Less likely today than 15 years ago.Is there a risk of the frigates not being replaced?
Less likely today than 15 years ago.Is there a risk of the frigates not being replaced?
It is possible with a hard left - green influence in govt. But that is getting fairly remote considering that the hard left - green influences within the current government are failing through lack of ability to deal with the responsibility of government.There is always that risk, especially with a left wing govt in power and Treasury most likely seeing no value in expensive warships that aren't used in anger. They won the battle with the ACF and undoubtedly at some stage will try the same strategy with the NCF, if they already haven't. Treasury like the army because it's relatively low tech, hence less expensive.
Shane Jones in the NBR on 19 Sept reporting that the preferred option for a new dry dock is Northland. Notes Picton was cheaper but lacked infrastructure. Report been drafted by EY and Northport. No clear picture on future of current drydock, but remediation costs noted. Looking at fast tracking under the RMA
Good news progress is finally being made. Realistically the increasing size of ships will force either relocation of DNB or a move to two base option, which I favour. I don't see how need to move DNB just stay beside the drydock. Mainly because you don't need to cut holes in the side of a ship like you use to. We would be better with a second base in Piction and leveraging off Woodbourne facilities for a logistics base etc
Berthed or dry-docked? It would never be berthed in Australia other than when on operations or showing the flag. As we speak DNB's main wharf is being lengthened at each end to a total of something like 70 metres or so... one end is a dolphin & the other is a true extension.In the mean time will Aotearoa be birthed in Devonport, or will it be Austrailia? At least the proposed Lpd and Frigate replacements are up to ten years away.Though the planning for infrastructure should be now.
'Birthed' on Devonport .... that conjures up unfortunate imagesIn the mean time will Aotearoa be birthed in Devonport, or will it be Austrailia? At least the proposed Lpd and Frigate replacements are up to ten years away.Though the planning for infrastructure should be now.
A typo, apologies. I'm too cheap to pay for prescription glasses.'Birthed' on Devonport .... that conjures up unfortunate images
...... i know, I know .... off topic and silly
Why is the SOPV going to be delayed up to 8 years, given the urgency requiring it? Money has been allocated hasn't it? And even on the numbers of Hercs were getting So much for Jacindas ' Pacific reset'.The latest issue of APDR (Oct 2019) - link - has a nice piece (dare I say a puff piece, there is no criticism) on the current & future RNZN fleet, see p52.
Apparently, the NZ MoD will outline the requirements for the SOPV to industry later this week (9 Oct) at the Pacific 2019 marine industry conference in Sydney. Given the over-optimistic requirements specs we usually see from the MoD (even though it is supposed to be basically a commercial-spec vessel), and the fact that this vessel won't be in service till 2027, I wouldn't be getting overly excited.
The SOPV was originally touted by the previous govt for 2023, so it's not an 8 year delay. Secondly, it's not part of the so called "Pacific Reset" because it's designed for the Antarctic and Sub Antarctic.Why is the SOPV going to be delayed up to 8 years, given the urgency requiring it? Money has been allocated hasn't it? And even on the numbers of Hercs were getting So much for Jacindas ' Pacific reset'.
Yes, SOPV was meant for Antarctic and Southern Ocean duties, but also as mentioned in the DCP 19 that's to free up the other two OPV for Pacific duties, so it's relative. Strange all the same, given the current climate,security crisises the worlds facing now.that other big ticket items like the frigates get pushed further down the road too.The SOPV was originally touted by the previous govt for 2023, so it's not an 8 year delay. Secondly, it's not part of the so called "Pacific Reset" because it's designed for the Antarctic and Sub Antarctic.
Fit for task? Well that all depends on the task though does'nt it. An IPV has/was never intended to be "projected further afield" ie pacific (although ironically just what they did) and was always just that, an inshore patrol vessel.If they are not fit for task then I agree that their capability should be replaced with what is required, more OPV capability. I will again advocate for an interim capability in the form of a leased offshore support vessel to provide the better sea keeping capability. As was done with the Edda Fonn there must be an acceptable vessel available on the open market that could provide the service until the SOPV is in service. An 80 to 85 m could be easily modified with military spec communications, HMG mounts at a minimum although a 25 mm should be able to be mounted, plus shipping container service pods for RPAS operations, armoury, and a limited transport capability should be an easy fix. What appears to be needed is a presence able to handle the rough sea conditions.
This vessel could serve as a trials ship for new technologies allowing the RNZN to field test systems in advance of the new SOPV and the replacements for the current OPVs.
Further to this: New Zealand’s first upgraded frigate shows off new mast
Paper delivered by Commander Steve Lenik, RNZN, at the Australian Naval Institute’s 2019 Goldrick Seminar
In order to conflate security implications with maritime trade there are three main points to consider from the New Zealand perspective. First, due to our geographical remoteness we are utterly dependent on maritime trade for the nation’s prosperity and wellbeing. Second, the New Zealand public is largely ‘sea-blind’ to the importance of maritime areas beyond our Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Beyond this horizon in New Zealand’s ‘maritime periphery’ lie important geopolitical reference points crucial in developing security measures in support of trade; and third, Defence is an important tool but, due to the potential for a revisionist form of maritime trade warfare, characterised by ‘Grey Zone’ activities, there are other levers of national power that are required as part of a global effort to safeguard the free and unencumbered trading routes that are so pivotal to New Zealand’s prosperity.
Full paper: Implications for maritime trade – a NZ perspective
It is well worth the read and very informative.
Same issue here.Hi NG
You need to fix the link as it just takes me straight back to DT same page as the your post.
Yes it is pathetic Gibbo. And the IPV's leaving service has been signalled for years so it is not like they have had no warning.And so while the RAN sends one of it's biggest task forces to sea, the RNZN reaches a new low of just 5 operational commissioned vessels... wow we're really pulling our weight in the region aren't we!... although to be fair this was documented in the DCP.