Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[ThePuss]

Unfortunately that is a problem across the board in the NZDF, last time I checked Riflemen got paid well under 30,000 a year, and yet the Gov wants to make recruitment a priority.

Agreed, But im a firm beliver that retention is MUCH more more important than recruitment. 30,000 a year may still seems like a fair bit to a 17 year old and it may be reasonable easy to spend big on fancy adds (money that could be spend on keeping current troops in )but its stuff all to a 25 year old.

In my opinon is a sailor (in my techo world)is not truly valuable to they have been in at least five to six years. Up to then its all just training and "Tool bag carrying". I don't believe this is much different with non technical branches and even different services. You need to worry about keeping you troops in not constanly training new plebs who get out after 4 to six years.

If you do that recruitment becomes much less of a issue and you have a much more skilled defence force.

 

[Rocco_NZ]

30,000 a year may still seems like a fair bit to a 17 year old and it may be reasonable easy to spend big on fancy adds (money that could be spend on keeping current troops in )but its stuff all to a 25 year old.

I was surprised by how low the advertising spend is:

19646 (2006) Paula Bennett to : Defence

Reply:

Of the $7.3 M, referred to in answer to written question No 17504 (2006), the costs
of recruitment and advertising by service are as follows:
Headquarters New Zealand Defence Force $687,000
Royal New Zealand Navy $2.276 M
New Zealand Army $2.526 M
Royal New Zealand Air Force $1.804 M


15205 (2007). Ron Mark to the Minister of Defence (30 Aug 2007): What is the value of the New Zealand Army’s recruitment advertising budget for each of the last five financial years, specified by cost for each type of media used?

Hon Phil Goff (Minister of Defence) replied: The New Zealand Army’s recruitment advertising spending for each of the last five financial years, divided into amounts for production, television and interactive advertising, and radio advertising, was: Production, television and interactive recruitment advertising: FY 2002/2003 $1,930,119 FY 2003/2004 $1,532,046 FY 2004/2005 $2,054,305 FY 2005/2006 $1,905,026 FY 2006/2007 $2,262,514 Radio recruitment advertising: FY 2002/2003 $257,609 FY 2003/2004 $270,849 FY 2004/2005 $345,281 FY 2005/2006 $308,801 FY 2006/2007 $382,151

 

[Stuart Mackey]

The Canterbury was bought to transport an army company group, to be useful as a tactical sea lift ship, to be able to embark and disembark the force over a beach when a pier is unavailable for benign unopposed operations, patrol New Zealand's EEZ, to train crews as a training ship, and be available for evacuations and humanitarian missions. She was called a multi-role ship for a reason. All of a sudden she is expected to do opposed landing operations. One doesn't buy a multi-role vessel to do this, one buys a proper amphibious ship, not a converted ro-ro passenger ferry.

Don't be dishonest, I, nor anyone else, have ever suggested that Canterbury be able to perform opposed landings, all I have suggested that the ship have a CIWS, as the army is supposed to be ale to go into combat and the ship will therefore be in a warzone.

 

[Sea Toby]

And how many South Pacific nations do you think New Zealand will invade or interfere within alone? How many of these island nations in the South Pacific have anti-shipping missiles? At the moment, none. Thanks for your honest answer. It don't take a day to install Phalanx CIWS if there were a need. Just transfer one from one of your Anzac frigates. I suggest using the one from the more or less laid up frigate. If there were intelligence that one of the island nations ever received anti-shipping missiles, I would expect the government would buy another Phalanx CIWS. Until the need arrives, I don't see the need to buy or transfer one. Even in a worst case scenario for the Middle East, I am sure the Aussie's would allow you to borrow one of their CIWS they aren't presently using.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

And how many South Pacific nations do you think New Zealand will invade or interfere within alone? How many of these island nations in the South Pacific have anti-shipping missiles? At the moment, none.

Perhaps I was being obtuse? In case you haven't noticed, New Zealand's standard of living, way of life, and arguably political independence, are determined in area's outside of the South Pacific and always have been. Given this, to presume that NZ's forces will only be employed in a warlike manner in the South Pacific is a nonsense.

Thanks for your honest answer. It don't take a day to install Phalanx CIWS if there were a need. Just transfer one from one of your Anzac frigates. I suggest using the one from the more or less laid up frigate. If there were intelligence that one of the island nations ever received anti-shipping missiles, I would expect the government would buy another Phalanx CIWS. Until the need arrives, I don't see the need to buy or transfer one. Even in a worst case scenario for the Middle East, I am sure the Aussie's would allow you to borrow one of their CIWS they aren't presently using.

Or how about NZ adopt a realistic defence policy and realise its interests are world wide and buy the ship a CIWS? Wont happen of course, that would require a degree of intellectual honesty and imagination that neither main parties currently possess.

 

[KH-12]

Perhaps I was being obtuse? In case you haven't noticed, New Zealand's standard of living, way of life, and arguably political independence, are determined in area's outside of the South Pacific and always have been. Given this, to presume that NZ's forces will only be employed in a warlike manner in the South Pacific is a nonsense.



Or how about NZ adopt a realistic defence policy and realise its interests are world wide and buy the ship a CIWS? Wont happen of course, that would require a degree of intellectual honesty and imagination that neither main parties currently possess.

Would 1 CIWS be sufficient for a ship of Canterbury's size or would 2 be required to achieve sufficient coverage. I am surprised people are so blinded by current situations without any thought for future changes in world geo-political stability, history has shown that things can change very quickly, afterall did the USA ever think that the Japanese would attack Pearl Harbour. I would have thougt that just strapping a system on as required is not overly productive as you deny the crew that ability to train with the system prior to ever being required to use it in a real situation.

 

[Rocco_NZ]

Or how about NZ adopt a realistic defence policy and realise its interests are world wide and buy the ship a CIWS? Wont happen of course, that would require a degree of intellectual honesty and imagination that neither main parties currently possess.

For God's sake Stuart, you bang-on about intellectual honesty in the same breath you talk about out-of-region operations. The reality of the situation is that anything outside of the Pacific is a discretionary activity that the government of the day may or may not choose to become directly involved in. The extent of any involvement will be up to the government of the day - if the situation at sea is beyond the ability of our ships to handle, then they won't be deployed, another capability might be instead.

You talk about defending a transport against an anti-ship missile. If it's within our immediate region such a scenario would represent such a fundamental change in our strategic environment it isn't reasonable to consider as part of the short term planning process. Again, if it's out of region, then it's a discretionary activity.

 

[Rocco_NZ]

afterall did the USA ever think that the Japanese would attack Pearl Harbour.

Actually, the US was in the process of preparing for a major strategic change in the Pacific. They were surprised tactically, but at a strategic level much of the industrial preparitory work had already been completed.

 

[ASFC]

Why is it that a few still try and act like the RNZN is planning like every island in the South Pacific is patroled by FACM's and maintain combat aircraft (either fixed or rotary winged)? Why put a CIWS on the Canterbury? Just in case those imaginery Fijian Combat aircraft dive out of the skies at it or that Tongan missile boat jumps you whilst unloading? New Zealand has an SIS does it not? Surely they would know if anything was seriously wrong enough in its backyard to go out and buy proper landing ships, with all the weapons required, and something more powerful that the new OPV's?

Unless New Zealand goes to war with Aus or France anytime soon, the most you are likely to face at sea in the South Pacific against these Island nations is dictators with patrol boats (okay so they could do a USS Cole copy cat attack). If NZSIS find that one of these nations acquires Anti-ship missiles, use your heads, get the NZSAS out and carry out a raid to remove the missiles from combat (or ask the Aussies to bomb them) rather than putting your big ships in the line of fire.

As Rocco-NZ says, anything in the wider world outside the South Pacific is discretionary.

 

[alexsa]

Perhaps I was being obtuse? In case you haven't noticed, New Zealand's standard of living, way of life, and arguably political independence, are determined in area's outside of the South Pacific and always have been. Given this, to presume that NZ's forces will only be employed in a warlike manner in the South Pacific is a nonsense.
.

Sorry I may be a bit dim but just who, outside the south pacific, will have the ability to imapct upon NZ standard of living, way of life, and arguably political independence would you need to arm yourself against? Economically there are forces that you will need to guard against but militarily I would suggest any conflagration that this sort of impact upon NZ will be bigger than just NZ (and will involve Australia and other nations as well I would suggest) and won't happen overnight. This seems to be an overly hysterical argument to support the purchase of a CIWS.

Don't get me wrong I would love to NZ evolve a more cooperative and intergrated role with Australia (I think we will rely upon each other if the poo ever hist the fan) but political will and money to try and build a force that is capable of real power projection beyond the South Pacific does not seem to exist in NZ. Project Protector appears to have provided NZ with a very good capability for the money and relevant to the identified roles. It is a source of bemusement to me that people want to try and up gun the current veseels (OPV to mini frigate) when there are significant design and cost implications of such a step with the outcome having questionable benifit in any case.

If capability building is your focus then it seems to me NZ would be better saving its pennies and investing them in the AOR replacement and ANZAC upgrade (and eventual replacement). You never know you may be able to include a CIWS for the MPV with those projects.

 

[battlensign]

For God's sake Stuart, you bang-on about intellectual honesty in the same breath you talk about out-of-region operations. The reality of the situation is that anything outside of the Pacific is a discretionary activity that the government of the day may or may not choose to become directly involved in. The extent of any involvement will be up to the government of the day - if the situation at sea is beyond the ability of our ships to handle, then they won't be deployed, another capability might be instead.

You talk about defending a transport against an anti-ship missile. If it's within our immediate region such a scenario would represent such a fundamental change in our strategic environment it isn't reasonable to consider as part of the short term planning process. Again, if it's out of region, then it's a discretionary activity.

It's not a discretionary activity if intellectual retardation prevents the purchase of equipment capable of operating exta-regionally. In this scenario, lack of equipment precludes the choice to operate in such a manner - it's artificially East Timors or less.

Brett.

 

[ASFC]

Yes but then that raises the question of whether it is cost effective for New Zealand to buy and operate a ship to move more than a company of men (so an LPD rather than a ferry) incase of that 'not in the South Pacific' operation or whether its cheaper to just commit your available frigates as your Naval contribution and let the Army hitch a ride with an Allies ship or the RNZAF.

 

[Rocco_NZ]

It's not a discretionary activity if intellectual retardation prevents the purchase of equipment capable of operating exta-regionally. In this scenario, lack of equipment precludes the choice to operate in such a manner - it's artificially East Timors or less.

Brett.

Except it demonstrably isn't. Te Mana is working in the gulf right now.

 

[battlensign]

Except it demonstrably isn't. Te Mana is working in the gulf right now.

Well......if you have one asset that is deployed extra-regionally I must be wrong. My point was that not all purchases should be made with a benign environment in mind. Cantebury needs a CIWS.

Brett.

 

[dave_kiwi]

CWIS For CANTEBURY

Well......if you have one asset that is deployed extra-regionally I must be wrong. My point was that not all purchases should be made with a benign environment in mind. Cantebury needs a CIWS.

Brett.

All other issues aside (ie the need or the "not-need"), from a purely technical perspective - where would one fit a CWIS ?

I have serious doubts that you could actually just install a CWIS. Looking at this model of the CANTEBURY:

http://www.defencemodels.com.au/Projects/MRV.asp

To me it seems that there would be practical issues ... locating too high up on the superstructure would raise weight - balance issues, plus there is no real 360 degree field of view. Locating aft at the rear of the flight deck would present issues for flight operations.

To me it would seem that the only real possible practical location would be to remove the 25mm Bushmaster and replace with a CWIS.

Again, as discussed re up-gunning the OPVs, it sounds simple in theory, but I suspect in real terms, not so straight forward.

Comments ?

 

[Sea Toby]

There aren't many places I would install a CIWS on the Canterbury. There is room for a CIWS before the bridge and behind the 25-mm Bushmaster gun. As I have said before, I don't think she will ever need one, as I don't think the government will send her into harms way. And if she is sent into harms way, I expect a Kiwi frigate would be escorting her along with Australian or other allied escorts. Amphibious exercises are usually targeted to landing areas that are not well defended.

 

[Sea Toby]

Sorry I may be a bit dim but just who, outside the south pacific, will have the ability to imapct upon NZ standard of living, way of life, and arguably political independence would you need to arm yourself against? Economically there are forces that you will need to guard against but militarily I would suggest any conflagration that this sort of impact upon NZ will be bigger than just NZ (and will involve Australia and other nations as well I would suggest) and won't happen overnight. This seems to be an overly hysterical argument to support the purchase of a CIWS.

Don't get me wrong I would love to NZ evolve a more cooperative and intergrated role with Australia (I think we will rely upon each other if the poo ever hist the fan) but political will and money to try and build a force that is capable of real power projection beyond the South Pacific does not seem to exist in NZ. Project Protector appears to have provided NZ with a very good capability for the money and relevant to the identified roles. It is a source of bemusement to me that people want to try and up gun the current veseels (OPV to mini frigate) when there are significant design and cost implications of such a step with the outcome having questionable benifit in any case.

If capability building is your focus then it seems to me NZ would be better saving its pennies and investing them in the AOR replacement and ANZAC upgrade (and eventual replacement). You never know you may be able to include a CIWS for the MPV with those projects.

I agree. New Zealand bought patrol ships, not mini frigates or corvettes. Are the patrol ships under gunned? Maybe for the Persian Gulf or the Mediterranean Sea, but not for the South Pacific. New Zealand does not have similar defence requirements as Israel.

 

[Lucasnz]

Ammunition Depot

Yet again the issue of relocating the current run down naval armaments depot has arisen. The issue is raised by National MP's, including Wayne Mapp. Read here....

There are a number of issues involved in relocation the armaments depot, but it also needs to be considered in conjuction with the fact that the Dry Dock can't take Canterbury and probably Endeavours replacement - It maybe time to seriously relocate the main Naval Base to Picton. Remove the remaining training activities to Philomel from Narrowneck, would be part of the process.

 

[Sea Toby]

While I wouldn't mind relocating the main naval base, and building a new larger drydock, and a new larger naval base, one must face the reality that where ever they are located, one would have to have the housing and a base of technical workers nearby.

Then one must appease the NIMBYs at the new location. There will always be those against any kind of growth, and in upper income neighborhoods there will always be those against any low income growth. Its not that they aren't patriotic, they don't want to see their property values degraded.

While I don't know the condition of the roofs involved, it would seem to me cheaper to reroof buildings than build new buildings. I also wonder whether Picton has enough technical civilian personnel. But I agree with Mapp, let a independent committee or commission decide this.

Its one thing to move an ammuniton depot several miles away, its another thing to relocate and build an entire base.

 

[Lucasnz]

Its one thing to move an ammuniton depot several miles away, its another thing to relocate and build an entire base.

True, but when you factor in the increasing size of the ships, with even your basic frigate now up to 5000 tons. I think the issue needs examining. From my fleeting trips to Auckland recently Canterbury appears to consume almost one complete side of the wharf (new). I'd hate to image what the proposed Endeavour replacement would use. That doesn't leave much for the other vessels, especially with the old Patrol Boat barge gone. Double berthing is an option, but theres really not that much room in the middle basin.

All I'm saying is the idea needs to be considered because of a range of factors.