^I wouldn't get too excited until something is found, and also found to be commercially exploitable. There are plenty of oil reserves in the world (for example, Canada's oil sands), whether they are exploitable or not is totally dependent on cost of extraction versus oil price. This is far from proven in terms of New Zealand.
Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
Oil has been increasingly found around the NZ EEZ and now is the 3rd largest export earner, basically from nowhere over the last decade. We also know the viability threshold, said to US$70 per barrel in the GSB and Northland Blocks. Extraction from alluvials is an entirely different process as you state on the Canada analogy. Not all oils are created equal or are suitable for refining into petroleum. The NZ oil exported so far is mainly used and suitable for industrial applications. Many are getting very interested in how this is unfolding as the recent communications and reports from CM and the Minister indicate. It will come up in the DF but will not be front and centre, I expect it will be phrased under the innocuous term "protecting resources" in a generic and unspecific manner.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Some background reading
Beehive - Unlocking New Zealand's Petroleum Potential
And the Minister's actual speech outlining the explorations and potential
http://www.pepanz.org.nz/documents/AR-M276_20091118_094346.pdf
It's still early days but the next few years could be interesting if the potential can be realised. Wonder what the Navy thinks about all this, in terms of their roles (and any additional roles)?
Beehive - Unlocking New Zealand's Petroleum Potential
And the Minister's actual speech outlining the explorations and potential
http://www.pepanz.org.nz/documents/AR-M276_20091118_094346.pdf
It's still early days but the next few years could be interesting if the potential can be realised. Wonder what the Navy thinks about all this, in terms of their roles (and any additional roles)?
Long range search and rescue? That jumps to mind as being more important if a significant offshore oil industry develops.
There was even some talk in Canada that the Osprey might one day be useful for this, or even transportation (presumably cost rules it out).
A nation with a dozen or more maritime patrol aircraft maybe able to use two different aircraft, but a nation with only six aircraft? I think its still best to go with one aircraft type. Considering the vast distances of the Pacific Ocean, much less the Indian Ocean, I would think it best to follow Australia's example and buy P-8 Poseidon aircraft.... They're only Boeing 737s with sophisticated equipment aboard....
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
MPA aircraft for the NZDF has been discussed recently in the NZDF general thread. While I think the P-8 Poseidon will be a great replacement for the P-3K Orions currently in RNZAF service, I unfortunately doubt that the NZDF budget would permit a 1:1 replacement. Given the vast ocean areas that fall within NZ areas of responsibility, the six Orions in service really seem insufficient. Hence why there has recently been some discussion of getting a second, smaller/shorter-ranged MPA for EEZ patrolling. This would likely operate more in a policing capacity (like the USCG) than a military one, saving the P-3K Orions, or later on the P-8 Poseidons for more urgent defence needs.
-Cheers
I understand the budget woes. While shorter range aircraft could do EEZ patrols in and around New Zealand, I don't see such aircraft as being useful patrolling distances in seas as far as Perth, East Timor, Singapore, Samoa, and Tonga, much less the deep Southern Pacific Ocean...
New Zealand will run the risk of losing their long range capability if they bought short range aircraft. I would think it best to buy five or six P-8s than buy two or three with three or more shorter range aircraft. New Zealand would end up with two aircraft types to support with spares. While the P8s will be expensive to buy, they won't cost an arm and leg to operate. Airlines throughout the world operate Boeing 737s...
Are you suggesting Boeing 737s are too expensive for New Zealand to operate?
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
IIRC the expected pricetag for a P-8 Poseidon is expected to be ~US$200 million. I do not remember exactly which purchase price that is but if memory services, it is just for the aircraft, not any of the other ancillary costs required to get the aircraft into service. Given what have been Kiwi requirements for defence purchases in terms of support, life-of-type costings etc (look at discussion on the RNZAF NH-90 purchase for what I mean) that could double the cost per aircraft. Given the trends from the last decade, I cannot see the NZDF in a position to spend something like NZ$3 billion to get five or perhaps six Poseidons, not with everything else which is also coming due for replacement.
Incidentally, an HC-144A Ocean Sentry operating in the MPA configuration has an operational flight time of ~9 hours vs. 15-18 of the P-8 Poseidon with a range of ~2,000 n miles. It can also be re-roled depending on mission requirements by removing the mission systems pallet, which then allows it to carry three cargo pallets, 40 troops, 20 air passengers or 12 medevac patients with 3 attendants. Definite potential there IMO.
-Cheers
I done more research, and I have to agree New Zealand won't be able to afford the Poseidon aircraft. Well, not in numbers. Therefore, I agree the Ocean Sentry would probably be New Zealand's best bet to replace the Orions for EEZ ocean patrols.... Probably save on operational costs as well...
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
I guess if the Govt does agree to purchase medium range MPA's that may be a signal as to its P3 replacement intentions, which could be then long range UAV's rather than the P-8. Also that way some aircrew can transfer onto another platform (i.e. without any abrupt mass redundancies and the killing off of institutional knowledge a la ACF demise).
Then again, could the P8 replace the P3 in the RNZAF? I don't know but let's look at Australia for some possible clues and insights. Why are the RAAF obtaining 8 P8's to replace 18 P3's? Could it be that they may purchase more aircraft once they succesfully enter service? Or could it be that 8 is sufficient because of the Wedgetail combination? Or could it because the JORN system negates the need for additional P8's? Or is there less of a submarine threat than during the Cold War? or is it simply costs?
Then again some say because the P8 is more capable than a P3. I assume so much as in it has more space for equipment and operators etc. But how was the figure 8 arrived at?
Again I don't know except to say I understand that in Cold War times, 3 P3's were the minimum to track a sub over 24 hours (i.e. presumably that takes into account flying to and from an area of interest etc)? Perhaps someone could verify this etc.
If so, could it be that 8 RAAF P8's theoretically allows 2 seperate areas of interest to be investigated/tracked/targeted (i.e. 2x 3 aircraft), with the remaining 2 undergoing servicing etc?
If so, could it mean that the minimum no of P8's that the RNZAF would want (putting aside whether the Govt would fund them) is thus 3 P8 aircraft? Meaning of course there wouldn't necessarily be 100% operational availability etc.
3x $US$200M = $ US$600M - at today's rates that's $841M NZ dollars (which is similar to the NH90 purchase costs), although I'm unclear if that US$200M is fully kitted out or not (and/or whether some of the RNZAF's new P3 technology could be transferred over etc). It is possible then to have P8's. I'd like to see RNZAF with at least 3 long range P8's (& long range maritime UAV's to supplement perhaps in the late 2010's or early 2020's, along with the medium range/coastal MPA's), perhaps the Govt would too, but as we know it all depends on the overall costs along with everything else that needs replacing...
Then again, could the P8 replace the P3 in the RNZAF? I don't know but let's look at Australia for some possible clues and insights. Why are the RAAF obtaining 8 P8's to replace 18 P3's? Could it be that they may purchase more aircraft once they succesfully enter service? Or could it be that 8 is sufficient because of the Wedgetail combination? Or could it because the JORN system negates the need for additional P8's? Or is there less of a submarine threat than during the Cold War? or is it simply costs?
Then again some say because the P8 is more capable than a P3. I assume so much as in it has more space for equipment and operators etc. But how was the figure 8 arrived at?
Again I don't know except to say I understand that in Cold War times, 3 P3's were the minimum to track a sub over 24 hours (i.e. presumably that takes into account flying to and from an area of interest etc)? Perhaps someone could verify this etc.
If so, could it be that 8 RAAF P8's theoretically allows 2 seperate areas of interest to be investigated/tracked/targeted (i.e. 2x 3 aircraft), with the remaining 2 undergoing servicing etc?
If so, could it mean that the minimum no of P8's that the RNZAF would want (putting aside whether the Govt would fund them) is thus 3 P8 aircraft? Meaning of course there wouldn't necessarily be 100% operational availability etc.
3x $US$200M = $ US$600M - at today's rates that's $841M NZ dollars (which is similar to the NH90 purchase costs), although I'm unclear if that US$200M is fully kitted out or not (and/or whether some of the RNZAF's new P3 technology could be transferred over etc). It is possible then to have P8's. I'd like to see RNZAF with at least 3 long range P8's (& long range maritime UAV's to supplement perhaps in the late 2010's or early 2020's, along with the medium range/coastal MPA's), perhaps the Govt would too, but as we know it all depends on the overall costs along with everything else that needs replacing...
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Cost and because it is (or was) planned to replace the remainder of the capability with UAV's, such as Global Hawk or something similar.
I wonder if a ‘pooling arrangement’ could also be used in reference to P-8 and Global Hawk in terms of the ADF-NZDF in the medium term and work together to achieve a BAMS capability. Possibly NZ could add 2 more P-8’s and 4 RQ-4’s to the ANZAC BAMS party. Of course each nation could keep its own separate ‘Coastwatch’ level arrangements. It seems that a PPP arrangement suits the Australian Govt.
Mods: Is this is a topic that we should discuss further over at the RNZAF thread as it is moving into aviation territory more than maritime. Should we up sticks and shift it over there? I will repost over there in the meantime to encourage the shift and keep this naval thread more for things that float than fly. :smilie
Mods: Is this is a topic that we should discuss further over at the RNZAF thread as it is moving into aviation territory more than maritime. Should we up sticks and shift it over there? I will repost over there in the meantime to encourage the shift and keep this naval thread more for things that float than fly. :smilie
Which has to be where things will end up eventually.
The voyage of the damned?
New navy ship breaks down - national | Stuff.co.nz
" Navy spokesman Commander Phil Bradshaw said Otago was doing sea trials off Melbourne when they had a fuel injection problem on one engine. They were fixing it when an alarm went off on the other engine.
"They felt it prudent to return to dock to ensure the engines were perfect before they left," he said.
He said the ship is under-warranty. "
More bad luck? For those boats if wasn't for bad luck, they'd have no luck at all.
New navy ship breaks down - national | Stuff.co.nz
" Navy spokesman Commander Phil Bradshaw said Otago was doing sea trials off Melbourne when they had a fuel injection problem on one engine. They were fixing it when an alarm went off on the other engine.
"They felt it prudent to return to dock to ensure the engines were perfect before they left," he said.
He said the ship is under-warranty. "
More bad luck? For those boats if wasn't for bad luck, they'd have no luck at all.
This week we again had a reminder that the tanker Endeavour has 3 years to run before it must be replaced, Cdre Smith when interviewed on 3 News indicated that a replacement tanker that would meet MARPOL requirements would be NZ$85m.
This raises a couple of points. Has RNZN gone off the JSS idea and will stick to a traditional tanker? Does the announcement confirm the rumours and current governments traditional policy support for a frigate sized surface combatant in the RNZN fleet post the White Paper?
It is possible that cost factors precluded a JSS type approach as even using the Merwede version similar to the Canterbury (in fact quite a bit of commonality) would be in the ballpark of $200-225m. The 85m tanker would be more digestible costwise.
However if this is an inadvertant signal that ANZAC replacement is prospective post 2020 then it is interesting what the C2 general purpose surface combatant design brief comes up with. The vessels are envisaged to share the same hull as the C1 of around 6000t and the programme is after a flexible approach to vessel-task configuration. This article has a good background.
http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/RDS_Brunton_Feb09.pdf
C2 - Stabilisation Surface Combatant (General Purpose)
A consort protection optimised combatant that will
contribute to and enable the strategic effects of
Insight, Coercion, Deterrence, Stabilisation, Prevention,
Disruption and Destruction in:
• Concurrent small-scale warfighting operations through
precision strike [IPMD], surveillance, maritime
interdiction and the provision of secure safe theatre
entry, AAW, ASuW, ASW close consort protection and
sea control for the deployment and sustainment of the
force package.
• Medium- and large-scale operations through the
protection of national SLOCs and contributing to the
protection of coalition SLOCs for the core regions and
transit between.
Sounds like it could be quite useful.
This raises a couple of points. Has RNZN gone off the JSS idea and will stick to a traditional tanker? Does the announcement confirm the rumours and current governments traditional policy support for a frigate sized surface combatant in the RNZN fleet post the White Paper?
It is possible that cost factors precluded a JSS type approach as even using the Merwede version similar to the Canterbury (in fact quite a bit of commonality) would be in the ballpark of $200-225m. The 85m tanker would be more digestible costwise.
However if this is an inadvertant signal that ANZAC replacement is prospective post 2020 then it is interesting what the C2 general purpose surface combatant design brief comes up with. The vessels are envisaged to share the same hull as the C1 of around 6000t and the programme is after a flexible approach to vessel-task configuration. This article has a good background.
http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/RDS_Brunton_Feb09.pdf
C2 - Stabilisation Surface Combatant (General Purpose)
A consort protection optimised combatant that will
contribute to and enable the strategic effects of
Insight, Coercion, Deterrence, Stabilisation, Prevention,
Disruption and Destruction in:
• Concurrent small-scale warfighting operations through
precision strike [IPMD], surveillance, maritime
interdiction and the provision of secure safe theatre
entry, AAW, ASuW, ASW close consort protection and
sea control for the deployment and sustainment of the
force package.
• Medium- and large-scale operations through the
protection of national SLOCs and contributing to the
protection of coalition SLOCs for the core regions and
transit between.
Sounds like it could be quite useful.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
They sound good, they'll probably even be brilliant ships, however they use different weapons and technology to the ANZAC's they would be replacing, though admittedly the same could be said of the ANZAC's when they replaced the Leander class. However it just seems a little reckless to do that unless the RAN and possibly the Canadians did the same, possibly as a show of commonwealth solidarity and to form a larger power block within the increasingly multipolar world.
To my mind a JSS is as useful as a third frigate. Having a ship that can:
1) act independently to land emergency relief
2) support long range patrol vessels
3) increase the endurance and effectiveness of the MRV and its landed supported company
is a real step change development of the capability of the RNZN. It would have to be useful to our allies and friends too. Its also something even a vegetarian could politically support. It would seem a shame to nickel and dime for the sake of short term fiscal difficulties. Particularly when the NZDef is going to require a lot of capital over at least the next ten years to just retain it current capabilities.
I would rather see RNZN lease an oiler until funds become available for a JSS. However, that assumes that funds will ever become available, and it is seriously frustrating when one compares NZ's level of defence financing with any other commonwealth country. A JSS isn't a bloody Aircraft Carrier after all.
ukeIf they go down the route of a tanker could they not consider a commercial arrangement like the RN does with the Points but with a Tanker. For the JSS role even offer to buy a Bay Class or even a Point off the RN.
Longer term would the RNZN be better served buying Absalon type ships rather than Frigates/C2 ships. Though we don't actually know what the C2 will actually look like yet.
Longer term would the RNZN be better served buying Absalon type ships rather than Frigates/C2 ships. Though we don't actually know what the C2 will actually look like yet.
SteveOH - That is an interesting point you raise per the multi-national side of things. In my view a tie up between the old ‘Dominion’ Navies of the RN, RAN, RNZN and the Canadians would be able to provide economies of scale and industrial benefits to each of the partners. It will be a big cake with lots of slices. With the C1 and C2 derivatives sharing a hull and basic systems (well at least for the moment) and potentially using a modular and flexible approach to incorporate each Navy’s individual requirements it could be a ripper. It might be that the RN and NZ embrace the C2 package and the RN and RAN embrace the C1 (Type 26) package, with the Canadians possibly cherrypicking what they need per C1 or C2 versions. It is years away and that could change obviously. Again the C3/OCV vessel will interest all of the old HM Navies as well - in the post 2020 timeframe.
Twikiwi - Yes the lease option of a Tanker could be a good temporary stop gap. Though I would prefer to see a first rate JSS built in the years ahead. At least before this decade is out would be good. However I am unconvinced that a JSS would be suitable in lieu of a third frigate. In lieu of a 4th frigate that for the RNZN is a different matter entirely.
1805 - I think we might have missed the Absalon era and probably the F370 also. Going for a JSS and a three ship C2/Anzac II surface combatant fleet is the better option in the lengthen timeframe that is to be presented. An Absalon + tanker + the current two Anzac’s (added to the Protector Fleet) was my preference 3 or 4 years back before the current recession. However we had to have acted on that pretty much by now. As time moves on, govt's come and go, changes evolve and other projects are firming up what could have been a good option in 2006 for 2010-2025 is different in 2010 for 2020-2035. The Ab’s are a great vessel however the prescription of what NZ needs going forward into the post 2020 world means that a surface combatant with the baseline capabilities of the C2 as outlined a couple of posts back and on the link provided are baseline capabilities that the Ab Class does not possess – F370 yes but not the Ab.
Twikiwi - Yes the lease option of a Tanker could be a good temporary stop gap. Though I would prefer to see a first rate JSS built in the years ahead. At least before this decade is out would be good. However I am unconvinced that a JSS would be suitable in lieu of a third frigate. In lieu of a 4th frigate that for the RNZN is a different matter entirely.
1805 - I think we might have missed the Absalon era and probably the F370 also. Going for a JSS and a three ship C2/Anzac II surface combatant fleet is the better option in the lengthen timeframe that is to be presented. An Absalon + tanker + the current two Anzac’s (added to the Protector Fleet) was my preference 3 or 4 years back before the current recession. However we had to have acted on that pretty much by now. As time moves on, govt's come and go, changes evolve and other projects are firming up what could have been a good option in 2006 for 2010-2025 is different in 2010 for 2020-2035. The Ab’s are a great vessel however the prescription of what NZ needs going forward into the post 2020 world means that a surface combatant with the baseline capabilities of the C2 as outlined a couple of posts back and on the link provided are baseline capabilities that the Ab Class does not possess – F370 yes but not the Ab.
1805 - I think we might have missed the Absalon era and probably the F370 also. Going for a JSS and a three ship C2/Anzac II surface combatant fleet is the better option in the lengthen timeframe that is to be presented. An Absalon + tanker + the current two Anzac’s (added to the Protector Fleet) was my preference 3 or 4 years back before the current recession. However we had to have acted on that pretty much by now. As time moves on, govt's come and go, changes evolve and other projects are firming up what could have been a good option in 2006 for 2010-2025 is different in 2010 for 2020-2035. The Ab’s are a great vessel however the prescription of what NZ needs going forward into the post 2020 world means that a surface combatant with the baseline capabilities of the C2 as outlined a couple of posts back and on the link provided are baseline capabilities that the Ab Class does not possess – F370 yes but not the Ab.[/QUOTE]
I agree the Absalon would be an old design by they time the ships are needed, but an updated concept might end up being cheaper and more capable. Particular the big flight deck twin hangar, large flexi deck and a weapons fit broadly the same as ANZACs. An updated version would probably be capable of taking the systems of a C1/C2, probably at a fraction of the cost.
Although I do like the idea of a Commonwealth ship, I think it would require a change of attitude in the RN to understand it needs to pool with other Navies to get the volume to support designs and this requires some compromise in approach.
I agree the Absalon would be an old design by they time the ships are needed, but an updated concept might end up being cheaper and more capable. Particular the big flight deck twin hangar, large flexi deck and a weapons fit broadly the same as ANZACs. An updated version would probably be capable of taking the systems of a C1/C2, probably at a fraction of the cost.
Although I do like the idea of a Commonwealth ship, I think it would require a change of attitude in the RN to understand it needs to pool with other Navies to get the volume to support designs and this requires some compromise in approach.