Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[Rob c]

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.

Good point, means that with out significant regular support the VR option is a dead duck. This support would be unlikely given current manning problems the navy has.

 

[Rob c]

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.

This will be an interesting one to follow as some commentators are predicting an inservice cost of the type 26 as high as $2b, which is probably beyond us.

 

[40 deg south]

https://www.facebook.com/RoyalNewZealandNavy/videos/10154866645693009/?fref=nf

For any old salts who escape the RSA bar by 10am on ANZAC Day, the documentary above should be great viewing.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

Given the full refit of our 2 Frigates wont be completed until 2017/2018 respectively, we wont be considering a replacement for another ten years after that at least. I would rather we do a joint purchase with Australia, in terms of commonality of equipment and potential savings. This depends on when they start retiring theirs of course.

 

[ngatimozart]

There is an ongoing discussion on the RAN thread at the moment regarding their ANZAC FFH replacement project, plus their OPV build. It is worth looking at. The CoA have shortlisted three frigate contenders, the BAE Type 26, Fincantieri Italian FREMM and redesigned Navantia F100. The OPV contenders are Damen of the Netherlands, Fassmer of Germany, and Lurssen of Germany.

In the overall scheme of Trans-Tasman defence and security relations, the wisest move that the NZG could make would be to fully participate in the RAN frigate and OPV projects. No cost cutting short cuts but with the frigate project have a more GP approach. So it will cover ASW, AAW & ASuW. If they go with Damen for the OPV, the one that I would like the RNZN acquire is the Damen 1800 Sea Axe. Good handling in rough seas.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

Damen sea axe certainly looks like a good design,big improve on speed and firepower, crew requirement is similar to current OPV. Cant find any info on range of ship and only 'all weather conditions' qouted, instead of sea state survivability.

Our OPV Hmnz Otago has been stated as surviving sea states 9 in Operation Castle, a few years ago. I wonder if it can operate in Antarctic conditions.

 

[Todjaeger]

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?

I do not dispute that there are manning issues for the RNZN. In fact, that was a concern pointed out while Project Protector was going on, that more sailors would be needed to crew the new vessels coming in.

What I am questioning though, is what are the areas deemed most important for the Patrol Forces to cover, and whether this determination is involved in the two IPV's being let go. Given the change in the IPV mission (from coastline to 24 n miles initially, now from coastline to 200 n miles) which is no longer just inshore patrolling, it seems that the demand for inshore patrols is less/of less importance, than the offshore patrols. With ~19 m small craft in the hands of Customs, MFisheries, and various police agencies and others, which are suitable for inshore patrolling out to 12 n miles, it does seem that other agencies are better kitted for handling inshore work.

As for whether the RNZNVR is being/could be put to valid use, I honestly do not know. I would like to think that there are members of the Reserves (or those would be in the Reserves) who would like to be able to serve aboard a RNZN vessel. What I am much less certain of is whether or not sufficient Reserve members, with the appropriate training and skills, could be assembled as crews, to permit an IPV to conduct the sort of patrolling they were designed or now expected to do.

Assuming than a VR crew was expected to conduct 14 days of patrolling in a single deployment (with or without making port calls), and the VR IPV was expected to provide ~225 sea days of patrolling... That would require 16 separate crews for the IPV, or a minimum of 320 VR personnel to man one IPV for a year. That is assuming that no VR crew member does multiple patrols during the course of the year, and the all the needed skills/trades for all positions aboard are available, and that all members of a specific VR crew are available when needed for 'their' patrol. The reality IMO would be that a larger margin of personnel would be required, in the event that specific members with required skills are unavailable due to work, health, family issues, etc.

 

[Rob c]

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.

Has anyone got any info as to whether NZ has ever contributed to the above.

 

[ngatimozart]

Has anyone got any info as to whether NZ has ever contributed to the above.

No one liners. Refer to the rules regarding single line posts.

 

[recce.k1]

What I am questioning though, is what are the areas deemed most important for the Patrol Forces to cover, and whether this determination is involved in the two IPV's being let go. Given the change in the IPV mission (from coastline to 24 n miles initially, now from coastline to 200 n miles) which is no longer just inshore patrolling, it seems that the demand for inshore patrols is less/of less importance, than the offshore patrols. With ~19 m small craft in the hands of Customs, MFisheries, and various police agencies and others, which are suitable for inshore patrolling out to 12 n miles, it does seem that other agencies are better kitted for handling inshore work.

It seems as if the areas deemed most important for the Patrol Forces to cover appear to be offshore, 200 n miles and beyond, if the following are anything to go by:

*The maritime reviews of 2000/2001 were suggesting 3-4 OPV's and a multi-role vessel capable of patrol functions. Instead 2 OPV's were funded and the MRV that was funded was later deemed unsuitable for patrolling. So instead of a fleet of 4-5 capable (offshore) patrol type vessels only 2 (OPV's) were commissioned to undertake that role and they have been busy working up to and conducting deep Southern Ocean patrols and South Pacific patrols (from around mid-spring to mid-autumn i.e. for around six months of the busiest part of the year).

*Perhaps then that's why the IPV's are being pushed out to 200 n miles in lieu of lack of OPV availability for general EEZ patrolling? And presumably the IPV's are patrolling for longer periods than envisaged, if so presumably then crewing the 2 operational IPV's takes greater priority over getting the other 2 IPV's to sea?

*Inshore work is also being covered by other Govt agencies (it would seem to be fair to say even more-so than at the time of the 2000/2001 maritime reviews), meaning less RNZN inshore patrolling is now required?

Anyway if this is so, then obtaining a 3rd OPV finally, makes a lot of sense however the reality is, Treasury are still being too tight, they should be funding a 3rd OPV (if not more) as new funding and not by forcing the NZDF to make IPV funding cuts to give the Navy (some of) the capabilities they should have been funded for in the first place over ten years ago!

If some of this seems contradictory (i.e. less RNZN inshore patrolling due to other Govt agency efforts v why then retain the 4 IPV's etc), I'm thinking of greater joint-Regular/Reserve IPV use and/or re-rolling the IPV's to take on other naval functions (alongside "coast guard" patrolling) such as mine-hunting/clearing and/or underwater ISR and undersea mapping in littoral/green waters etc. Surely the IPV's could also be conducting such tasks in the Pacific territories to keep their new capabilities fully employed (they do have the range to transit there).

 

[recce.k1]

As for whether the RNZNVR is being/could be put to valid use, I honestly do not know. I would like to think that there are members of the Reserves (or those would be in the Reserves) who would like to be able to serve aboard a RNZN vessel. What I am much less certain of is whether or not sufficient Reserve members, with the appropriate training and skills, could be assembled as crews, to permit an IPV to conduct the sort of patrolling they were designed or now expected to do.

Assuming than a VR crew was expected to conduct 14 days of patrolling in a single deployment (with or without making port calls), and the VR IPV was expected to provide ~225 sea days of patrolling... That would require 16 separate crews for the IPV, or a minimum of 320 VR personnel to man one IPV for a year. That is assuming that no VR crew member does multiple patrols during the course of the year, and the all the needed skills/trades for all positions aboard are available, and that all members of a specific VR crew are available when needed for 'their' patrol. The reality IMO would be that a larger margin of personnel would be required, in the event that specific members with required skills are unavailable due to work, health, family issues, etc.

You make some very pertinent points about VR sustainment.

Ditto Assail makes some good points too in his post #4347 about the RAN's successful experience of embedding reservists with the regulars (which is also something the RNZN started to do a few years ago following the defence reviews).

I think the NZ situation though is slightly different in that the RAN have the luxury of various established bases on its western, northern and eastern coasts (whereas RNZN personnel have less choice due to there being only one primary naval base, which happens to be in its most expensive city and expansion is nigh-impossible due to the growth of suburbia a few decades ago).

Now I know this going against modern, now convention wisdom of consolidating bases, but I still think the solution for the Navy is to have small permanent bases in places like Wellington and Lyttelton (Christchurch) and possibly Dunedin(?), for the IPV patrol fleets to be based. That would mean there would be skilled Regulars working alongside the Reservists. I suspect some Regulars would jump at the chance to settle (and raise a family but remain committed to serving with the navy) in other parts of the country!

If locations like Wellington are ideal to serve parts of both the North and South Islands, locations like Lyttleton could also potentially base any future ice-strengthen patrol or Antarctic supply vessels (and perhaps one day some of the US's Antarctic vessels could be supported there etc).

Or perhaps Navy/Govt need to think outside the square and acquire some land somewhere else altogether (Tauranga? Hawkes Bay?) with future ambitions to build an IPV base there (with room for future expansion to handle larger patrol or auxiliary vessels or even a larger drydock to accommodate the future Navy's larger vessels etc, should the Devonport base real estate become under greater pressure in the future eg from nimby's halting base development, Auckland Council further inflating land values etc)?

Granted, a lot of this is wishful thinking but the status-quo cannot be sustained forever.

 

[Todjaeger]

You make some very pertinent points about VR sustainment.

Ditto Assail makes some good points too in his post #4347 about the RAN's successful experience of embedding reservists with the regulars (which is also something the RNZN started to do a few years ago following the defence reviews).

I think the NZ situation though is slightly different in that the RAN have the luxury of various established bases on its western, northern and eastern coasts (whereas RNZN personnel have less choice due to there being only one primary naval base, which happens to be in its most expensive city and expansion is nigh-impossible due to the growth of suburbia a few decades ago).

Now I know this going against modern, now convention wisdom of consolidating bases, but I still think the solution for the Navy is to have small permanent bases in places like Wellington and Lyttelton (Christchurch) and possibly Dunedin(?), for the IPV patrol fleets to be based. That would mean there would be skilled Regulars working alongside the Reservists. I suspect some Regulars would jump at the chance to settle (and raise a family but remain committed to serving with the navy) in other parts of the country!

If locations like Wellington are ideal to serve parts of both the North and South Islands, locations like Lyttleton could also potentially base any future ice-strengthen patrol or Antarctic supply vessels (and perhaps one day some of the US's Antarctic vessels could be supported there etc).

Or perhaps Navy/Govt need to think outside the square and acquire some land somewhere else altogether (Tauranga? Hawkes Bay?) with future ambitions to build an IPV base there (with room for future expansion to handle larger patrol or auxiliary vessels or even a larger drydock to accommodate the future Navy's larger vessels etc, should the Devonport base real estate become under greater pressure in the future eg from nimby's halting base development, Auckland Council further inflating land values etc)?

Granted, a lot of this is wishful thinking but the status-quo cannot be sustained forever.

Funny you should mention conventional 'wisdom' regarding base consolidation...

From my POV, the notion might be conventional but in many cases seems to lack any real wisdom. It seems that most often, the idea behind closure, relocation, and consolidation of bases involves "cost-savings". A few years ago (actually this has come up in Congress several times AFAIK) there was an effort to close US military bases in portions of the northern US and relocate those facilities to the South, and/or consolidate with bases already in the South.

The effort at the time failed for a number of legal, practical, and political reasons, but one of the faults with the notion which was brought up, would be the delayed response times should something require action from the armed forces in the North. One of the other faults, was the "what if" scenario of an event causing damage in the South. If US armed forces were concentrated in any one area, and something happened to that area, not only would the US armed forces be significantly and negatively impacted, the ability of the USG to react and response would be diminished, because more of the responding units would themselves be directly impacted.

With that in mind, I have been rather leery of efforts to move/sell defence land and bases, even if they do not see regular use. Having naval establishments at or near major NZ ports does make sense, as long as they can be large enough to have a 'critical mass' of personnel to operate.

 

[RegR]

It seems as if the areas deemed most important for the Patrol Forces to cover appear to be offshore, 200 n miles and beyond, if the following are anything to go by:

*The maritime reviews of 2000/2001 were suggesting 3-4 OPV's and a multi-role vessel capable of patrol functions. Instead 2 OPV's were funded and the MRV that was funded was later deemed unsuitable for patrolling. So instead of a fleet of 4-5 capable (offshore) patrol type vessels only 2 (OPV's) were commissioned to undertake that role and they have been busy working up to and conducting deep Southern Ocean patrols and South Pacific patrols (from around mid-spring to mid-autumn i.e. for around six months of the busiest part of the year).

*Perhaps then that's why the IPV's are being pushed out to 200 n miles in lieu of lack of OPV availability for general EEZ patrolling? And presumably the IPV's are patrolling for longer periods than envisaged, if so presumably then crewing the 2 operational IPV's takes greater priority over getting the other 2 IPV's to sea?

*Inshore work is also being covered by other Govt agencies (it would seem to be fair to say even more-so than at the time of the 2000/2001 maritime reviews), meaning less RNZN inshore patrolling is now required?

Anyway if this is so, then obtaining a 3rd OPV finally, makes a lot of sense however the reality is, Treasury are still being too tight, they should be funding a 3rd OPV (if not more) as new funding and not by forcing the NZDF to make IPV funding cuts to give the Navy (some of) the capabilities they should have been funded for in the first place over ten years ago!

If some of this seems contradictory (i.e. less RNZN inshore patrolling due to other Govt agency efforts v why then retain the 4 IPV's etc), I'm thinking of greater joint-Regular/Reserve IPV use and/or re-rolling the IPV's to take on other naval functions (alongside "coast guard" patrolling) such as mine-hunting/clearing and/or underwater ISR and undersea mapping in littoral/green waters etc. Surely the IPV's could also be conducting such tasks in the Pacific territories to keep their new capabilities fully employed (they do have the range to transit there).

I think it is just more of a case of govt expecting alot done with alittle provided ie trying to do too much but not equipping or funding accordingly, a classic NZ trait. Whilst manning is their overall achilles (naval joke) preventing the full current fleet even being available nevermind able to go to sea I do see them consolidating the IPVs all in Devonport a hinderance rather than a benefit as regardless of where their patrol distance from the coastline is they still have to transit south anyway before the even get to their patrol area, adding to its days anyway. I see the logic in keeping them at their main technical base for logistical reasons but surely if these vessels are able to stay away for extended periods then they are somewhat self sufficient in terms of maintainence and could just operate in reverse ie patrol north to DNB when they require major work and base back at the former VR bases where the VRs are.

The old IPCs had a crew of 12 so surely 8 regulars (from the required tech trades) could/would jump at the chance to post out of AK to Wellington, Christchurch etc to make up the required crew for an IPV and support its deployed operation away from DNB. Even if they rotated pers and flew some down for the patrol (which is what I'm sure they currently do for VR to DNB anyway) as and when needed then surely more efficient use of nationwide patrolling and max use of time at sea. I assume the VR ran relatively smoothly operating from their bases (which are still there) with their old IPCs if the at sea figures are correct (compared to now anyway) so all they require is abit more tech support from their regular bretheren due to the updated ships. Surely still better than seeing them idle if not sold off. The touted 3rd OPV would seem to already be a requirement for the likes of our further afeild responsibilities ie Kermadecs, actual south etc bar inshore work. Again this is all rather dependant on navy having the right people in the right places (and keeping them there) anyway.

Police and customs have not increased their fleets merely replaced old ones (police) so not sure how that would equate to them nesscessarily taking on more inshore patrol work then they already had in the past unless they get more funding which would then most likely come from the navy inshore portion and just transfer budgets as I doubt govt would increase funds especially if they won't now. I would argue that police and customs would mainly be even more localised than navy ie AK, bay of islands, WG due to their primary roles that they currently have and lesser endurance. Also who is to say they would not suffer from the same manpower issues themselves if they got more vessels without a funding boost?

I was under the impression the inshore patrol boats took over all the roles from the former IPCs which included MCM activities, harbour clearance etc and no doubt could be utilised by the diving team, army and the like as per other govt agencies so the multi-role aspect is still somewhat there?

 

[ngatimozart]

The old IPCs had a crew of 12 ...........

RegR the Moa Class IPC crew was 18 not 12. If sea riders, e.g. , fisheries inspectors were taken to sea for extended periods then two crew members, usually officers were dropped. They had four berths in the Wardroom. If the army were on board they fitted in where possible out of the way. The IPC did not have the automation that the ISC had.

 

[Lucasnz]

I was under the impression the inshore patrol boats took over all the roles from the former IPCs which included MCM activities, harbour clearance etc and no doubt could be utilised by the diving team, army and the like as per other govt agencies so the multi-role aspect is still somewhat there?

That not entirely correct. When the IPC were transferred to the regulars they were stripped of their MCM capability. The navy Littoral Warfare Force took over the MCM role using a combination of Manawanui and REMUS 100 UAV configured for MCM work. The Remus don't need a dedicated vessel compared to the old towed array MCM sonar, consequently they can be flown into a port by C130 with Takapu or Tarapunga and deployed from there. I understand the REMUS have been used by the police on some recovery missions.

That's not to say the IPV couldn't deploy REMUS and a limited dive team.

 

[Rob c]

I think it is just more of a case of govt expecting alot done with alittle provided ie trying to do too much but not equipping or funding accordingly, a classic NZ trait. Whilst manning is their overall achilles (naval joke) preventing the full current fleet even being available nevermind able to go to sea I do see them consolidating the IPVs all in Devonport a hinderance rather than a benefit as regardless of where their patrol distance from the coastline is they still have to transit south anyway before the even get to their patrol area, adding to its days anyway. I see the logic in keeping them at their main technical base for logistical reasons but surely if these vessels are able to stay away for extended periods then they are somewhat self sufficient in terms of maintainence and could just operate in reverse ie patrol north to DNB when they require major work and base back at the former VR bases where the VRs are.

The old IPCs had a crew of 12 so surely 8 regulars (from the required tech trades) could/would jump at the chance to post out of AK to Wellington, Christchurch etc to make up the required crew for an IPV and support its deployed operation away from DNB. Even if they rotated pers and flew some down for the patrol (which is what I'm sure they currently do for VR to DNB anyway) as and when needed then surely more efficient use of nationwide patrolling and max use of time at sea. I assume the VR ran relatively smoothly operating from their bases (which are still there) with their old IPCs if the at sea figures are correct (compared to now anyway) so all they require is abit more tech support from their regular bretheren due to the updated ships. Surely still better than seeing them idle if not sold off. The touted 3rd OPV would seem to already be a requirement for the likes of our further afeild responsibilities ie Kermadecs, actual south etc bar inshore work. Again this is all rather dependant on navy having the right people in the right places (and keeping them there) anyway.

Police and customs have not increased their fleets merely replaced old ones (police) so not sure how that would equate to them nesscessarily taking on more inshore patrol work then they already had in the past unless they get more funding which would then most likely come from the navy inshore portion and just transfer budgets as I doubt govt would increase funds especially if they won't now. I would argue that police and customs would mainly be even more localised than navy ie AK, bay of islands, WG due to their primary roles that they currently have and lesser endurance. Also who is to say they would not suffer from the same manpower issues themselves if they got more vessels without a funding boost?

I was under the impression the inshore patrol boats took over all the roles from the former IPCs which included MCM activities, harbour clearance etc and no doubt could be utilised by the diving team, army and the like as per other govt agencies so the multi-role aspect is still somewhat there?

In regard to operating the IPV,s from differing locations, the obvious reason it is not done would be financial, but I believe that operationally it would be advantageous to do so, and has been done in the past. When the old lake class were in business, they operated for quite long periods of time from Shelly Bay in Wellington during the 1970's and on occasion were slipped on the old Miramar slipway for repairs. Those locations are no longer available but some were else could be found. Wellington has the natural advantage operationally of being central and with easy access to both coasts and reasonable facilities.

 

[RegR]

RegR the Moa Class IPC crew was 18 not 12. If sea riders, e.g. , fisheries inspectors were taken to sea for extended periods then two crew members, usually officers were dropped. They had four berths in the Wardroom. If the army were on board they fitted in where possible out of the way. The IPC did not have the automation that the ISC had.

Thanks Ngati, thought you would know for sure. Well that makes why there are 2 IPVs parked up for so long even worse as then where have all the crewmembers gone? Obviously recruitment and retention has not kept up with attrition or they have not kept on top of recruiting into the right areas. Either way no point getting any new ships if that is the case as it would honestly be just a waste of money.

 

[RegR]

That not entirely correct. When the IPC were transferred to the regulars they were stripped of their MCM capability. The navy Littoral Warfare Force took over the MCM role using a combination of Manawanui and REMUS 100 UAV configured for MCM work. The Remus don't need a dedicated vessel compared to the old towed array MCM sonar, consequently they can be flown into a port by C130 with Takapu or Tarapunga and deployed from there. I understand the REMUS have been used by the police on some recovery missions.

That's not to say the IPV couldn't deploy REMUS and a limited dive team.

Yes if the IPVs were back in the VR homeports then surely they should hold that role for national waters as they would then be the experts for their local area. Was more to point out the multi-role options of them really as MCM, hydro, dive have proven they can work mobile until the new littoral makes an appearance and would probably continue to do so especially if the new ship is already in use by either one at any given time and is required.

 

[ngatimozart]

In regard to operating the IPV,s from differing locations, the obvious reason it is not done would be financial, but I believe that operationally it would be advantageous to do so, and has been done in the past. When the old lake class were in business, they operated for quite long periods of time from Shelly Bay in Wellington during the 1970's and on occasion were slipped on the old Miramar slipway for repairs. Those locations are no longer available but some were else could be found. Wellington has the natural advantage operationally of being central and with easy access to both coasts and reasonable facilities.

Yes, I was at Shelly Bay when they used to come in for revictualling, restoring, refuelling and runs ashore.

Of the two, out of Wellington or Lyttelton (Christchurch), the latter would be, IMHO, the better location for a second naval port. Apart from the financial aspect, the only real problem would be suitable land space in the area for the establishment of a facility. The advantages are numerous in that it offers shore drafts out of Auckland and partners can have still careers in a major area of economic activity; there will be a second major naval establishment capable of handling all aspects of fleet activities etc; there is a major Army establishment close by with all the associated training facilities including the NZDF School of Medicine; Lyttelton Port itself has major facilities including fuel tanks; a magazine can easily be built well away from built up areas, but close to the port; it is not subject to the same level of natural hazard risk that Wellington (massive earthquake & tsunami) and Auckland (ongoing volcanism - 51 active vents - earthquakes, tsunami, storms) face.

 

[MrConservative]

Just a thought NG.

The average house price at Stanley Point just along from the base itself is $1.75m. Narrowneck, Cheltenham and Devonport village are all over $1.3m.

Question how big is the base in area? And how many low-rise apartments could be squeezed on there? Why not sell it?

People (well rich people) would pay well over a million for a quality waterside 3LDK apartment with seaviews across to the Auckland skyline, 2 car parks and a 10 minute Ferry ride into the CBD.

Help solve Auckland's housing crisis. Use the money to build a new Naval base at the Port of Tauranga and a small Naval unit down South.

I have always wondered how future MarPol laws will affect Waitemata Harbour in 20 odd years anyway.

Post script:

The Navy have a further 21 valuable properties along Calliope Road.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11490227

Cheers, MrC