Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[ngatimozart]

Seems that the RNZN is to be allowed back into USN Ports:

US lifts ban on NZ navy vessels entering ports - National - NZ Herald News

heh, USA must "want" something from the RNZN .

On a more serious note - 'tis good to see, avoids more "embarrassments" ala RIMPAC 2012.

This the Stuff write up which is a bit more informative Powhiri for US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta | Stuff.co.nz than the NZ Herald one.

 

[Cadredave]

Seems that the RNZN is to be allowed back into USN Ports:

US lifts ban on NZ navy vessels entering ports - National - NZ Herald News

heh, USA must "want" something from the RNZN .

On a more serious note - 'tis good to see, avoids more "embarrassments" ala RIMPAC 2012.

The only embarrassment caused was the poor reporting by so called defence jornos trying hard to create something that was not there, Sailors were very happy being berthed in the civilian port as they could walk to town and have a great time in the process without spending money on taxis...lol

Very good news for the Navy

CD

 

[Todjaeger]

But the point is it doesn't and is not likely to make more funds available. Merge the the MRV and frigate capability, into a larger more capable Absalon type class. Ideally with a small dock, it would provide a much more flexible and cost effective solution.

The clever thing to do would be to align with other countries with similar requirements. Maybe even the Danes when they replace of the Absalons

No, the point I was making, and incidentally have been making off and on for some time in various NZ threads, was apparently missed. At least by some, that is.

As others who are actually involved with/within the NZDF could inform others, the NZDF is seriously restricted in terms of funding, to the point that retention of personnel and/or capabilities is impacted.

When people (NZ politicians and journos mostly) look at and comment about the NZDF budget, this "the NZDF budget is 1% of GDP," makes a good sound-byte. As does the entry showing the NZDF budget at NZ$2.9 bil. If (or perhaps when) the NZ public realizes that if a politician says the budget is NZ$2.9 bil, the NZDF budget is really only ~NZ$2 bil. the populace might start to wonder just what they are getting. Perhaps more importantly, they might begin to wonder why the number is inflated so much beyond what it really is, and where the "paper" dollars are really going.

Funding can only be kept so low, for so long before it either needs to be increased to maintain capabilities, or have capabilities be degraded or lost completely. The Project Protector programme would be a rather good illustration of this, in that the whole programme was approximately NZ$500 mil. for a total of seven new vessels, which realistically are only capable of sealift (for the MRV) and constabulary patrolling for the OPV's and IPV's. Those familiar with the costs of a properly kitted out vessel for various roles can make educated guesses on close and capable the Project Protector vessels are, compared with their equivalents in other navies.

As for the recommendations for a multi-purpose sealift/patrolling vessel with a welldock and similar facilities, such continued advocacy is beginning to strike me as nonsensical, for a few different reasons. The "MRV" capability the HMNZS Canterbury provides in terms of sealift is really just to give the NZDF some amphib ops experience. A way for the NZDF to get its collective feet wet (if one pardons the pun) since that is a capability which the NZDF really has not had in the past.

As part of the definition, it was determined that effective size of the sealift needed to be of a company group. At the same time, it also does not appear that it deemed necessary for the NZDF to always have a company-level sealift capability (if that had been the case, then three MRV's would have been required...) since the NZDF has yet to really develop an amphib ops doctrine.

There is also the little matter of the difference in roles between a patrol/escort-type vessel like a frigate, and a sealift vessel like a LPD. There are times (more times in fact) where the RNZN has wanted/needed patrol and escort capabilities, than sealift. Would it make sense for the NZDF/RNZN to spend more money on its escort vessels so that they are or can also be sealift vessels, when that is likely to be a less important function for them in many instances?

Also, no one has yet designed a vessel which can be an LPD or FFH. The closest yet has been the Danish Absalon-class support vessel, which can have an armament comparable to that of a frigate. With the flex deck, they can also transport approximately one company of troops or ~50 vehicles, but lack landing craft, as well as a method of loading and deploying them and appear to require a dock in order to use the rear vehicle ramp. What this means, is that the Absalon-class does not even provide the same degree of sealift that the HMNZS Canterbury does, except possibly for tota;/max vehicle weight since the flex deck strength on the Danish vessels is sufficient to bear the weight of a Leo II.

Until someone make a serious attempt at designing a multi-role FFH/LPD-type vessel, is really is premature in stating that three such MRV's would be more capable and/or cost less than a trio of FFH's and a sealift vessel (or three...).

-Cheers

 

[1805]

No, the point I was making, and incidentally have been making off and on for some time in various NZ threads, was apparently missed. At least by some, that is.

As others who are actually involved with/within the NZDF could inform others, the NZDF is seriously restricted in terms of funding, to the point that retention of personnel and/or capabilities is impacted.

When people (NZ politicians and journos mostly) look at and comment about the NZDF budget, this "the NZDF budget is 1% of GDP," makes a good sound-byte. As does the entry showing the NZDF budget at NZ$2.9 bil. If (or perhaps when) the NZ public realizes that if a politician says the budget is NZ$2.9 bil, the NZDF budget is really only ~NZ$2 bil. the populace might start to wonder just what they are getting. Perhaps more importantly, they might begin to wonder why the number is inflated so much beyond what it really is, and where the "paper" dollars are really going.

Funding can only be kept so low, for so long before it either needs to be increased to maintain capabilities, or have capabilities be degraded or lost completely. The Project Protector programme would be a rather good illustration of this, in that the whole programme was approximately NZ$500 mil. for a total of seven new vessels, which realistically are only capable of sealift (for the MRV) and constabulary patrolling for the OPV's and IPV's. Those familiar with the costs of a properly kitted out vessel for various roles can make educated guesses on close and capable the Project Protector vessels are, compared with their equivalents in other navies.

As for the recommendations for a multi-purpose sealift/patrolling vessel with a welldock and similar facilities, such continued advocacy is beginning to strike me as nonsensical, for a few different reasons. The "MRV" capability the HMNZS Canterbury provides in terms of sealift is really just to give the NZDF some amphib ops experience. A way for the NZDF to get its collective feet wet (if one pardons the pun) since that is a capability which the NZDF really has not had in the past.

As part of the definition, it was determined that effective size of the sealift needed to be of a company group. At the same time, it also does not appear that it deemed necessary for the NZDF to always have a company-level sealift capability (if that had been the case, then three MRV's would have been required...) since the NZDF has yet to really develop an amphib ops doctrine.

There is also the little matter of the difference in roles between a patrol/escort-type vessel like a frigate, and a sealift vessel like a LPD. There are times (more times in fact) where the RNZN has wanted/needed patrol and escort capabilities, than sealift. Would it make sense for the NZDF/RNZN to spend more money on its escort vessels so that they are or can also be sealift vessels, when that is likely to be a less important function for them in many instances?

Also, no one has yet designed a vessel which can be an LPD or FFH. The closest yet has been the Danish Absalon-class support vessel, which can have an armament comparable to that of a frigate. With the flex deck, they can also transport approximately one company of troops or ~50 vehicles, but lack landing craft, as well as a method of loading and deploying them and appear to require a dock in order to use the rear vehicle ramp. What this means, is that the Absalon-class does not even provide the same degree of sealift that the HMNZS Canterbury does, except possibly for tota;/max vehicle weight since the flex deck strength on the Danish vessels is sufficient to bear the weight of a Leo II.

Until someone make a serious attempt at designing a multi-role FFH/LPD-type vessel, is really is premature in stating that three such MRV's would be more capable and/or cost less than a trio of FFH's and a sealift vessel (or three...).

-Cheers

I do agree with you on the issue of defence funding being on the light side. I think there is a danger with trying to do to much with to little and putting personnel at risk. There is almost a bit of this with the MRV.

To be clear I am not suggesting an Absalon, the use of the term "Absalon type" is to help people with the concept, but I would hope when also mentioning an increased tonnage of c9,000t/dock people can have some imagination and do not continually refer back to the original Absalon design.

It would have a flexideck and frigate armament (in fact I would investigate porting across the existing ANZAC armament/upgrades) , 24-25 knot, but would be 50% bigger and include a dock, really it would be nearer a RSN Endurance.

One of these ships should at least match Canterbury and 2 clearly double the capability and availability. Its increased size over an ANZAC will make a better platform for most of it's systems and far superior aviation facilities.

I would not see a dock as just being relevant for logistics, there is future potential for a mothership role for patrol craft/USV (including ASW).

Agreed there is no current design that meets the exact spec, but are you saying it would not be possible to design such a ship....it does not sound that radical?

 

[1805]

Abe put this up on the RAN thread as a possible SEA 1180 OPV Offshore Patrol Cutters - Vigor Industrial It's one that is being presented as the new cutter for the USCG if it is accepted.

If you work back through this thread you'll see that the Absalon has already been discussed and general opinion appeasr to be that it doesn't suit NZ conditions and needs. As we have been trying to tell you that a MRV frigate combo is not really an option because it doesn't meet RNZN requirements. You don't seem to understand the dynamics involved. The RNZN is not a green water nor a continental navy. It is a blue water navy covering vast areas of the Pacific, Indian and Southern oceans. We also need something that is bigger than the Canterbury, after all the Canterbury is a stepping stone in the amphibious learning curve. The frigates are need for other things besides amphib support. We have to work in with the RAN and the USN, especially the RAN. Aligning with countries that don't operate in this part of the world is not a good idea because they are too far away for spares, logistics support and sustainment. Working alongside and with the USN and RAN gives us the that logistics, sustainment and support.

You have misquoted me, I said "However when requirements do not match (the RAN) i.e. budgets, there might be other partners or groups that make an ALTERNATIVE to GOING IT ALONE."

 

[aussienscale]

Some folks are confusing New Zealand with a larger nation, New Zealand's population is only 4 million or so, not 20 or 30 million. Implying New Zealand could afford a baby LHD is way off the mark, New Zealand couldn't even afford a proper LSD, settling for a militarized civilian ferry. Now folks are suggesting New Zealand buy a new replenishment ship nations of 50 million are buying. Again, way off the mark. This is what New Zealand can afford, a slightly larger and more capable cheap replenishment oiler similar to the Endeavour.

What a load of rubbish

 

[Todjaeger]

Agreed there is no current design that meets the exact spec, but are you saying it would not be possible to design such a ship....it does not sound that radical?

A few very key points though. From a RNZN/NZDF perspective, any such FFH/LPD-type MRV would need to at a minimum, be capable of performing the specific roles which the ANZAC-class FFH's and HMNZS Canterbury or their replacements are respectively tasked with, and be at least as efficient in terms of acquisition, operations and availability.

I have little doubt that some company could design and build a MRV with sufficient flex space to accomodate a company group and their vehicles, aviation assets, medical suite etc, while also being able to be uparmed to the level of a FFH.

What is absolutely in doubt is whether such a design would be as cost effective as having separate designs for the respective vessel roles. I suspect they would not be, since much of the space/weight required for the sealift role would be unused when operating in the FFH role. Further, IIRC something like half (or perhaps more) the cost of a modern surface combatant like an FFH comes from the sensors, comms and electronics packages. With the possible exception of a towed sonar array, these systems need to be installed and calibrated during construction or extensive yard refit and upgrade programmes. They are not the sorts of kit which can be swapped in and out depending on mission role requirements. The same also applies if the decision were to be made to arm the MRV with a 5"/127mm naval cannon, and/or non-containerized weapon packages.

When one starts looking at what would be required, the prospect of a new class of vessel being as capable but costing less to acquire and operate seems less and less likely.

-Cheers

 

[Sea Toby]

What a load of rubbish

We will see whether New Zealand will in the future when they decide to replace Endeavour. When New Zealand had the chance to spend almost twice as much for a baby sized Damen Enforcer LPD of 8k tons from ADI they didn't. When New Zealand had the chance to buy a third Anzac FFH they didn't. When New Zealand had the chance to operate four IPVs they didn't.

 

[t68]

We will see whether New Zealand will in the future when they decide to replace Endeavour. When New Zealand had the chance to spend almost twice as much for a baby sized Damen Enforcer LPD of 8k tons from ADI they didn't. When New Zealand had the chance to buy a third Anzac FFH they didn't. When New Zealand had the chance to operate four IPVs they didn't.

Under current fiscal planning not spending on the equipment above and being able to afford that equipment is too vastly different things.

The current state of NZ economy is one of a large consumer debt, government debt is stable with unexpected money being spent on rebuilding Christchurch, but still has capacity in the economy to expand defence spending if they see fit, and obviously they don’t.


I do see NZDF buy a type of LPH/LHD is Singapore builds the endurance 160 just might be the right fit.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_GEtV6gA23xk/TM1vfvoY_JI/AAAAAAAACmI/Jo8sjJE5xTE/s1600/P9150025.JPG

 

[Bonza]

We will see whether New Zealand will in the future when they decide to replace Endeavour. When New Zealand had the chance to spend almost twice as much for a baby sized Damen Enforcer LPD of 8k tons from ADI they didn't. When New Zealand had the chance to buy a third Anzac FFH they didn't. When New Zealand had the chance to operate four IPVs they didn't.

Given some of your prior posts, I'll ask you directly - are you trying to stir up trouble with the Kiwi posters? Because you seem to have a knack for posts like this when it comes to New Zealand. Nothing you've pointed out is technically incorrect, but it's certainly lacking a bit of context. Makes a man curious about your motivations...

 

[Sea Toby]

Given some of your prior posts, I'll ask you directly - are you trying to stir up trouble with the Kiwi posters? Because you seem to have a knack for posts like this when it comes to New Zealand. Nothing you've pointed out is technically incorrect, but it's certainly lacking a bit of context. Makes a man curious about your motivations...

Well, no one is impressed when two newly built IPVs have more or less been laid up for any reason. Not having enough funds to operate or crew two new vessels isn't positive in my mind. One reaps what they sow.

 

[RegR]

Well, no one is impressed when two newly built IPVs have more or less been laid up for any reason. Not having enough funds to operate or crew two new vessels isn't positive in my mind. One reaps what they sow.

Well its not as if its anything new to anyone, alot of navies around the world are making cuts or limiting capabilities at the moment due to finances or lack of personnel. Australia is also not immune, parking up ships, using others as patrol, crewing issues etc. US cutting back, UK adjusting fleets, the list goes on...

Although I do not agree with some what NZ did was probably best within our budget,
- We got a sealift vessel a capability we never properly had in the first place
and it does the job, moves our troops and equipment from A to B, we gotta stop turning everything into WWIII scenarios when we have to learn to walk before we start running into battle. The closest scenario we had (that we actually did) was East Timor and does anyone on here think Canterbury would have not been useful and instead would require a demi-warship mini carrier?
- The 3rd ANZAC eventuated into said sealift ship and 2 OPVs. 2 dummed down ships are alot more practical, beneficial and useful for EEZ patrolling then a single fully fledged combat vessel requireing 4x the crew, and the Canterbury even with its flaws is probably the most versatile ship in our fleet. Although a 3rd frigate would be hugely beneficial in a military sense, if it was at the expense of the 7(yes 7) ships we gained and 3 operational types we covered, then would it still be worth it?
- Crewing issues on the IPCs probably akin to the crewing issues on RAN subs (and they want to double their fleet? go figure), recruitment and retention is alittle hard at the moment as military cannot quite match civilian pay, lifestyle and now more increasingly benefits and ironically Australia has a major influence on that.

 

[ngatimozart]

Well, no one is impressed when two newly built IPVs have more or less been laid up for any reason. Not having enough funds to operate or crew two new vessels isn't positive in my mind. One reaps what they sow.

You appear to have a problem with us Kiwis. Maybe it's about time you sorted it out.

 

[swerve]

Sea Toby's profile says he's from the USA.

 

[ngatimozart]

Sea Toby's profile says he's from the USA.

My apologies.

 

[recce.k1]

Well, no one is impressed when two newly built IPVs have more or less been laid up for any reason. Not having enough funds to operate or crew two new vessels isn't positive in my mind. One reaps what they sow.

Howdy SeaToby, from what I've been reading it's not so much a lack of funds (if you were thinking budget cuts?) it's more to do with personnel shortages in some critical specialist roles. Also there already had been ongoing shortages in recent years thus personnel have been seconded to operational vessels to keep them running and also to ensure the new Project Protector fleet were full manned etc. Apparently now Defence is easing this pressure on personnel by giving them more time on shore (rather than continuously posting them to ships to keep all vessels manned all the time - which sounds fair in terms of easing family pressures etc) hence why the two IPV's were tied up alongside.

According to this media article RNZN attrition was a whooping 22% and the Australian mining boom is a factor (especially for navy marine technicians).
NZ navy sailors flock to Oz mines - National - NZ Herald News

Defence Force chief Lieutenant General Rhys Jones revealed that the mining industry was recruiting in Devonport, home of Auckland's naval base.

Navy staff were being targeted because of their experience with heavy machinery, and departures to Australia were one of the reasons the Navy's attrition rate had climbed to 22.3 per cent.

Lt Gen Jones said Defence Force numbers often fluctuated, but departures had increased during tough economic times.

The force could not compete with mining salaries, which were often twice as large as those in the military.

Also the ADF is targeting certain trades in the NZDF and offering huge bonuses
Australia offers NZ soldiers $250k to swap armies - Employment - NZ Herald News
Whilst such "lateral recruitment" is standard practice, apparently (according to another MSM report I read somewhere which was a bit more detailed) there had been an unwritten rule between ADF & NZDF not to overtly target each other's Defence Force personnel however this has gone out the window of late (no doubt because the ADF personnel have also been targeted by the Oz mineral boom putting pressure on the ADF as a whole - this is occassionally discussed in the Australian threads on DT). Anyway the RNZN is actively recruiting RN personnel so hopefully things will improve here.

Something to ponder, we have had the US SecDef visit here and he has publically offered US support to stand up NZDF's amphibious capability .... I wonder if NZG could be prudent and ask the USG to post some personnel on exchange or even base a number here to assist with these crucial specialist roles - what do people think?

Edit: here are the articles I was thinking of.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/pol...Force-recruitment-scramble-after-staff-exodus

The force is desperate to recruit highly skilled people with military experience to fill shortfalls in the army, navy and air force.

For example, there are 39 positions from lieutenant to lieutenant-commander that the Navy is looking to fill.

"For us to grow someone like that it will take at least 15 years at a cost of $200,000 each to reach that position," Tamariki said.

"So if we can go overseas that for us is much easier to fill a certain gap we have than letting our training mechanism grow them."

Tamariki said the Defence Force usually recruited people from "like minded" countries such as the UK, United States and Australia "but we consider anyone's application who is ex-military".

"The decision to recruit personnel from the UK is part of the NZDF overall recruitment strategy to recruit the right amount of the right people, with the right attributes, at the right time and place to sustain NZDF operational outputs," he said.

The attrition rate was higher than normal and could be attributed to a number of factors, including people looking for other employment opportunities and chasing "the mighty Australian dollar", Tamariki said.

And http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/6590221/Australia-beckons-for-sacked-workers

The Australian Defence Force, facing stiff competition from the mining sector, is targeting laid-off skilled specialists from overseas militaries, including New Zealand by offering citizenship after just three months of service.
.....

THE Australian Defence Force is offering former Kiwi soldiers, sailors and aircrew a fast track to citizenship as it prepares for the arrival of new ships and aircraft.

Under the lateral recruitment scheme, new recruits are given a residency visa and can apply for citizenship after just three months of service.

The Australian Defence Force is facing pressure from the private sector for skilled staff in all three branches of the services, including dentists, chaplains, pilots, engineers, submarine crew and special forces soldiers.

The drive comes as several Commonwealth countries, including New Zealand, face cutbacks to their armed forces.

The New Zealand Defence Force made 212 people redundant last year in attempts to reach cost saving targets set by the Government's White Paper. Another 685 people left the service voluntarily between August and January.

The NZDF and the ADF have an unwritten agreement not to actively poach currently serving personnel, but the Australian recruitment drive could affect the uptake of new civilian roles created to replace those made redundant in New Zealand.

 

[MrConservative]

Well its not as if its anything new to anyone, alot of navies around the world are making cuts or limiting capabilities at the moment due to finances or lack of personnel. Australia is also not immune, parking up ships, using others as patrol, crewing issues etc. US cutting back, UK adjusting fleets, the list goes on...

Although I do not agree with some what NZ did was probably best within our budget,

Crewing issues on the IPCs probably akin to the crewing issues on RAN subs (and they want to double their fleet? go figure), recruitment and retention is alittle hard at the moment as military cannot quite match civilian pay, lifestyle and now more increasingly benefits and ironically Australia has a major influence on that.

Yep the IPV's tied up was principally to do with manning issues in critical areas. Not to do with fiscal cuts on their output.

The OZ mining industry has taken a few of the NZDF guys as well as other hardworking young fellows (and some of them potential service personnel) who want to bank some good coin in recent years. In my humble opinion until we as a nation drill and dig ourselves we are not going to realistically address that issue.

I am not saying that the IPV manning issue has a direct co-relation in this case, but generally there has developed a demographic deficit of young men in NZ (those of service age 18-40), as we have neglected in providing them with either the technical, industrial and indeed military opportunities they seek and the financial benefits they know they can get elsewhere. By opening up some of our buried treasure (and it is indeed there) and the opportunities jobwise and financial wise that flow on from it is the key answer. It would also grow the economy to thus enable a more positive defence spend per salaries and capital equipment.

PS: I notice that my good DT friend Recce has addressed this topic very well above.

Cheers Mr C

 

[Bonza]

And look at that Sea Toby, the very thing I was asking you about. Explanation with context, rather than posts that could, in light of your history on the topic, be construed as cheap shots.

Keep it constructive and above the belt, please. As you yourself said, you reap what you sow.

 

[icelord]

Whilst such "lateral recruitment" is standard practice, apparently (according to another MSM report I read somewhere which was a bit more detailed) there had been an unwritten rule between ADF & NZDF not to overtly target each other's Defence Force personnel however this has gone out the window of late (no doubt because the ADF personnel have also been targeted by the Oz mineral boom putting pressure on the ADF as a whole - this is occassionally discussed in the Australian threads on DT). Anyway the RNZN is actively recruiting RN personnel so hopefully things will improve here.

Something to ponder, we have had the US SecDef visit here and he has publically offered US support to stand up NZDF's amphibious capability .... I wonder if NZG could be prudent and ask the USG to post some personnel on exchange or even base a number here to assist with these crucial specialist roles - what do people think?

While working with the RNZN last year i came across a Leut pilot who joined from the USN, at 35 they pretty much stop flying or theres a lack of positions(didnt ask for too much detail) but he found that the kiwis required pilots ASAP, and he was more then happy to move his family from the US and has loved it ever since. His knowledge and flying ability made him perfect for seasprites, and allowed him a new challenge and experience to share with the kiwis.
The Pusser onboard was Ex-RN, same thing, moved his family and set them up in NZ for new life, and brought a wealth of knowledge that was beyond neccesary compared to what he had done in the RN.
Also came across alot of Canadian Navy on exchange, and found out this year its a rotational experience for 2-3 lucky officers. After exchanges many go back to their country, tell of their experiences with the navy they were with and lead others to look into furthering their own knowledge and transferring.
In return for RAN stealing alot of kiwis, there was an Aussie who joined RNZN because he could achieve his training much faster, and in a different navy. He considered RAN, but decided on something different. So thats 1 going across, for the 20 or so coming back.
A few of the guys i worked with have made enquiries with the RAN as im hearing theres a few cuts being made to their benefits, and positions as well. Many are a little disgruntled atm, and sadly we're not much better with our own budget cuts.

 

[ngatimozart]

A few of the guys i worked with have made enquiries with the RAN as im hearing theres a few cuts being made to their benefits, and positions as well. Many are a little disgruntled atm, and sadly we're not much better with our own budget cuts.

Chief of Defence gave a pay rise of 5.7%, the first pay rise in four years, to service & civilian personnel in NZDF. However, NZDF have taken away some conditions and increased rents for married quarters to market rents, which in Auckland rents are quite expensive. So the pay rise has some hooks in it and some personnel are going to be worse off.