well. Radiologists pick their speciality after surviving medical school becoming house surgeons etc. We use the British system.

 

[Cadredave]

Hmm... If I read the bit about the DHS correctly, then a civilian x-ray tech (or whatever the equivalent is in NZ) who joins the NZDF would spend an additional 30 months in training, to learn the skills the NZDF requires of personnel, plus what a Medic is required to know/have, then gets the Grad dip Hsc (whatever this is in terms of qualifications), before being available to serve. This of course is occurring after all the schooling and training required to become a civilian x-ray technican or specialist.

Tod just to clarify there are two types of Officers in the Army:

G List - war fighters &
Spec List - Specialist Officers ie Radiologists, Surgeons, Nurses,lawyers, NZDF recruit those personnel who have already qualified on civi street ie X-ray, CAT, MIR etc and put them through a Specialist Officer course which is three weeks long in which they learn how to march, salute etc and then become Officers to use there civilian skills.

DHS is for kids straight out of high school who have gone to see a recruiter and went to recruit training center from there once qualified as a private then sent to DHS to conduct spec training as a medic for the next 30 months.

hope this explains the difference better.

 

[Todjaeger]

The civilian xray techs are radiographers and undertake 3 years training at a Polytechnic. Upon successful completion they graduated with a Bachelor's Degree in Radiography. They are required to undertake further training in order to progress such as ultra sound sonographer, CT technician and finally MRI technician. IIRC they have to be registered as well. Radiologists pick their speciality after surviving medical school becoming house surgeons etc. We use the British system.

Okay, a bit different then from the US system.

The process in the US (which can vary a little depending on state) after graduating high school (~18 years old/roughly Year 12, I think) or getting a GED, then one has to enroll in either a Certificate, 2-year Associates Degree, or 4-year Bachelors Degree including Radiology/X-ray Technician training.

Realistically, without at least an Associates Degree and/or additional qualifications beyond X-ray tech, then there is little chance of employment.

Upon completely of the requisite X-ray technician training from an accredited program, then depending on the state and local employment requirements, there are different potential paths. Most commonly, the would-be x-ray tech would then take a four hour written test and after passing, would be awarded an RT or Registered Technologist credential, as in many places it is a condition of employment. Also depending on the state, licensure is often required and in some cases there is different licensure depending on the procedure. Commonly an RT is required as a condition of licensure, and/or the testing for licensure is the same as for the RT credential. From there, additional certifications are available to become things like a Radiologist Assistant and/or specialize in specific types of equipment like CT scans, MRI, etc.

The process for nursing and EMS can be similarly convoluted.