Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

Stuart Mackey

New Member
When I looked around New Zealand, I do not see many sites any environmental groups would accept for a shipyard. If you have one zoned already, don't ever expect another. Maybe you think I am wrong?
I am not sure why you would think this.

Isn't it better for the New Zealand economy to build modules for new ships in New Zealand? Or build small ships in New Zealand? Frankly, I am amazed the environmentalists didn't attempt to stop this site.
I have long thought that Modules/small vessel construction was ideal for NZ as it's economically viable in a small nation. As to environmentalists, our lot are not the same as the US ones or at least are not quite as senseless

The NIMBY's refused a national stadium on the Auckland waterfront, a stadium the nation's government would have bought. Notice, the difficulties of enlarging Eden Park.
Those issue were not to to do with environmentalism, in a physical pollution sence such as poisons etc, more to do with presence, property value and light issues of neighbours combined with cost and government hypocrisy.
 

KiwiRob

Well-Known Member
When I looked around New Zealand, I do not see many sites any environmental groups would accept for a shipyard. If you have one zoned already, don't ever expect another. Maybe you think I am wrong?
There are a number of yards which could build IPV sized vessels in NZ if necessary, Fitzroy, Alloy Yachts, Sensation, NZ Superyachts, McMullian & Wing are a few off the top of my head.

Isn't it better for the New Zealand economy to build modules for new ships in New Zealand? Or build small ships in New Zealand? Frankly, I am amazed the environmentalists didn't attempt to stop this site.
Any of the yards listed above could build modules, it doesn't take a shipyard to build modules for a ship, any engineering company could do the job. I don't know why you are amazed that environmentalists didn't attempt to stop the site, the Whangarei site has been building ships for decades, long before anyone ever though of environmental issues.

The NIMBY's refused a national stadium on the Auckland waterfront, a stadium the nation's government would have bought. Notice, the difficulties of enlarging Eden Park.
Not sure where you are getting this from, firstly their are bugger all nimby's on the Auckland waterfront, secondly most of Auckland didn't want it there, it wasn't a practical site, the best site for a National Rugby Stadium in Auckland is in Albany at North Harbour Stadium, it has the consent already, there are no nimby's to worry about, the big problem is people are attached to Eden Park it is the Home of Rugby in NZ. The only problem with Eden Park is the Govt don't want to fully fund it and we are getting the cheap option instead of the legacy option which was sold to the public and was what most people supported.
 

Sea Toby

New Member
Anytime the national government will pay for a stadium the city won't pay for anywhere in the city, and the city refuses, NIMBYs are at work. Simply put, Auckland refused a national stadium bought and paid for by the NZ government. And as I recall, not one downtown building would have been torned down! Amazing..... I have seen downtown stadiums built in the USA which have revitalized downtowns, I have yet to see a stadium revitalize residential areas.
 

Stuart Mackey

New Member
Anytime the national government will pay for a stadium the city won't pay for anywhere in the city, and the city refuses, NIMBYs are at work. Simply put, Auckland refused a national stadium bought and paid for by the NZ government. And as I recall, not one downtown building would have been torned down! Amazing..... I have seen downtown stadiums built in the USA which have revitalized downtowns, I have yet to see a stadium revitalize residential areas.
Well this is off topic..buttttt, It was money, not Nimbies (except around Mt Eden) the government didn't get its way because of the national outcry at the amount of taxpayers dollars for an Auckland only stadium, and Auckland is reluctant to pay for an expensive stadium by themselves when they have more important priorities like fixing their roading/transport issues.
The concern with this whole mess is the lack of planning and leadership, the whole thing is an embarrassment.
 

Sea Toby

New Member
You would think New Zealand would be a wonderful place to hold the Southern Hemisphere's first Winter Olympics, but with such regional responses to a national stadium for a rugby World Cup, its no wonder there will never be a Winter Olympics held in New Zealand. If Christchurch is so upset spending a bit of the national surplus for a Auckland World Cup, obviously Auckland will be upset for spending a bit of the national surplus for a Christchurch Winter Olympics. Considering most Kiwis hearts belong to rugby, much more than the Olympic sports, no give there will be no take. Occasionally, a nation's government should do what is best for the nation, despite regional differences. Don't expect another World Cup, I am sure many nations expected New Zealand to put its best foot forward as far as facilities is concerned for this one, unfortunately the Kiwis refused to step forward.
 
Last edited:

KH-12

Member
You would think New Zealand would be a wonderful place to hold the Southern Hemisphere's first Winter Olympics, but with such regional responses to a national stadium for a rugby World Cup, its no wonder there will never be a Winter Olympics held in New Zealand. If Christchurch is so upset spending a bit of the national surplus for a Auckland World Cup, obviously Auckland will be upset for spending a bit of the national surplus for a Christchurch Winter Olympics. Considering most Kiwis hearts belong to rugby, much more than the Olympic sports, no give there will be no take. Occasionally, a nation's government should do what is best for the nation, despite regional differences. Don't expect another World Cup, I am sure many nations expected New Zealand to put its best foot forward as far as facilities is concerned for this one, unfortunately the Kiwis refused to step forward.
Queenstown would be the place for any winter Olympics anyway, Christchurch is too dangerous !

Who cares about the Rugby World Cup anyway.
 

Preceptor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Please refrain from any discussion of Rugby, holding the Winter Olympics in NZ, or construction of sporting venues and urban revitalization in this thread. These topics, while interesting to some, are wildly :eek:fftopic If members wish to conduct such discussions, please do so via PM and/or email. Feel free to continue discussion of NZ ship/module construction and modification capabilities, as they can directly impact the RNZN.
-Preceptor
 

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
There are a number of yards which could build IPV sized vessels in NZ if necessary, Fitzroy, Alloy Yachts, Sensation, NZ Superyachts, McMullian & Wing are a few off the top of my head.
Yup, VT & Fitzroy of New Plymouth teamed up to offer the enhanced Castle class OPV(H) for the Project Protector project, didn't they? (And ADI wanted a slice of the action by shipbuilding in Wellington). I guess if there is any future shipbuilding projects for the RNZN, a local company and a multinational will team up. I am suprised though with the cheaper workforce in NZ that more module building isn't done in NZ however who knows once the Aussies start commencing their various shipbuilding projects etc.


Anyway, back to the RNZN's ANZAC Frigates ... an update on some old (but good) news on plans to update sensors and weapon systems etc. (Although notice that the Self Defence upgrade is getting pushed back further again).

Navy warships to get self-defence weapons upgrades
Fri, 16 May 2008 02:21p.m.
http://www.tv3.co.nz/News/NationalN...d/423/articleID/56017/cat/64/Default.aspx#top

The navy's two warships are about to get sharper teeth to fight off attacks by small surface craft.

The Phalanx quick-fire Gatling gun on the Anzac frigates, HMNZS Te Kaha and HMNZS Te Mana, can fire up to 4500 rounds of 20mm ammunition a minute but only at anti-ship missiles and strike aircraft and not at small boats.

The navy is spending $25 million to upgrade the computer-controlled, radar-guided guns so they can also fire at small craft, such as speed boats or jetskis which may come in fast to attack the ships.

"If you have got a guy coming on a jetski or the like, wishing to do some damage to the ship, the Phalanx can be used to account for that," said navy spokesman Commander Keith Gilchrist.

He said the age of the existing Phalanx guns on the frigates was also a factor and meant they "might be challenged a little bit" against some of the high-performance airborne threats it could face.

The navy is also gearing up to spend up to $500 million or more on upgrading the self-defence systems on the two frigates and a further $60 million on a platform systems upgrade as part of the mid life upgrades of the two ships.

The platform systems upgrade, which does not include the combat systems on the ship, was likely to begin next year and be completed in 2010.

It could include propulsion equipment such as gearboxes and engines, air conditioning units, generating equipment, main machinery control equipment and computers which monitor the ship and its main components.

The self-defence upgrade was likely to start in four or five years and included a wide range of combat systems on the two frigates.

"The self-defence upgrade is about upgrading the self-defence system and the sensing systems on the ship to enable it to go into areas against a threat that has perhaps changed from when the ships were originally conceived and built.”

"We are not aiming to do anything different from what the ships can do already. We are looking to retain a similar mix of weapons and sensors but the sensors will be 21st century sensors rather than 1990 sensors which we acquired when the ship was built."

He said the systems would also be enhanced to deal with different threats the ships were likely to now encounter.

"As technology changes everyone moves up a gear and therefore, the level of threat the ships might encounter is different to what it was."

In the long term development plan, the Defence Force said the frigates were critical in the protection of New Zealand and Australian territorial sovereignty, for participating in Five Power Defence Arrangements, for supporting New Zealand's relationships with regional partners, and for peace support operations in the Asia Pacific region and beyond.

Those environments contained significantly higher threats to ships than in New Zealand's immediate area, including sub-surface threats.

The plan said by 2010 the frigate's self-defence systems would become increasingly ineffective and to continue to operate in those areas would carry serious risks.

Within two years the design of the self-defence systems on the frigates would be nearly 25 years old, and would become increasingly difficult and expensive to support, the plan said.

- NZPA
 

Sea Toby

New Member
This is a lot of money, practically the price of a new frigate. Since New Zealand is down to two frigates, they might be better off saving these funds for two new frigates ten years in the future. In other words, and I hate to say this, but maybe they should do the platform upgrade and CiWS upgrade only, and skip the expensive weapon systems upgrade entirely. At this price for an upgrade, sell the frigates to a Latin nation or Pakistan at the 20 year point, and let them do the mid life electronics upgrade.
 

Lucasnz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
This is a lot of money, practically the price of a new frigate. Since New Zealand is down to two frigates, they might be better off saving these funds for two new frigates ten years in the future. In other words, and I hate to say this, but maybe they should do the platform upgrade and CiWS upgrade only, and skip the expensive weapon systems upgrade entirely. At this price for an upgrade, sell the frigates to a Latin nation or Pakistan at the 20 year point, and let them do the mid life electronics upgrade.
I agree the money could have been better spent. New Zealand signed up for the ANZAC's in 1988-89 and the system design finished around 1991. Consequently there is a lot of 1980's level technology on these ships. Some of it, like the SeaSparrows is slowly becoming unsupportable. Great thing about the ANZAC's it won't take 4 years to modify them (unlike the frigate Wellington).
 

Sea Toby

New Member
The Dutch refused to spend so much upgrading their Kortenaers, and sold most to Greece. Around 15 years later, they have sold several of their Karel Doormans, again before their mid-life refits. I am beginning to think the Dutch are correct. Even the Americans have turned down the price of missile systems upgrades, beheading their Mk 13 SAM launchers on their OH Perrys. Oh well, I guess the upgrade is necessary, but I don't like the price. Like my computer at home, 30 years is too much to ask for any technology today.
 

KH-12

Member
Slightly changing the topic has anyone heard anthing regarding the latest date/s for the remaining Project protector vessels to be accepted into service, while I understand that Otago had a few issues following the sea trials it is nearly June, likewise with the 2 IPV's that have been launched for awhile now.
 

Gibbo

Well-Known Member
Slightly changing the topic has anyone heard anthing regarding the latest date/s for the remaining Project protector vessels to be accepted into service, while I understand that Otago had a few issues following the sea trials it is nearly June, likewise with the 2 IPV's that have been launched for awhile now.
Latest (May) Navy News has a good article about IPV's. It concludes by stating Rotoiti is due to be delivered "this month"; Hawea in June; Pukaki in July; and Taupo in September. Doesn't state what "delivery" means, I suspect it's delivery to MOD - which will then take a few weeks before commissioning I dare say).

Unfortunately same mag doesn't give any indication of OPV progress / delivery etc.
 

ThePuss

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
I was just looking up the Wikipedia page for the IPV's. It mentions that the boats are going to be multicrewed with 6 full crews for a combined 950 patrol days a year.

I was wondering if anybody has heard anything offical about this or if this is just a another case of some random writing anything they like and posting it on Wikipedia. Im thinking the latter is more likely to be the case because isnt the RNZN strugling to crew the protector fleet as it is ?.

I apologies if this has been covered before but I have been on deployment the last six months and have been kind of out of the loop.


Also I relise that the IPVs chances of getting a 25mm are about as good a slab of beer lasting a week at my place:dance , but that deck between the foc'sle and the bridge looks capable of taking one if the wip aerials where relocated and the navy managed to twist the governments arm.
 

KH-12

Member
I was just looking up the Wikipedia page for the IPV's. It mentions that the boats are going to be multicrewed with 6 full crews for a combined 950 patrol days a year.

I was wondering if anybody has heard anything offical about this or if this is just a another case of some random writing anything they like and posting it on Wikipedia. Im thinking the latter is more likely to be the case because isnt the RNZN strugling to crew the protector fleet as it is ?.

I apologies if this has been covered before but I have been on deployment the last six months and have been kind of out of the loop.


Also I relise that the IPVs chances of getting a 25mm are about as good a slab of beer lasting a week at my place:dance , but that deck between the foc'sle and the bridge looks capable of taking one if the wip aerials where relocated and the navy managed to twist the governments arm.
Logically the 25mm mounts off the OPV's / MRV could become available if an upgrade to 57mm/76mm was made on those vessels as per the original wish list, at the least a mini-typhoon mount (12.7mm) would be desirable to give an all weather / stabilised weapon platform to accurately direct fire for if nothing else saftey reasons, having a permanently mounted weapon visable also shows that you mean business and are not making a social call.
 

Sea Toby

New Member
When your inspecting Kiwi's vessels, most of them out for a Sunday cruise, having a bigger gun isn't necessary. You have to board their ship to find illegal activity, you might as well be nice about it. While a 25-mm is more impressive, a 12.5-mm machine gun is enough. Aim for their engines.

When New Zealand documents so much illegal activity to the point where the outlaws are shooting back, then the navy should upgrade their weapons. But I do not for see this happening with law abiding New Zealand citizens. Unless you are prepared to scuba dive under their boats, you won't find much contraband.

Smugglers smuggle, but not many of them wish to shoot. Smugglers usually run.

The police don't patrol in LAVIIIs, nor should the navy patrol its citizens with warships. Patrol boats are sufficient.
 
Last edited:

KH-12

Member
When your inspecting Kiwi's vessels, most of them out for a Sunday cruise, having a bigger gun isn't necessary. You have to board their ship to find illegal activity, you might as well be nice about it. While a 25-mm is more impressive, a 12.5-mm machine gun is enough. Aim for their engines.

When New Zealand documents so much illegal activity to the point where the outlaws are shooting back, then the navy should upgrade their weapons. But I do not for see this happening with law abiding New Zealand citizens. Unless you are prepared to scuba dive under their boats, you won't find much contraband.

Smugglers smuggle, but not many of them wish to shoot. Smugglers usually run.

The police don't patrol in LAVIIIs, nor should the navy patrol its citizens with warships. Patrol boats are sufficient.
It is not only "citizens" that are being policed, fishing piracy is an international issue, and with worldwide fish stocks in a rapid state of decline I can see that in the not too distant future tensions will rise significantly, there is also the case of sinking objects that may pose a maritime safety risk. Having an all weather stabilised gun mount also gives you the option of directing any required fire in a more accurate fashion, the RAN Armidales carry a 25mm mount, seems reasonable the IPVs could benefit also.
 

Norm

Member
IPV delay

Latest (May) Navy News has a good article about IPV's. It concludes by stating Rotoiti is due to be delivered "this month"; Hawea in June; Pukaki in July; and Taupo in September. Doesn't state what "delivery" means, I suspect it's delivery to MOD - which will then take a few weeks before commissioning I dare say).

Unfortunately same mag doesn't give any indication of OPV progress / delivery etc.
The first IPV Rotoiti and presumably Hawea failed the Loyds Marine Inspection, Tenix needed to separate the bridge floor from compartments underneth which caused the delay(Fire safety reasons maybe).A ceiling compartment was fitted,lots of wiring was also shifted .Cost apparently on the MOD not Tenix.
 

exported_kiwi

New Member
Sadly, you're right and it disgusts me as a Kiwi so much, I left the damn place and moved to China! here's hoping that some level heads prevail and we get the defence that is required, which'd mean I can move back home, getting sick of rice!
 
Top