Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[ngatimozart]

I would tend to agree.
A third improved Protector class would be ideal, but if an orphan hull is considered, there maybe a possibility one of these hulls will be available in near future and would fit many of the requirements.

The British Government has confirmed it will build three improved River Class OPV's and a decision to decommission three of the orginal hulls prematurely will be taken next year. There could be a good deal arranged for one of them.

No too small. They have to have the same capabilities as the current OPVs at a minimum so they have to have a minimum of a 1C ice class rating and a helo pad with hangar. Maybe either an ice strengthened BAM Buques de Acción Marítima (BAM) Class Patrol Vessels - Naval Technology or modify a Knud Rasmussen to take a hangar which is the same size as the ANZAC hangar. http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/knud-rasmussen-class/ My preference would be the first option because, IMHO, it would be less risky technically & financially. Secondly some would say we don't necessarily need to have the full gucci of the BAM, however there could be reduction of the armament and sensor suites (heresy) and a bit of fitted for bit not with.

 

[swerve]

The British Government has confirmed it will build three improved River Class OPV's and a decision to decommission three of the orginal hulls prematurely will be taken next year. There could be a good deal arranged for one of them.

That implies that the decision has been taken, which is incorrect. The decision whether or not to decommission three of the current ships early will be taken next year. Some people would like to use the new OPVs to relieve pressure on larger & more expensive ships which currently have to do patrol taskings.

The original River class OPVs are 5 metres shorter than the Protectors, & don't have hangars.

 

[CJohn]

That implies that the decision has been taken, which is incorrect. The decision whether or not to decommission three of the current ships early will be taken next year. Some people would like to use the new OPVs to relieve pressure on larger & more expensive ships which currently have to do patrol taskings.

The original River class OPVs are 5 metres shorter than the Protectors, & don't have hangars.

I stand corrected.

Obviously a new build is the best course for the RNZN, but weather or not the NZ Government will wear that cost is another story.

 

[StevoJH]

That implies that the decision has been taken, which is incorrect. The decision whether or not to decommission three of the current ships early will be taken next year. Some people would like to use the new OPVs to relieve pressure on larger & more expensive ships which currently have to do patrol taskings.

The original River class OPVs are 5 metres shorter than the Protectors, & don't have hangars.

They don't have flight decks either do they?

With the exception of Clyde which is only a half sister that is.

 

[swerve]

Ooops! Forgot that. You're right, no flight deck.

The new ones will, & they're bigger.

 

[MrConservative]

The UK MinDef paid 39m GBP or about $75m for the first three River Class a couple of years back rather than continuing the lease. If they do let them go and offer them them to the RNZN / NZ Govt - it could be an interesting discussion.

So it is all hypothetical at this stage as Swerve has pointed out.

Bottom line is that we are lacking hulls and we lack patrol presence in our outer EEZ and in the South Pacific which is requiring a greater presence and monitoring.

 

[ASSAIL]

The UK MinDef paid 39m GBP or about $75m for the first three River Class a couple of years back rather than continuing the lease. If they do let them go and offer them them to the RNZN / NZ Govt - it could be an interesting discussion.

So it is all hypothetical at this stage as Swerve has pointed out.

Bottom line is that we are lacking hulls and we lack patrol presence in our outer EEZ and in the South Pacific which is requiring a greater presence and monitoring.

I have no idea what kind of sea boats they are but they certainly have the legs for the S. Pacific and you could keep the other 2 in the ice.

 

[MrConservative]

I stand corrected.

Obviously a new build is the best course for the RNZN, but wether or not the NZ Government will wear that cost is another story.

What concerns them is value for money. The current lot are ruthlessly pragmatic in their solutions.

If they found that ex RN River Class were to create flexibility in the fleet with respect to tasking assignments at a very attractive price - they would do it.

 

[KiwiRob]

Bottom line is that we are lacking hulls and we lack patrol presence in our outer EEZ and in the South Pacific which is requiring a greater presence and monitoring.

We are not just lacking hulls though, we are also lacking crew for the vessels we currently operate, so purchasing additional vessels is great but where are we going to get the crew to man them?

 

[Lucasnz]

We are not just lacking hulls though, we are also lacking crew for the vessels we currently operate, so purchasing additional vessels is great but where are we going to get the crew to man them?

Personnel issues have been a problem since the 70's when terms of service changed from fixed term to open term with 3 months notice to fixed with 3 months. You can't effectively manage personnel in a navy with those conditions of service. The other issue is that navy manning issues typically are higher at the 6-7 year mark. I think navy manning would be helped by fixed term contracts with limited early release and re-enlistment bonuses at the 5 year mark. I guess similar to the US navy.

 

[RegR]

We are not just lacking hulls though, we are also lacking crew for the vessels we currently operate, so purchasing additional vessels is great but where are we going to get the crew to man them?

Exactly, we could have all the ships in the world but no point if all they are going to do is sit at DNB gathering rust due to lack of crew (and qualified at that) as we seem to have had recently. Hull numbers are good and I would prefer at least 3 of each combat/patrol however no point if not crewed properly in the first place and would just be idle millions.

This is why I could see them just allocating the extra patrol hours throughout the fleet more rigourously and 'OPV' specific hours to the littoral especially (will still be an extra hull compared to now) and just give it the 30mm cannon and same sensors which it was more than likely getting anyway. Any vessel in the navy can 'patrol' it's just in what capacity, context and lieu of primary role. We have not and will not have for awhile yet, the hydro side of the house 'ship' therefore obviously not to demanding and ODT has deployed by other means other then Manawanui before therefore the hours are there and probably will just add to the multi-roleness of the new littoral.

I would rather see them properly fund what we have (or are already getting ie littoral) and go from there crew wise or worse come to worse multi crew (surely cheaper to recruit vs ship build AND recruit), as in an extra crew for each group, so 5 for IPV, 3 for OPV, 2 for littoral and at a stretch 3 for FFH thus max sea time when ships are available for use, you could even hot change in another port if need be via RNZAF to extend range/duration/sea days.

This will place extra strain on the fleet and shorten their lives however just means our replacement cycles will need adjusting as in sooner rather than classic NZ later.

On another note I would have thought the current OPV size would be more than suitable for the littoral as you just have to look at the current vessels, similar size to Reso and larger than Manawanui (was needed), has a lot more firepower than both combined, hanger, deck space etc just requires a few tweaks to suit individual multi-roles of dive and hydro. I am not sure you can take the RFI as gospel as like anything they will ask for the max settings on everything for consideration with full intention of taking somewhere in between from 0-80% options. When has NZDF ever gotten something THEY wanted with all the trimmings? Always a compromise (either quantity/quality/extras etc) with govt and they know this which is why they aim above and beyond in the first instance.

Same goes for the JATF concept, at the end of the day what do all the flow diagrams and nifty phrases all mean in real terms? Could be anything from kiwi marines with P8s flying top cover to infantry hitching a ride in Canterbury to the islands with a couple of NH90s in the hanger to the new littoral clearing a port with a frigate as big brother. Is it really that new of a concept or are we actually just now doing what we were supposed to be doing years ago properly and as a more in unison team? Same goals much improved ideas with better suited equipment and cohesive planning, hopefully, same old ship different times I reckon.

 

[MrConservative]

We are not just lacking hulls though, we are also lacking crew for the vessels we currently operate, so purchasing additional vessels is great but where are we going to get the crew to man them?

And part of the reason, though not the only one, is the lack of professional opportunities and development caused by the lack of hulls.

The manning issue is gradually improving out of the crisis 2 years ago.

BTW the Govt should look again at handing back the IPVs to the RNZNR and RNZVNR either in whole or shared, better resource them as Divisions and with the RNZN take on more of a TraDev role.

 

[ngatimozart]

Exactly, we could have all the ships in the world but no point if all they are going to do is sit at DNB gathering rust due to lack of crew (and qualified at that) as we seem to have had recently. Hull numbers are good and I would prefer at least 3 of each combat/patrol however no point if not crewed properly in the first place and would just be idle millions.

This is why I could see them just allocating the extra patrol hours throughout the fleet more rigourously and 'OPV' specific hours to the littoral especially (will still be an extra hull compared to now) and just give it the 30mm cannon and same sensors which it was more than likely getting anyway. Any vessel in the navy can 'patrol' it's just in what capacity, context and lieu of primary role. We have not and will not have for awhile yet, the hydro side of the house 'ship' therefore obviously not to demanding and ODT has deployed by other means other then Manawanui before therefore the hours are there and probably will just add to the multi-roleness of the new littoral.

I would rather see them properly fund what we have (or are already getting ie littoral) and go from there crew wise or worse come to worse multi crew (surely cheaper to recruit vs ship build AND recruit), as in an extra crew for each group, so 5 for IPV, 3 for OPV, 2 for littoral and at a stretch 3 for FFH thus max sea time when ships are available for use, you could even hot change in another port if need be via RNZAF to extend range/duration/sea days.

This will place extra strain on the fleet and shorten their lives however just means our replacement cycles will need adjusting as in sooner rather than classic NZ later.

On another note I would have thought the current OPV size would be more than suitable for the littoral as you just have to look at the current vessels, similar size to Reso and larger than Manawanui (was needed), has a lot more firepower than both combined, hanger, deck space etc just requires a few tweaks to suit individual multi-roles of dive and hydro. I am not sure you can take the RFI as gospel as like anything they will ask for the max settings on everything for consideration with full intention of taking somewhere in between from 0-80% options. When has NZDF ever gotten something THEY wanted with all the trimmings? Always a compromise (either quantity/quality/extras etc) with govt and they know this which is why they aim above and beyond in the first instance.

Same goes for the JATF concept, at the end of the day what do all the flow diagrams and nifty phrases all mean in real terms? Could be anything from kiwi marines with P8s flying top cover to infantry hitching a ride in Canterbury to the islands with a couple of NH90s in the hanger to the new littoral clearing a port with a frigate as big brother. Is it really that new of a concept or are we actually just now doing what we were supposed to be doing years ago properly and as a more in unison team? Same goals much improved ideas with better suited equipment and cohesive planning, hopefully, same old ship different times I reckon.

The govt has signalled that it will increase the personnel numbers of all three services to be able to utilise the new equipment as it comes on board. The RFI is quite specific actually and yes we won't get all on the RFI list but it will still be larger than the OPVs.

 

[Lucasnz]

And part of the reason, though not the only one, is the lack of professional opportunities and development caused by the lack of hulls.

The manning issue is gradually improving out of the crisis 2 years ago.

BTW the Govt should look again at handing back the IPVs to the RNZNR and RNZVNR either in whole or shared, better resource them as Divisions and with the RNZN take on more of a TraDev role.

I was at RNZNVR Unit in Dunedin for ANZAC day and the unit is a fraction of the size it use to be when HMNZS Moa was still assigned to the unit. It appears there is little direct recruitment or if there is it takes to long; so people don't complete the process. I understand the North Island units are slightly better off. Transferring one IPV would be a good idea but I can't see the VR manning all four. Personally I found at the time Moa was transferred to regular service that there was a lack of political and CN support for the RNZNVR.

On the issue of the LWSV while the requirements of the RFI are different to the OPV I personally see no reason, and some benefit from the OPV taking over the littoral warfare role. They have by all accounts already taken over the Military Hydrography role. Maybe a third / fourth hull Batch 2 and modular equipment (which is the RFI leaning) will achieve the objective.

 

[RegR]

The govt has signalled that it will increase the personnel numbers of all three services to be able to utilise the new equipment as it comes on board. The RFI is quite specific actually and yes we won't get all on the RFI list but it will still be larger than the OPVs.

The govt can increase all they want but it's the balance between recruitment, retention and attrition in vital areas that has final say on eventual numbers and is always fluxing, currently more floundering than flourishing as it is.

The specifics come from military but it's the civilians that hold the chequebook so guess who strangely/wrongly enough has the most say.

Again why would/should it be larger? unless it has another role such as troop transport why would it need to be? Currently both roles can and are regularly using other ships space (never mind an actual dedicated ship) and isn't one of the main roles of the littoral to come as close to shore as practicable for their bread and butter? The larger the ship the bigger the risk. OPV is a big vessel in its own right and can go all of the places envisaged with enough space and legs so barring maybe alittle larger to compensate for the weight margin I do not see why it needs to be overly large, not even taking into account cost.

A current OPV size has the crew size+ and space(hanger area) to modulise and re-role dependant on operation (could probably take both roles at once realistically), is a known quantity (using current OPVs anyway) with defects now known, the build process has already been done and will keep commonality with the fleet.

Whilst bigger is usually better is it actually required in this case is all I'm saying.

 

[Volkodav]

Transferring the IPVs to the reserves seems like a good idea as it will free up the regular crews for the OPVs which in turn are capable of supplementing the Frigates within the region, in particular if any additional OPVs have a medium calibre gun and an improved combat system.

 

[Gibbo]

I was at RNZNVR Unit in Dunedin for ANZAC day and the unit is a fraction of the size it use to be when HMNZS Moa was still assigned to the unit. It appears there is little direct recruitment or if there is it takes to long; so people don't complete the process. I understand the North Island units are slightly better off. Transferring one IPV would be a good idea but I can't see the VR manning all four. Personally I found at the time Moa was transferred to regular service that there was a lack of political and CN support for the RNZNVR.

....

I tend to agree as well, from what I hear the RNZNVR would be no where able to man the IPV's fulltime. Personally I prefer the IPV to remain as a core part of the regular force fleet - seems a more natural fit to me.

IMHO the VR's primary role should be NCS & local patrol / light survey tasks around the larger ports, but also to step up to assist on IPV's as & when able. To that end I'd prefer they got small craft of their own that are relatively inexpensive to buy & maintain, and allow the vessel to go out even if only a handful of crew are available. This would I suggest see them enjoy more sea time than waiting for IPV's to pass through. Having their own boats would re-invigorate VR units.

To that end I'd suggest that they get provided something similar to either of these vessel types (indicative suggestions only!). Neither has to be armed with anything more than small-arms:

http://www.navy.mil.nz/mtf/lwsf/rec...r-takapu-first-of-the-navys-new-rea-boats.htm

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scimitar_class_patrol_vessel"]Scimitar-class patrol vessel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Namacurra-class harbour patrol boat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ngatimozart]

I tend to agree as well, from what I hear the RNZNVR would be no where able to man the IPV's fulltime. Personally I prefer the IPV to remain as a core part of the regular force fleet - seems a more natural fit to me.

IMHO the VR's primary role should be NCS & local patrol / light survey tasks around the larger ports, but also to step up to assist on IPV's as & when able. To that end I'd prefer they got small craft of their own that are relatively inexpensive to buy & maintain, and allow the vessel to go out even if only a handful of crew are available. This would I suggest see them enjoy more sea time than waiting for IPV's to pass through. Having their own boats would re-invigorate VR units.

To that end I'd suggest that they get provided something similar to either of these vessel types (indicative suggestions only!). Neither has to be armed with anything more than small-arms:

RNZN - April 2013 - Naming ceremony for TAKAPU, first of the Navy’s new REA boats

Scimitar-class patrol vessel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Namacurra-class harbour patrol boat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quite a good idea Gibbo. It would bring back basic seamanship and seagoing skills to the VR on a regular basis. Something like the RN Scimitar would IMHO be better for the VR because of the dynamic changeability of sea and weather conditions in waters surrounding the four divisions and one sub division.

 

[htbrst]

Quite a good idea Gibbo. It would bring back basic seamanship and seagoing skills to the VR on a regular basis. Something like the RN Scimitar would IMHO be better for the VR because of the dynamic changeability of sea and weather conditions in waters surrounding the four divisions and one sub division.

I had a look at the Police's new boat Lady Elizabeth IV in Wellington recently, made in New Zealand for $2.3 Million NZD and would also be an excellent choice - it sounds like she is alot more stable out in the weather in Cook Strait than her predecessor. She has a stern launching ramp for a RHIB, cruises at 30 knots and while I can't find specifics on her, info on her sister-ship in Auckland (Deodar III) states:

sleeps up to eight crew and can be away from land for seven to eight days depending on supplies.

Lady Elizabeth IV - Work Boats - Teknicraft Design

 

[Gibbo]

Quite a good idea Gibbo. It would bring back basic seamanship and seagoing skills to the VR on a regular basis. Something like the RN Scimitar would IMHO be better for the VR because of the dynamic changeability of sea and weather conditions in waters surrounding the four divisions and one sub division.

IMHO the VR provides a very valuable 'localised' resource for RNZN & is vastly under-valued. Local eyes & ears (ie: 'knowledge') is hugely valuable as a security tool.

Given the RNZN has only the one base at one end of the country and cannot regularly provide VR personnel with sea-going time, small vessels like this are the only way I see to maintain both currency of skills, and quite frankly, a level of interest. The small crewing requirements of such types would surely see most VR units easily fielding a boat crew each weekend.

The Scimitar type would be my preference - I'm sure local boatyards could knock together 4-5 fairly cheaply. Hopefully we might yet see the VR go thru a revival!?!