Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[donald_of_tokyo]

I've read somewhere that the IPV's machinery is too complicated for RNZNVR personnel to handle. Moas's where simple, small, easy to maintain.

I understand RNZN active ships are now 2 IPV, 2 OPV, in addition to 2 FFs (Te Kaha and Te Mana), Endeavor, Canterbury and Manawanui. Manpower is the real driver (limiting factor, in fact), isn't it?

Any future plan shall be "man-power flat", I guess. This is not because RNZN is not putting enough effort for recruiting, but because current situation is the result of "their doing best", I guess (I see many pages on Facebook to improve newcomers' morale).

Then what I would like to see is
- 2 FFs properly modified
- 1 MRV (Canterbury) working well
- 1 AO replacement (similar crew size)
- 2 OPVs working well
- 1 larger/faster/OPV-like replacement for Manawanui with similar crew size (also used as "the 3rd OPV")

and...

- Sell 4 IPV (to Philippines or Sri Lanka or Bangladesh or any...) and purchase 4 smaller/simpler IPVs.

Current IPVs are good ship. Only it does not meet RNZN needs.

Replacement IPV could be Pacific Patrol Boat (from Austal), or Damen 4207 series. In the latter case, you need only a crew of 12 each. I even propose to reduce their speed from original 25kt to 20kt, by replacing its machinaries with more "easy maintenance/low power" engines.

With this approach, maybe RNZN can operate all 4 of them, 2 for RNZNVR, and 2 for inshore tasks.

 

[Lucasnz]

I've read somewhere that the IPV's machinery is too complicated for RNZNVR personnel to handle. Moas's where simple, small, easy to maintain.

A test done by the navy (and reported in the navy today) a couple of years ago stated that that the reserves were ready in terms of seamanship to operate the IPV but required more training on technical side.

It should also be pointed out that an increasing number of reserve personnel are ex regular force, who can now transfer directly to the active reserves. Consequently they have the technical skills to maintain the electrical, electronic and mechanical systems, they just need the training for that piece of equipment. The issue is a matter of the RNZN getting off its butt and in the words on one Prime Minister to a head of government department years ago "Teach them". Sending one of the IPV on port visits to each VR division for two - three months of the year (instead of parked up in Auckland) would assist in that, with a regular technical maintainer overseeing the training and maintenance (as happened with the Moa class). I apologise if I'm been a bit direct, but I believe that the Reserves continue to be undervalued by the regular force.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

The two frigates are already well underway with full refit ,maritime review and Nz Navy today can fill you in on details,also other threads here. Aor/ HMNZ Endeavour in final stages of tender for replacement, also mentioned here, one is of the Korean shipyards Hyundai. Opv and Canterbury have had remedial work just in recent years to fix any initial issues.

If it means selling the IPV off at a loss, to gain an OPV force that is going to sit dockside due to personnel issues, im not for that. Id rather they sort personnel issues first. If this means spending that money expanding facilities and upskilling Navy reserves, to station those existing IPV around our Coastline more strategically, so be it.

I dont believe spending more limited funds on a slower, less powerful engined, shorter hull Ipv would make sense for inshore work, given survivability and duration would be affected,and thats part of the reason to get rid of them in the first place!

 

[RegR]

The two frigates are already well underway with full refit ,maritime review and Nz Navy today can fill you in on details,also other threads here. Aor/ HMNZ Endeavour in final stages of tender for replacement, also mentioned here, one is of the Korean shipyards Hyundai. Opv and Canterbury have had remedial work just in recent years to fix any initial issues.

If it means selling the IPV off at a loss, to gain an OPV force that is going to sit dockside due to personnel issues, im not for that. Id rather they sort personnel issues first. If this means spending that money expanding facilities and upskilling Navy reserves, to station those existing IPV around our Coastline more strategically, so be it.

I dont believe spending more limited funds on a slower, less powerful engined, shorter hull Ipv would make sense for inshore work, given survivability and duration would be affected,and thats part of the reason to get rid of them in the first place!

Yes I do not see how being unable to man these vessels now makes them unsuitable
for their intended role, inshore patrol, and that the answer is to replace 2 of class with 1 offshore patrol vessel especially if we are just trading 2 unmanned vessels (no doubt at a loss/cost) for potentially 1 unmanned vessel as then what is the point exactly? Are our current OPV overworked? The days at sea patrolling would suggest otherwise.

All territorial units have a cadre of regular personnel posted for day to day running, training, admin etc so just make sure you have the right pers for the right job in fulltime slots within RNZNVR to alleviate, unless of course it's these specific trades they are lacking in and then the type of ship is rather moot and we are back to the manning elephant in the room anyway.

Send the IPVs back to the rockies in the major regions (ironically where our coastline is) as per, have more dedicated M/fish, customs etc in those ports embedded more as crew rather than merely pax and as you say with the wealth of ex naval knowledge out there and new training (I'm sure there are just as complex civilian vessels around) they themselves should solve the manning issues within Navy (in Auckland) somewhat better ir at least give recruiters a wider target. Someone on here mentioned naval pers don't join to be 'coastguard' vs sailing the high seas on a frigate but in fact VR would more likely do this as they obviously have a life in their region and can't exactly be deploying regularly at length usually, days vs weeks is just as big a commitment to TF as a 6 month deployment is to regulars in terms of family, lifestyle and more importantly their primary career choice.

 

[ngatimozart]

Regarding the discussion of the RNZNVR & RNZN Regulars, from what I have seen I get the impression that the RNZN hierarchy appear to have a bias against the Reserves. It's almost like the old RN Regular / Reserve class snobbishness that used to permeate the RN prior to WW2. I certainly hope this is not the case. There most certainly is a lack of RNZN wise utilisation of the RNZNVR. I think that the RNZN senior Sirs need to reevaluate their utilisation of the Rockies especially in this time of very limited resources because the Rockies do have skill sets that are highly beneficial to the Navy.

 

[Rob c]

The two frigates are already well underway with full refit ,maritime review and Nz Navy today can fill you in on details,also other threads here. Aor/ HMNZ Endeavour in final stages of tender for replacement, also mentioned here, one is of the Korean shipyards Hyundai. Opv and Canterbury have had remedial work just in recent years to fix any initial issues.

If it means selling the IPV off at a loss, to gain an OPV force that is going to sit dockside due to personnel issues, im not for that. Id rather they sort personnel issues first. If this means spending that money expanding facilities and upskilling Navy reserves, to station those existing IPV around our Coastline more strategically, so be it.

I dont believe spending more limited funds on a slower, less powerful engined, shorter hull Ipv would make sense for inshore work, given survivability and duration would be affected,and thats part of the reason to get rid of them in the first place!

Agree with the above. The ipv's were meant to patrol out to 200 km, so gained the longer hull to enable them to do this, A shorter hull in NZ waters means that you are severely restricted as to what weather you can operate in. I had the good fortune in the late 70's to spend a day on one of the old lake class (33 mtr?)patrol boats. At one stage we had to check a contact NW of Cook strait near Kapiti Island. The ride into a fresh northwester (30kt+) at 18kts, was not fun and the lack of length really showed as one had to stand up so you could absorb the shocks through your legs, sitting or lying was not an option. Shorter hulls are only useful in fine weather and no use at all in winter.

 

[recce.k1]

Agree with the above. The ipv's were meant to patrol out to 200 km, so gained the longer hull to enable them to do this, A shorter hull in NZ waters means that you are severely restricted as to what weather you can operate in. I had the good fortune in the late 70's to spend a day on one of the old lake class (33 mtr?)patrol boats. At one stage we had to check a contact NW of Cook strait near Kapiti Island. The ride into a fresh northwester (30kt+) at 18kts, was not fun and the lack of length really showed as one had to stand up so you could absorb the shocks through your legs, sitting or lying was not an option. Shorter hulls are only useful in fine weather and no use at all in winter.

Presumably then, the longer IPV's handle rough seas much, much better than the Moa IPC's of old, however imagine being in the IPV'S in rough sea states potentially all the way out to 200nm! Presumably then, this is where the Defmin (on behalf of the RNZN) is coming from, when he talked about selling off two IPV and replacing them with a OPV, which would handle the conditions better.

(Although in this article the Defmin talks about them going past 200nm and being a "danger").

Accepting then that an OPV would be better suited to work in rough seas within 200nm from shore (ignoring any inefficiencies of using a larger vessel), should the IPV's (the remaining ones) be more limited in their patrol range?

If so, do we need to guard against the future total sell-off (by any Govt) of the entire IPV fleet if it is felt something more smaller (cheaper) would do the trick for "inshore" work (in light of not wanting to ignore lessons learnt from the past of utilising smaller craft with poor sea-keeping and survivability etc)?

The other thing too (in regards to potentially utilising something smaller for inshore work) is that the IPV's are very capable vessels (have good accommodation for extras, the utility of the RHIB's etc), especially when compared to all previous types the Navy have operated. Perhaps the VR scenario is our best means of saving them!

 

[Rob c]

Presumably then, the longer IPV's handle rough seas much, much better than the Moa IPC's of old, however imagine being in the IPV'S in rough sea states potentially all the way out to 200nm! Presumably then, this is where the Defmin (on behalf of the RNZN) is coming from, when he talked about selling off two IPV and replacing them with a OPV, which would handle the conditions better.

(Although in this article the Defmin talks about them going past 200nm and being a "danger").

Accepting then that an OPV would be better suited to work in rough seas within 200nm from shore (ignoring any inefficiencies of using a larger vessel), should the IPV's (the remaining ones) be more limited in their patrol range?

If so, do we need to guard against the future total sell-off (by any Govt) of the entire IPV fleet if it is felt something more smaller (cheaper) would do the trick for "inshore" work (in light of not wanting to ignore lessons learnt from the past of utilising smaller craft with poor sea-keeping and survivability etc)?

The other thing too (in regards to potentially utilising something smaller for inshore work) is that the IPV's are very capable vessels (have good accommodation for extras, the utility of the RHIB's etc), especially when compared to all previous types the Navy have operated. Perhaps the VR scenario is our best means of saving them!

Totally agree, That the Navy said that the VR's could not handle them technically, is in my view just a training issue that the regular force did not want to deal with and they probably felt there was a financial penalty to the regular force.

 

[ASSAIL]

Totally agree, That the Navy said that the VR's could not handle them technically, is in my view just a training issue that the regular force did not want to deal with and they probably felt there was a financial penalty to the regular force.

It's not a training issue, it's a continuity and commitment issue. VR personnel are job mobile, have families, have domestic pressure etc.
The boats are too complex without a large amount do support from the regs which is not available in the various ports without naval presence.

This is the very reason why the RAN abolished all the various lists of reservists and rolled them into one reserve force, abandoned the Port Divisions and let all reserves serve in embedded time flexible billets. It was beneficial for both sides and has been highly successful.

 

[chis73]

If I may engage in some idle speculation, I would say that the IPVs are being sacrificed in order to afford a new ice-strengthened polar OPV, not because of any lack of performance, or requirement for them. This decision was obviously reached some time ago (see the Navy's Strategic 2020 Vision document from July last year, p.2). With the changes to the IMO polar code adopted in Nov 2014, the two current OPVs will no longer meet the required standard from 1 Jan 2018. To patrol the Ross Sea, therefore, a new vessel is needed. Given the meanness and parsimony of the NZG wrt Defence, I'd say Navy were told that they would have to give something up if they wanted a new ship. Much like the old Seasprites were sold off instead of sensibly keeping them for parts (seeing that the SH-2G is such a rare bird), or like the Resolution, Kahu & Manawanui replacements are being combined into a single vessel (without any backup). Budget-driven defence policy again? A particular problem is that the legal justification for fisheries enforcement in the Ross Sea is decidedly shakier (as seen during the HMNZS Wellington's patrol early last year) than that within our 12nm territorial sea. It's not even within our EEZ. Search & Rescue obligations are probably the strongest rationale for a specialist polar OPV.

Testimony from Customs at their annual Select Committee hearing (link, p. 12-14) stated that only 57% of their highest priority taskings were being met last year. Does that then mean perhaps an even lower percentage of the lower priority tasks are being met? We've seen from the NZ First press release just how little fisheries patrol is being done. The taskings for more than 2 IPVs are clearly still there, in my view. Having them all based in Auckland compromises their response time though - and response patrols (vectored by air assets), rather than programmed patrols, are what these vessels should really be used for.

If the vessels are so clearly not up to the job, as the Minister claims, why sell just 2 instead of all 4?

I think there is still a strong case for retaining all the IPVs and adding an additional OPV. Crewing is an issue, but that is again a result of a foolish resourcing policy.

 

[RegR]

If I may engage in some idle speculation, I would say that the IPVs are being sacrificed in order to afford a new ice-strengthened polar OPV, not because of any lack of performance, or requirement for them. This decision was obviously reached some time ago (see the Navy's Strategic 2020 Vision document from July last year, p.2). With the changes to the IMO polar code adopted in Nov 2014, the two current OPVs will no longer meet the required standard from 1 Jan 2018. To patrol the Ross Sea, therefore, a new vessel is needed. Given the meanness and parsimony of the NZG wrt Defence, I'd say Navy were told that they would have to give something up if they wanted a new ship. Much like the old Seasprites were sold off instead of sensibly keeping them for parts (seeing that the SH-2G is such a rare bird), or like the Resolution, Kahu & Manawanui replacements are being combined into a single vessel (without any backup). Budget-driven defence policy again? A particular problem is that the legal justification for fisheries enforcement in the Ross Sea is decidedly shakier (as seen during the HMNZS Wellington's patrol early last year) than that within our 12nm territorial sea. It's not even within our EEZ. Search & Rescue obligations are probably the strongest rationale for a specialist polar OPV.

Testimony from Customs at their annual Select Committee hearing (link, p. 12-14) stated that only 57% of their highest priority taskings were being met last year. Does that then mean perhaps an even lower percentage of the lower priority tasks are being met? We've seen from the NZ First press release just how little fisheries patrol is being done. The taskings for more than 2 IPVs are clearly still there, in my view. Having them all based in Auckland compromises their response time though - and response patrols (vectored by air assets), rather than programmed patrols, are what these vessels should really be used for.

If the vessels are so clearly not up to the job, as the Minister claims, why sell just 2 instead of all 4?

I think there is still a strong case for retaining all the IPVs and adding an additional OPV. Crewing is an issue, but that is again a result of a foolish resourcing policy.

Agreed govt will always try and keep costs down and do everything in their power to not pump additional funding into defence but cannot be seen to be shafting one capability over another therefore will come up with clever scenarios involving change in times, shift in policies or merging of capabilities to justify.

The IPVs are just the easiest option at the moment to discount and next on the list to sacrifice (through no fault of their own), much like the ACF, that is easier to sell down the river to joe public without much or noticeble backlash. The need and requirement has not changed although neither has the funding cap so as you say navy would have been told they need to lose something to gain something when in reality a 3rd OPV should really be added to the mix not in lieu of, and for the same reasons as a 3rd frigate for justification.

As has been stated we had a slightly larger navy with a larger crew requirement so if anything we should have personel to spare but for some reason pers have been leaving hand over fist and recruitment has not kept pace. This can be attributed to the civilianisation debacle, lure of civilian industry (incl Aus) and changing generational attitudes. Maybe Navy (defence) has to adjust with the times, create incentives, recruiters up their game, become more competitive etc, who knows but either way nows not working.

They will not be divesting themselves of Inshore patrol craft in the interests of role and requirement but more from a financial standpoint so not really solving any one problem more moving them around and hiding it with distraction.

 

[Todjaeger]

From my POV, it seems that the goalposts for the IPV's have been moved, which might be one of the reasons for their lack of use and having two removed from service.

When I recently checked the RNZN site, it mentions that the IPV's are designed for missions along the Kiwi coastline, out to the 200 n mile EEZ limit.

That capability set did not jive with what I could recall about the IPV's from when Project Protector commenced. Taking a look at what the Navy Museum site had to say about Project Protector vessel capabilities... It seems that IPV's were intended to only patrol out to 25 n miles, which sounds more like what I remember.

If the NZG/NZDF and/or RNZN have found that more patrolling is needed between the 25 n mile to 200 n mile limits, I could then understand how/why this might have changed on the RNZN site. I could also better understand how new vessels might be otherwise unsuitable for the tasks required.

Doing some checking, it appears that it be Sea State 4 east of Christchurch, between South Island and Chatham Island over the next two days. Now I admit I am guessing here, but given the region that would appear fairly normal for this time of year. Looking at a region of the North Atlantic east of Nova Scotia and south of Newfoundland which should be within the Canadian EEZ, the conditions looks fairly similar for the next couple of days.

This is significant IMO because the RCN has found their Kingston-class MCDV's to be 'wet' ships due to sea conditions, and as a result was utilizing them less, and under milder conditions than originally planned. The RCN MCDV design is of a similar size to the RNZN's IPV's, being 55 m in length, though having a broader beam at 11.3 m vs. 9 m for the IPV. Perhaps the greatest difference is the displacement, with the RCN vessel having nearly triple the displacement at 970 tonnes vs. 340 tonnes. I could be mistaken but I would have thought the greater displacement would have improved how a vessel would handle sea conditions. Perhaps some could confirm or correct me on this?

If the NZG/NZDF/RNZN feels greater patrolling of the EEZ is required, but further from the NZ coast, then IMO the IPV's are no longer appropriate for, or really up to the task. This would support the IPV's being 'too small' for some tasks. By the same token, some of the very close inshore work which might periodically need to be done would require a significantly smaller vessel than an IPV like an RHIB, which could be deployed from an OPV or an IPV. I suppose the question should be asked, just what is the ideal size/displacement of a patrol vessel operating in open waters like the Tasman Sea, Southern Ocean, and Pacific Ocean areas around New Zealand.

 

[ASSAIL]

I've posed this question before but how does NZ exercise its constitutional responsibilities for the defence of its Pacific Island partners.
With all the criticism f the IPvs in NZ waters it seems to me the ideal use for these ships is fulfilling those obligations.

The NZ government is responsible for foreign affairs and defence under Sec. 6 of the Nieu Constitution. Similarly, it is responsible for FA and defence under Sec 6 of the Cook Is Constitution. Further, Tokelauis administered by NZ and under the Principals of Partnership 1926, it is also responsible for FA and defence of that country.

The IPVs would be ideal to exercise that responsibility and given that NZ also provides naval expertise for the operation of the Pacific Patrol Boats in the Cook LSL and Western Samoa, it would be an ideal fit.

I feel entitled to ask these questions due to my 25% NZ bloodline

 

[Lucasnz]

I've posed this question before but how does NZ exercise its constitutional responsibilities for the defence of its Pacific Island partners.
With all the criticism f the IPvs in NZ waters it seems to me the ideal use for these ships is fulfilling those obligations.

The NZ government is responsible for foreign affairs and defence under Sec. 6 of the Nieu Constitution. Similarly, it is responsible for FA and defence under Sec 6 of the Cook Is Constitution. Further, Tokelauis administered by NZ and under the Principals of Partnership 1926, it is also responsible for FA and defence of that country.

The IPVs would be ideal to exercise that responsibility and given that NZ also provides naval expertise for the operation of the Pacific Patrol Boats in the Cook LSL and Western Samoa, it would be an ideal fit.

I feel entitled to ask these questions due to my 25% NZ bloodline

I would suggest that at the moment we have ignored our responsibilities towards those nations. However I got the impression that the Defence Review (via the Strategic Assessment) was looking afresh at the matter. I would concur that the IPV might be an suitable way of reflecting our commitment, provided we were prepared to fund there operation, as the individual states would I suspect struggle to fund the operational element.

 

[RegR]

From my POV, it seems that the goalposts for the IPV's have been moved, which might be one of the reasons for their lack of use and having two removed from service.

When I recently checked the RNZN site, it mentions that the IPV's are designed for missions along the Kiwi coastline, out to the 200 n mile EEZ limit.

That capability set did not jive with what I could recall about the IPV's from when Project Protector commenced. Taking a look at what the Navy Museum site had to say about Project Protector vessel capabilities... It seems that IPV's were intended to only patrol out to 25 n miles, which sounds more like what I remember.

If the NZG/NZDF and/or RNZN have found that more patrolling is needed between the 25 n mile to 200 n mile limits, I could then understand how/why this might have changed on the RNZN site. I could also better understand how new vessels might be otherwise unsuitable for the tasks required.

Doing some checking, it appears that it be Sea State 4 east of Christchurch, between South Island and Chatham Island over the next two days. Now I admit I am guessing here, but given the region that would appear fairly normal for this time of year. Looking at a region of the North Atlantic east of Nova Scotia and south of Newfoundland which should be within the Canadian EEZ, the conditions looks fairly similar for the next couple of days.

This is significant IMO because the RCN has found their Kingston-class MCDV's to be 'wet' ships due to sea conditions, and as a result was utilizing them less, and under milder conditions than originally planned. The RCN MCDV design is of a similar size to the RNZN's IPV's, being 55 m in length, though having a broader beam at 11.3 m vs. 9 m for the IPV. Perhaps the greatest difference is the displacement, with the RCN vessel having nearly triple the displacement at 970 tonnes vs. 340 tonnes. I could be mistaken but I would have thought the greater displacement would have improved how a vessel would handle sea conditions. Perhaps some could confirm or correct me on this?

If the NZG/NZDF/RNZN feels greater patrolling of the EEZ is required, but further from the NZ coast, then IMO the IPV's are no longer appropriate for, or really up to the task. This would support the IPV's being 'too small' for some tasks. By the same token, some of the very close inshore work which might periodically need to be done would require a significantly smaller vessel than an IPV like an RHIB, which could be deployed from an OPV or an IPV. I suppose the question should be asked, just what is the ideal size/displacement of a patrol vessel operating in open waters like the Tasman Sea, Southern Ocean, and Pacific Ocean areas around New Zealand.

The issue is manning and not enough crew to go around, we have not just cut hours from the IPV due to unsuitability for their proposed task, these 2 IPV are the same 2 with 1 being parked up for a year and the other 2 years. Their 'crews' would now be keeping the rest of the fleet active that are seen as more important.

Being down 2 inshore vessels would now mean either the other 2 will have twice the workload or the OPV will have to take on more of that role (inshore) regardless of how far out they now deem the inshore range, which is why I still see the excuse of essentially trading 2 IPVs for 1 OPV more a cost cutting/saving measure as we should ideally have both options ie the 'surplus' 2 inshore vessels as well as the extra OPV but alas until they sort the manning issue they are just as usefull/useless as each other.

With the declaration of the expanded Kermadec reserve the extra OPV would be a welcome addition but then patrol cycles would remain the same if that OPV is merely taking on the inshore role of 2 lost ships. Yes shifting goalposts but are we really gaining anything or just moving the ball from one end of the feild to the other as well?

 

[MrConservative]

I've posed this question before but how does NZ exercise its constitutional responsibilities for the defence of its Pacific Island partners.
With all the criticism f the IPvs in NZ waters it seems to me the ideal use for these ships is fulfilling those obligations.

The NZ government is responsible for foreign affairs and defence under Sec. 6 of the Nieu Constitution. Similarly, it is responsible for FA and defence under Sec 6 of the Cook Is Constitution. Further, Tokelauis administered by NZ and under the Principals of Partnership 1926, it is also responsible for FA and defence of that country.

The IPVs would be ideal to exercise that responsibility and given that NZ also provides naval expertise for the operation of the Pacific Patrol Boats in the Cook LSL and Western Samoa, it would be an ideal fit.

I feel entitled to ask these questions due to my 25% NZ bloodline

Good point.

The current Pacific Boat fleet will be replaced circa 2019 with an envisaged 40m version built and paid for by Aus Gov. That should go ahead as planned but the question should be asked about a NZ contribution to Niue, the Cooks and the Tokelau's. Also NZ has a defence arrangement with Samoa since their independence in 1962. That is at least a fact scenario to begin discussion from.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Good point.

The current Pacific Boat fleet will be replaced circa 2019 with an envisaged 40m version built and paid for by Aus Gov. That should go ahead as planned but the question should be asked about a NZ contribution to Niue, the Cooks and the Tokelau's. Also NZ has a defence arrangement with Samoa since their independence in 1962. That is at least a fact scenario to begin discussion from.

Incorporating Micronesia into the Pacific Patrol Boat program to includes NZ's micronesian defence support arrangements would be of cost benefit to everyone...

 

[MrConservative]

From my POV, it seems that the goalposts for the IPV's have been moved, which might be one of the reasons for their lack of use and having two removed from service.

When I recently checked the RNZN site, it mentions that the IPV's are designed for missions along the Kiwi coastline, out to the 200 n mile EEZ limit.

That capability set did not jive with what I could recall about the IPV's from when Project Protector commenced. Taking a look at what the Navy Museum site had to say about Project Protector vessel capabilities... It seems that IPV's were intended to only patrol out to 25 n miles, which sounds more like what I remember.

If the NZG/NZDF and/or RNZN have found that more patrolling is needed between the 25 n mile to 200 n mile limits, I could then understand how/why this might have changed on the RNZN site. I could also better understand how new vessels might be otherwise unsuitable for the tasks required.

The April 2006 Navy Today clearly states that they were for patrolling out to 24nm. The CY and the two OPVs were to patrol the outer EEZ from 24nm.

The CY failed as a "OPV" and the business end is the outer EZZ & Sub-Antarctic in which 2 was not enough and those two are not too flash south of Stewart Island.

Yeah goalposts changed.

If the NZG/NZDF/RNZN feels greater patrolling of the EEZ is required, but further from the NZ coast, then IMO the IPV's are no longer appropriate for, or really up to the task. This would support the IPV's being 'too small' for some tasks. By the same token, some of the very close inshore work which might periodically need to be done would require a significantly smaller vessel than an IPV like an RHIB, which could be deployed from an OPV or an IPV.

A lot of the inshore fisheries and customs work out to 12nm can be done by small vessels and that is where customs and fisheries officers as with the police have commissioned legal power. The patrol matrix has changed with technology also. Small maritime ISR aircraft are much more capable then the late 1990s when the research stage and evidence for the MFR and MPR were scoped. That combination together of sweep and detect then prosecute is much more effective and efficient.

I suppose the question should be asked, just what is the ideal size/displacement of a patrol vessel operating in open waters like the Tasman Sea, Southern Ocean, and Pacific Ocean areas around New Zealand.

My view is that not one vessel can or should do this. I would separate their very different roles into different vessel types and configurations. Some commonality can be had where plausible but I believe a specific South Patrol vessel is a unique subset apart from the northern EEZ and Pacific patrol duties.

 

[Redlands18]

The UK has started work on designing a new light weight Frigate as per the SDSR to complement the Type 26, i wonder if this could be a good fit for the RNZN. It will be a few years down the track from the Type 26 and a joint build with the RN in UK yards would certainly help price wise. Just a thought.

 

[donald_of_tokyo]

man power flat

Baseline of my proposal is to keep it man-power flat, or, only a little increase.

1: Manawanui's crew --> Replacement OPV (or may be PSV-like polar patrol vessel?) : may need little increase in crew.
2: Endevor's crew --> AO-replacement. Done.

Then, what is left is the crew of the 2 IPVs.

If you sell only 2 IPVs (not used now), no crew is associated. No way RNZN can buy another OPV, I guess.

If you sell all 4 IPVs, only in this case, you have options to think.

option-1: Get "3rd OPV" to cover "EEZ tasks", and 2-3 small boats (how about CB90? can be embarked in Canterbury in emergency) to cover "< 24nm tasks"

option-2: Get 4 smaller IPVs, such as Damen 4207 (which holds quite good reputation worldwide), to cover "< 24 nm tasks". If you make it "easy to maintain" (e.g. degrade speed and make the maintenance period "twice or more" longer), then these vessel could be operated with less engineers.

# I read somewhere that there are enough manpower in "number". What is lacking is the skilled manpower, especially engineer.

option-2A: 4 smaller IPVs as pacific patrol boat replacement (PPB-R). I guess it shall be also made of "easy to maintain" philosophy.

In all these cases, RNZVR could "borrow" the vessels a few times an year.

I confess that, I am not so familiar with RNZN and VR operations. I just followed RNZN from 1990 or so from the net. But I remember the IPB Moas were performing "Q-route survey", "harbor training" and "patrolling" several times a year each.

Moa was easy-to-operate vessel, good for VRs, I read. I guess, CB90s, Damen 4207s or PPB-R could be also "easy-to-operate" vessels.