Wouldn't it make more sense to have upgraded the Orions ASW assets. Of course, to reduce the price of modernizing the Orions, that upgrade was cancelled. In the minds of the PM and the government, ASW is not needed in South Pacific waters. Even the helicopters New Zealand received more anti-surface assets than ASW. Notice the Aussie's more ASW equipped SeaSprites were a disaster, it a good thing maybe the Kiwi's chose to key on ASuW instead.
Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
Stuart Mackey
New Member
But did he say why he wanted that third frigate? the question why is everything.
That's not really the issue, so much as what is stated government policy and what actually happens. When Labour said they wanted an army that was combat capable and did not deliver, one has to ask what was the nature of the advice tendered to that government to make said policy happen, and the same for the other two services. It generally does not follow that an elected person in a Westminster system has the expertise to make a radical change in a nations armed forces without unfortunate unforeseen consequences, so must rely on expert advice to achieve policy goals.
NZ's forces cannot meet these requirements, so what was the nature of the advice tendered? It seems to me that either the advice was sound and ignored or unsound; if the former then would any persons position be tenable and of the latter why did they get promoted to such a position? either way, something is wrong.Labour 2005 Defence policy said:
The point I am attempting to make is that Labour never did a defence white paper. If the Nats win, they promise a defence white paper.
Whether Labour or the Nats accomplish their promises of a white paper is up to the voters to decide.
In the past whatever the government decided trumped whatever the military leaders want. Politicians hold the key to the purse, not the military. For good or for worse.
As I recall, ADI questioned their lost of the contract to Tenix, claiming their ships were better. And as I recall, the superior court of New Zealand backed the government in choosing which ship and which shipyard to build the ships. I do not see how the military could have overcame the court's and the government's decision, without a military coup.
The Cowes report blames everyone, the MOD, Tenix, and the navy. Simply put, New Zealand Navy had never built ships before without the input of the Royal Navy and the RAN. This is the first time New Zealand went alone, let's learn from the lessons.
There is a reason why many navies consider frigates the minimum warship. There is a reason why many navies are building OPVs and IPVs. There is a reason why many navies are building sea lift vessels with well docks. And there is a reason why New Zealand didn't.
Whether Labour or the Nats accomplish their promises of a white paper is up to the voters to decide.
In the past whatever the government decided trumped whatever the military leaders want. Politicians hold the key to the purse, not the military. For good or for worse.
As I recall, ADI questioned their lost of the contract to Tenix, claiming their ships were better. And as I recall, the superior court of New Zealand backed the government in choosing which ship and which shipyard to build the ships. I do not see how the military could have overcame the court's and the government's decision, without a military coup.
The Cowes report blames everyone, the MOD, Tenix, and the navy. Simply put, New Zealand Navy had never built ships before without the input of the Royal Navy and the RAN. This is the first time New Zealand went alone, let's learn from the lessons.
There is a reason why many navies consider frigates the minimum warship. There is a reason why many navies are building OPVs and IPVs. There is a reason why many navies are building sea lift vessels with well docks. And there is a reason why New Zealand didn't.
Last edited:
Stuart Mackey
New Member
So what? they are not required to, but they did have a policy platform on defence and that's what counts.
Yeah, and?
Lol, any fool can make that promise and keep it, the real question is the electorate getting policy from it that it did not vote for or is it a substitute for not having any policy at all?
True, so why no resignations?
They cannot, but one does have to question the advice tendered to the government that allowed this situation to happen, or maybe the government had no idea what it was doing but like the glossy brochure and ignored advice it didn't like?
But not the government? So who is responsible, government or Navy, et al? You cannot have it both ways.
Ideology and penny pinching.
Seems like the fixation of getting 7 vessels for the $500M cap may have been the underlying issue which resulted in shortcuts and economies being taken, interesting that the same fixation of coming in under budget never seemed to apply to the Helicopter replacement process where the end costs are likely to be in excess of 50% above the initial project goal.
I try to bury the hatchet, and I am criticized for political reasons. I agree with all of the conclusions of Mr. Coles. His reports says it all. Everyone is at fault. That includes the government, the MOD, Tennix, and the navy.
Did the MOD listen to the navy. Obviously not.
Did the MOD listen to the navy. Obviously not.
I agree that the P3s should be upgraded for undersea and that should have been in the upgrade,but why?????( not those pollys again)
My only thought for the towed array was that if it was sitting in a box at the yard it could be used and it would also mean it could provide a military asset for exercises with others,the OPV would carry a seasprite when operating as the weapon delivery system.
Just a silly idea I know.
I would assume the need to track aircraft would have nothing to do with tracking 'hostiles', but simply due to the fact she'll embark & operate choppers herself!?!
I could see the towed arrays being added to an Anzac, I am not even sure there is room or weight space aboard the OPVs. Probably not.I agree that the P3s should be upgraded for undersea and that should have been in the upgrade,but why?????( not those pollys again)
My only thought for the towed array was that if it was sitting in a box at the yard it could be used and it would also mean it could provide a military asset for exercises with others,the OPV would carry a seasprite when operating as the weapon delivery system.
Just a silly idea I know.
I agree it would be nice, surely the crew can handle helicopters approaching the ship with good old fashion eyes and radio communication. The ship isn't a submarine which may want to dive, the ship as I noted before doesn't have any anti-air systems either. And the Bushmaster gun only has so much range.
Out in the field the army's helicopters are very similar. I doubt every army unit has air search radars at every landing zone. And as I noted, if traffic control is needed, surely a frigate could provide this.
Stuart Mackey
New Member
My advice is that that's exactly what happened
Oh, there was the same fixation, and when they, Labour, found out that they could not conveniently fix the price, there was talk of currency fluctuations, iirc, to explain it away, something that was beyond government control you see.
The weight is available on the Quarter deck, in the 20ft ISO Container position. But I think fitting a modular ASW capability is moving these vessels into military areas they were never intended to cover. The only military roles I see for the OPV's are MCM / Clearance / Military Hydrography and reponse to low level events. I think if were looking at a higher military capability for the RNZN we need to consider coverttes (given the incremental growth in frigate capabilities since a frigate navy was first developed) or the something like the new Danish Absolam class.
Yes, in a war situation I can see adding towed array sonars to the OPVs. However, during peacetime and with their planned EEZ deployments, where no submarine exists, I think adding towed array sonars are a waste of funds which could be spent elsewhere. Wouldn't you want to add ASW torpedo tubes first? Or add a more suitable ASW helicopter?
Why does everyone want to make a warship out of an OPV? OPVs are designed to be patrol ships, not warships. Their sensor package is not up to par either. The ships are planned to operate for short deployments, less than a month at sea, not for several months elsewhere.
Be happy they will be great EEZ patrol ships, give up on them ever being warships.
The smaller Italian corvettes, or the German corvettes costs at least three to four times more than these OPVs. None of these corvettes have the range of the OPVs, probably couldn't even reach Adelaide, or Darwin, surely not Perth without refueling and replenishing. The Anzacs are the only warships in the New Zealand fleet which can reach French Polynesia, not counting Canterbury and the Endeavour.
For example, the NZ OPVs ran around US $50 million each, the Italian corvettes ran close to US $200 million each. Source Combat Fleets of the World.
Too many Kiwis think only in terms of NZ. They never ever think in terms of getting to Singapore or Perth, much less French Polynesia or Hawaii.
Why does everyone want to make a warship out of an OPV? OPVs are designed to be patrol ships, not warships. Their sensor package is not up to par either. The ships are planned to operate for short deployments, less than a month at sea, not for several months elsewhere.
Be happy they will be great EEZ patrol ships, give up on them ever being warships.
The smaller Italian corvettes, or the German corvettes costs at least three to four times more than these OPVs. None of these corvettes have the range of the OPVs, probably couldn't even reach Adelaide, or Darwin, surely not Perth without refueling and replenishing. The Anzacs are the only warships in the New Zealand fleet which can reach French Polynesia, not counting Canterbury and the Endeavour.
For example, the NZ OPVs ran around US $50 million each, the Italian corvettes ran close to US $200 million each. Source Combat Fleets of the World.
Too many Kiwis think only in terms of NZ. They never ever think in terms of getting to Singapore or Perth, much less French Polynesia or Hawaii.
Last edited:
Yeah but when they get these OPV's going, the crews are going to be some of the most high profile if not in the RNZN, then probably the whole NZDF. There is nothing like catching smugglers (especially drug runners), helping Ships in distress or patrolling the Antartic/helping NZ research there (Is there any?) that attracts TV camera crews more.
The Coast Guard channel offers great entertainment much like COPs. Burning yatchs, submersible drug runners, illegal immigrants in make shift boats, etc. Not only suspectable illegal fishing boats, but disabled fishing boats. There are even gun runners attempting to smuggle illegal guns.
Yep - refernce to Aker ship plans show 'RAS area' at base of starbaord funnel (no equivalent shows on port side)
I have to agree there, we used to have a huge amount of fun on the IPCs doing patrol work and with bigger boats (and the ability to carry extra personal ) all the more fun, ish.
It sure was better than wallowing around on one engine at 4kts doing MCM !!