Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[ngatimozart]

Hi,
I'm not sure if it's okay to ask basic "interested in joining" questions. Apologies & feel free to ignore / delete / point me elsewhere as appropriate

I am a male undergrad university student (compsci / stats) who's interested in the Auckland MTO branch of the Navy Reserves.

Reading over the last 20 or so pages here (& the news), it seems that budget cuts and redundancies are hitting the RNZN fairly hard lately? i'm wondering if this situation applies to the Reserves, and specifically how it's affecting recruitment

Ultimately i'm trying to get some up to date info into how much competition / demand there is currently for MTO positions (or just Reserves in general).

For instance, would an inexperienced student have a shot, or does the MTO tend to only consider people with actual employment experience in (non military) maritime / management / trade roles?

Cheers

Give the Naval Recruiting Officer a call and they'll be able to tell you what night HMNZS Ngaponga parades and trains. Then I would suggest going along and having a talk to them. RNZNVR activities are part of the RNZN, so it comes within the RNZN budget. If you have already graduated or are doing postgrad you might be able to be considered to be an officer.

 

[RegR]

Hi,
I'm not sure if it's okay to ask basic "interested in joining" questions. Apologies & feel free to ignore / delete / point me elsewhere as appropriate

I am a male undergrad university student (compsci / stats) who's interested in the Auckland MTO branch of the Navy Reserves.

Reading over the last 20 or so pages here (& the news), it seems that budget cuts and redundancies are hitting the RNZN fairly hard lately? i'm wondering if this situation applies to the Reserves, and specifically how it's affecting recruitment

Ultimately i'm trying to get some up to date info into how much competition / demand there is currently for MTO positions (or just Reserves in general).

For instance, would an inexperienced student have a shot, or does the MTO tend to only consider people with actual employment experience in (non military) maritime / management / trade roles?

Cheers

The Defence force in general is aggresively recruiting at the moment across all 3 services due in part to their implementing of the civilianisation process and the subsequent backlash. They are now unintentionally saving more money then they planned due to the amount of wages they do not have to pay the ranks of extra people who have left dis-illusioned with the future of the NZDF.

You should find any recruiter would actively try and place you somewhere within the organisation, even reserves, and do not be surprised if they offer you a pitch to go fulltime. It may not be the exact job you want in the first instance but remember it is sometimes easier to transfer from within once you get some time up then it is to come in fresh off the street.

 

[Volkodav]

The Defence force in general is aggresively recruiting at the moment across all 3 services due in part to their implementing of the civilianisation process and the subsequent backlash. They are now unintentionally saving more money then they planned due to the amount of wages they do not have to pay the ranks of extra people who have left dis-illusioned with the future of the NZDF.

You should find any recruiter would actively try and place you somewhere within the organisation, even reserves, and do not be surprised if they offer you a pitch to go fulltime. It may not be the exact job you want in the first instance but remember it is sometimes easier to transfer from within once you get some time up then it is to come in fresh off the street.

Short term saving only as on average it costs at least a years wages to recruit and train a replacement. Then again it is politicians we are talking about so anything that wont come back to bite them within the electoral cycle is seen as a non issue.

 

[RegR]

Short term saving only as on average it costs at least a years wages to recruit and train a replacement. Then again it is politicians we are talking about so anything that wont come back to bite them within the electoral cycle is seen as a non issue.

Oh agreed, not to mention the price they will pay in the loss of experience and leadership, that does'nt come cheap. Well done govt you have again managed to kill our defence force alittle more and now to spend even more money to bring it back up to a reasonable standard.

Around we go again.

 

[ngatimozart]

I thought that the 11 'aussie' seasprites would essentially replace the existing 5 as operational aircraft, with the latter only being used for training and/or a source of spare parts. If this were the case identical avionics suites wouldn't really be necessary. Would think it highly unlikely that the RNZAF either need or could afford to have all 16 aircraft operational

The SH2G(NZ) is a different airframe to the SH2G(A now I) and not many compatible parts,because the G(NZ) were new builds and the G(A now I) were refurbished zero timed airframes. The rotors on the NZ are composite whereas the rotors on the A are metal. Quite a lot of other difference too. This was looked at ages ago so you will need to go back through the thread and have a read. 16 SH2s operational would be an ideal situation because that would mean five operation any time, five or six undergoing light maintenance or training and the rest in deep maintenace. But won't happen because the G(NZ) would need a costly MLU and this exercise is to avoid that if possible. Since the G(I) are zero timed theoretically they would last RNZN until programed ANZAC frigate replacement.

 

[LRate]

I think the CDF comment reducing naval fleet refers to reducing the output rather than the number of Hulls.

As for the RNZNVR I think they stopped taking people straight of the street for a period not to sure if its still the case a majority of the Rockies these days are ex RNZN who transfer over.
Probably best to join RNZN undergraduate scheme where you get paid 40K a year to go to Uni while gaining experience working during Uni break .

I couldn't see the IPVs moving out of Devo due to issues with the steel hull and aluminium superstructure and need for maintenance and technical assistance.

 

[htbrst]

But won't happen because the G(NZ) would need a costly MLU and this exercise is to avoid that if possible. Since the G(I) are zero timed theoretically they would last RNZN until programed ANZAC frigate replacement.

The G(NZ) do require a mid-life update - normally this involves upgrading avionics etc to more capable systems. Given the SH-2(I) avionics are now themselves a decade old are they much of an upgrade over the avioincs available in the SH-2G(NZ)?

...or is the 'upgrade to SH-2(I)'s all about numbers in the air, as having a helicopter is better than no helicopter, with relatively minor avionics improvements?

I think the SH-2(I)'s have carbon blades since NZ was borrowing some from RAN spares at one point

 

[ngatimozart]

I think the CDF comment reducing naval fleet refers to reducing the output rather than the number of Hulls.

As for the RNZNVR I think they stopped taking people straight of the street for a period not to sure if its still the case a majority of the Rockies these days are ex RNZN who transfer over.
Probably best to join RNZN undergraduate scheme where you get paid 40K a year to go to Uni while gaining experience working during Uni break .

I couldn't see the IPVs moving out of Devo due to issues with the steel hull and aluminium superstructure and need for maintenance and technical assistance.

The Moa Class IPC had steel hulls and aluminium superstructures and were based out of Philomel so there is a precedent. Routine maintemance was done by the Divisions and depot level maintenace at Philomel. We used to man the IPC quite regularly and if we got the man hours quite often.

 

[chis73]

Given the SH-2(I) avionics are now themselves a decade old are they much of an upgrade over the avioincs available in the SH-2G(NZ)?

The RAN Seasprite has (had?) higher-spec sensors than the NZ Seasprite: the RAN Seasprite sensors were first-rate 15 years ago, but at best would be considered middle-aged if not "mature" by now. Still supportable, but probably due for an upgrade. Presumably the Seasprites being considered by MoD have not been upgraded and this is partly why they are so cheap.

Let's see now:

Radar: RAN Seasprite has the APS-143B V3 Ocean Eye with ISAR, NZ has the baseline APS-143 V3. The APS-143B is still serving in limited numbers: Denmark (in 3 Challenger MPA), USCG (in 6 HU-25 Falcon jets, due to be retired 2014, + a couple of Metroliners & other odds & sods). It was also picked for the Swedish NH-90 (presumably the 5 maritime versions), which are still a twinkle in someone's eye. The RAN Seasprite appears to have been the largest customer of the APS-143B version [1]. The USCG HC-144A (CN-235) uses the later APS-143C version, and MH-60R uses the more advanced APS-147 development.

FLIR: RAN Seasprite has the AAQ-27, NZ the AAQ-22. The AAQ-27 is used in the RAN S-70B Seahawk & USMC MV-22 Osprey. So support for that probably won't be a problem.

ESM/ELINT: RAN Seasprite has the AES-210E from Israel. Used in the RAN S-70B Seahawks as well, so that would be a potential source of spares when they are retired.

[1] My source for this is getting a bit old (The Naval Institute Guide to World Naval Weapon Systems 5th ed (2006)), so I may be out of date here.

Chis73

 

[LRate]

The IPCs were basically jolly boats used for OOW bravo training and the odd EEZ patrol , remember a few years back when Kiwis bridge got smashed in by rouge wave transiting from Gisborne. I think Kahu was the last one left in the RNZN ,flooding in harbour when a sea clock bilge valve was left open. It was subquently repaired and sold off a year later. I saw somewhere that one was based in Wellington to patrol undersea cables in the Cook straight.
IPVs are a totally different kettle of fish ,much larger , faster and far more automated and require a greater level of support due to increased complexitity of systems.
Plus you need a rostered duty watch when along side .Basing all the IPVs in one place you can spread your duty watch by combining the other ships crews.
With steel and aluminium in roughers the steel will flex more than alumnium creating stress along the joins.

 

[Lucasnz]

The IPCs were basically jolly boats used for OOW bravo training and the odd EEZ patrol , remember a few years back when Kiwis bridge got smashed in by rouge wave transiting from Gisborne. I think Kahu was the last one left in the RNZN ,flooding in harbour when a sea clock bilge valve was left open. It was subquently repaired and sold off a year later. I saw somewhere that one was based in Wellington to patrol undersea cables in the Cook straight.
IPVs are a totally different kettle of fish ,much larger , faster and far more automated and require a greater level of support due to increased complexitity of systems.
Plus you need a rostered duty watch when along side .Basing all the IPVs in one place you can spread your duty watch by combining the other ships crews.
With steel and aluminium in roughers the steel will flex more than alumnium creating stress along the joins.

I tend to disagree with your assessment of how the VR used there IPC. I can't speak for the other divisions but Toroa went to the Campbell Island's on Moa in 92 and used the MCM capability to do what the Littoral Warfare Force are doing now with the Remus in Search & Rescue ops.

Having paid a trip to the IPV I agree they are more technically complex (I still can't get over the lack of a wheel) and therefore require more maintenance, but all VR boats had a full time maintainer and it wasn't unusual to see one or two others attached for a time, usually Greenies. Adding an MT(L) or ET would help resolve some of those issues you have raised if the VR were to man one of the IPV.

While I can't even begin to think about some of the issues around the need for a standing duty watch I regularly use to see the old Lake class, Tui, Kahu and Manawanui in lock up routine, not to mention the IPC. The way I see it an alarmed service will deal with most security and fire issues IMHO.

As for the flexing I leave that to the Stokers and Greenies to discuss, I prefer looking out a bridge window.

 

[ngatimozart]

The IPCs were basically jolly boats used for OOW bravo training and the odd EEZ patrol , remember a few years back when Kiwis bridge got smashed in by rouge wave transiting from Gisborne. I think Kahu was the last one left in the RNZN ,flooding in harbour when a sea clock bilge valve was left open. It was subquently repaired and sold off a year later. I saw somewhere that one was based in Wellington to patrol undersea cables in the Cook straight.
IPVs are a totally different kettle of fish ,much larger , faster and far more automated and require a greater level of support due to increased complexitity of systems.
Plus you need a rostered duty watch when along side .Basing all the IPVs in one place you can spread your duty watch by combining the other ships crews.
With steel and aluminium in roughers the steel will flex more than alumnium creating stress along the joins.

The Kiwi used to do the hoki patrols off the South Island West Coast in the middle of winter. One October it went down to the Snares Islands. Kiwi was rated for 4m seas and 40 knot winds. I've been in 6m seas an 60 knot winds on it. Not nice but no choice. In 1991 we had some regulars onboard for the Navy 50th and they ended up feeding the fish because they couldn't hack the boats movement. The only reason IPCs did OOW trainings at Philomel was because Navy took the boats off the Reserves and moved them to Auckland. Given resources and training the two South Island Reserve Divisions in particular, and Oplhert in Wellington could operate the IPVs and maintain them to an excellent standard. We did with the IPCs.

 

[LRate]

That's interesting didn't know the IPCs did the MCM role I know Kahu was used as a dive training boat and could carry a decompression chamber.
I think the drogs had two IPCs as well.
I was more referring to the period when the IPCs were based at the dive pontoon in Philly mainly to train bridge watch keepers on the initial OOW bravo qualification before getting posted to a frigate to gain the OOW alpha endorsement.
It was a sweet posting but was a career stopper ie couldn't get task books , tickets signed off.
The way the IPVs are run with maintenance and support from dockyard and other shore establishments it would make it cost prohibitive to fly down support staff contractors , tooling plus accommodation etc down to say Dunedin away from support base to fix major defect. Saying that I'm sure you would find plenty of crew willing to leave the expensive Auckland market to live in other main centres.

 

[RegR]

Did'nt the hydro IPCs have the same names as the 2 new vessels? namesakes for similar(ish) roles I suppose. I guess with the shortage of critical trades keeping all the eggs in one basket does have some financial and logistical merit although the long transits south and obvious slower response times to any task south of the bombays would also be a hinderance of sorts.

 

[htbrst]

The RAN Seasprite has (had?) higher-spec sensors than the NZ Seasprite: the RAN Seasprite sensors were first-rate 15 years ago...

Thanks Chris exactly what I was looking for - most of the sources online are pretty scarce and contradictory as to what is fitted to them. Thanks for going to the effort of hunting it out for me.

I think the current a couple of the NZ Seasprites have a different FLIR to the others - being black rather than white/grey but i'm not sure what model it is.

It will be interesting to see if we do purchase the ex-RAN ones what upgrades (or downgrades!) they undergo - or if they just take the "replace" part of the whitepapers statement "A review will determine whether it is more cost-effective to upgrade or replace the existing Seasprite helicopters when they are due for an upgrade in the middle of this decade."...without paying any attention to the 'upgrade' part

 

[kiwi in exile]

Thanks for the info.
Any idea on what they carry in terms of underwater accoustics and sonobouys.
Do the current NZ 'sprites even have anything in this area?
cheers,
KIE

 

[LRate]

I think the ASW sprites operated by the USN have sonar buoys stowed port side and a MAD bird on the starboard side. If you look at RNZN sprite you notice this kit missing. So I assume the aircraft controller onboard would direct Sprite using ships sensors.
The Seasprite predecessor the Westland Wasps lacked ASW kit so relied on the ships sonar to direct it over the sub.
There's an article in latest navy today about the different aviation roles.

 

[chis73]

Neither the RAN or RNZN Seasprites carry any ASW sensors (unless you want to count the FLIR & the radar, which could pick up a sub at periscope depth or on the surface). They can drop a torpedo or depth charge based on data sent from someone else (eg. a frigate or an Orion).

USN Seasprites had (a few) sonobuoys and MAD, as LRate mentions.

The Egyptian SH-2G(E) carries the popular ANQ-18A dipping sonar.

The request from Ecuador for Seasprites in Sep 2011 mentions the low-frequency HELRAS dipping sonar (along with the AAQ-22 FLIR & the APS-143C radar, interestingly enough).

Htbrst: Any attempt to upgrade or downgrade the RAN Seasprite sensors (& weapons, ie Maverick) potentially involves changes to the unique ITAS system (which everything feeds through, including the flight instruments). Considering that was one of the major problems for the RAN Seasprite, I'm not sure who would be keen to poke that bear again. Especially for a small number of aircraft. The Orion & Hercules upgrades both encountered delays with their systems integration.

Chis73

 

[htbrst]

Htbrst: Any attempt to upgrade or downgrade the RAN Seasprite sensors (& weapons, ie Maverick) potentially involves changes to the unique ITAS system (which everything feeds through, including the flight instruments).
Chis73

I understand how much pain it could be!

Lets ask another way, from the 2011 Defence Capability Plan:http://www.defence.govt.nz/pdfs/reports-publications/defence-capability-plan-2011.pdf

a Naval Helicopter Capability Project will look at options for upgrading or replacing the existing SH-2G (NZ) Seasprite helicopters. this project will deliver the capability over the 2012-2016 period.​

Let's assume that someone else had already purchased the SH-2G(I)'s and our only option left was to upgrade the SH-2G(NZ). Would we be upgrading to a SH-2G(I) standard anyway? - or would we do something different.

I suspect that Maverick will be retained rather than purchasing Penguin, though I would like to see Hellfire integrated as another useful and straightforward option

 

[ngatimozart]

I understand how much pain it could be!

Lets ask another way, from the 2011 Defence Capability Plan:http://www.defence.govt.nz/pdfs/reports-publications/defence-capability-plan-2011.pdf

a Naval Helicopter Capability Project will look at options for upgrading or replacing the existing SH-2G (NZ) Seasprite helicopters. this project will deliver the capability over the 2012-2016 period.​

Let's assume that someone else had already purchased the SH-2G(I)'s and our only option left was to upgrade the SH-2G(NZ). Would we be upgrading to a SH-2G(I) standard anyway? - or would we do something different.

I suspect that Maverick will be retained rather than purchasing Penguin, though I would like to see Hellfire integrated as another useful and straightforward option

I think the AGM65 Maverick will be retained. It's lighter than the Penguin 206 - 300kg depending upon model. I agree Hellfire integration would be a very wise move, but remembering Hellfire is only good out to about 5km or so, therefore it has a different mission profile. Given the presumption that The current Seasprites are to be replaced by other than the SH2G(I) then we may assume cheap govt would probably go for 2nd hand USN Seahawks (MH60 variant) if it could, so Penguin could be possible with the Seahawk. Hard to say though as long as they didn't go down the FMS track. That costs a lot more than dealing directly with aircraft manufacturers. Thats why the C27J deal is costing the aussie govt a fortune, something like US$500 million in fees payable to the USAF because they have gone down the FMS track.