Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[ngatimozart]

Rant On:
Having watched the msm dribble today and attempts to sensationalise the IPV story especially by TVNZ and TV3 with little correct or should I say factual information, the beat up of the navy continues led by people who wouldn't know the difference between a row boat and an anchor. Ron Mark covers himself in further ineptitude by not looking past the facade and by not knowing his subject. The claim the he has made about under resourcing of Defence is the only actual thing he has got right. Goff crying about lack of funding also is any oxymoron when he was instrumental in trying to destroy NZDF. The minister, well he is either getting bad advice or he's keen on pork pies.
/Rant Off.

I have been following the discussion about this in ex service social media and the comments that are most common is not enough money to sustain and operate the IPVs including crewing. That is a very common and strong thread through the conversations. Big Gerry, the minister, claimed that they are not fit for purpose. Not everyone agrees with him on that, although one ex officer who's opinion I do take good note of suggests that they are too big for some current tasking and to small for others. That may be the case. It is my own opinion that the IPVs should be handed to the Reserve Divisions enabling them to have better seagoing training regimes and time. Two more OPVs should be acquired with better kit than the current ones so that they can genuinely multi role and that this should be new funding, not existing funding.

 

[Todjaeger]

Big Gerry, the minister, claimed that they are not fit for purpose. Not everyone agrees with him on that, although one ex officer who's opinion I do take good note of suggests that they are too big for some current tasking and to small for others. That may be the case. It is my own opinion that the IPVs should be handed to the Reserve Divisions enabling them to have better seagoing training regimes and time. Two more OPVs should be acquired with better kit than the current ones so that they can genuinely multi role and that this should be new funding, not existing funding.

I have a somewhat different take on the IPV's. IMO the RNZN should divest itself of the IPV's, and 'gift' them to Customs and/or Fisheries. That would get the IPV's off the RNZN's inventory so that the NZDF would no longer be getting hit with the Capital Charge for the IPV's. Then the department(s) which seemed to have a large hand in deciding what the RNZN got, based off their own departmental wants/needs, would be on the hook for the Capital Charge for the IPV's. Then it would become the responsibility of Customs and/or Fisheries to utilize the IPV's which has been described more than once as either too big or too small, depending on tasking.

Perhaps the appeal of listing a Capital Charge might even become unpopular and stop, if more departments outside of Defence had big ticket, high value and long-service duration assets sitting on their respective books, triggering a Capital Charge year after year. Who knows, that might even lead to greater transparency with respect to actual funding levels for Vote Defence.

 

[t68]

Not sure what the reliability of the National or the quality of journalism of Nicholas Jones, but he is reporting that the IPV will most likly be sold.

I think some said this a while ago about selling and a third OPV bought in its place. How much stock can you place on this story?

Govt likely to sell idle Navy ships

Sorry I can't seem to get the link to work for some reason, but this is the headline.

Govt likely to sell idle Navy ships
Save
Friday, 15 April 2016

 

[Rob c]

I don't understand his argument that if by having another OPV we would not have it sitting idle like the 2 IPVs? If it's a manpower issue would'nt we then just have a OPV parked where the 2 IPVs are! They need to sort the recruitment and more importantly retention issues first instead of just moving the goalposts around otherwise it will continue to happen regardless of roles. I can't help but notice these issues became more prevelant when they concentrated all the inshore vessels to Devonport, coincidence maybe?

If the navy (and defence in general) is unable to attract and keep personnel then maybe it needs to look at its conditions, not increase forced contract or release periods as A. You then would begin finding it harder to recruit in the first instance as most do not want to feel 'locked in' these days, B. The root cause for wanting to leave after training is still there anyway and C. You do not want to keep negative pers around against their will as the negativity generally spreads to others. If soldiers, sailors and airmen actually enjoyed their job, felt rewarded and had room to grow then they would be more inclined to stay regardless of pay, certain working conditions, the odd inconveiniance etc. It's a difficult, stressfull job at times so the heads need to find the right balance between getting the job done and keeping the ranks content, a hard ask these days but societies not what it was a decade+ ago and they have to adjust to todays attitudes, culture and competition for talent.

ADF had issues awhile back with retaining the right people in certain trades despite their comparitively good pay scale so offered cash incentives above their regular pay ie 10k bulk payment in exchange for signing on for a set period contract. Could be a possibility for marine engineers, spec trades etc that are struggling for numbers as I think navy in general recruits well it's just the more specialised roles requiring time, experience and knowledge that seem to succumb to the civilian equivalent lure mainly because miltary cannot match the $$$ but again if you enjoy your job, conditions and benefits then that is not so much the issue. Just another option.

Admittedly service perks have slowly been eroded away or robbed from Peter to pay Paul and I beleive this as well to a degree has backfired and led to more than its share of those seeking release from service for so called greener pastures.

NZG and NZD has to realise that they are in a competitive labour market and that if recruiting or retention are problems then they are failing to meet the market requirements. They have to adjust service conditions as the market changes and that one size won't fit all . The service conditions makes this difficult but it has to be done.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

So under current funding are you suggesting maybe selling two IPV for one OPV is a bad idea, that crewing issues must be sorted and maintain those numbers if there is no more additional funding to be had?

 

[chis73]

The recent disclosure of the non-use of the IPVs I guess wasn't a surprise to many on this forum. I admit I was surprised that two of the vessels haven't left harbour for over 2 years. I thought that they would at least be rotated.

I think Brownlee is being very dishonest regarding the vessels unsuitability. The Navy has operated far smaller vessels in the fisheries protection role in the past: the HDMLs in the 1940s - 1970s, the Lake class patrol boats in the 1970s & 1980s and the IPCs more recently. I'm pretty sure that the Maritime Forces Review back in 2002 specifically says that these vessels are intended only for inshore patrol (within 24nm of the coast) and only for the North Island and the top of the South (see here, paragraph 14). That doesn't seem to have been how the Navy has been using them (there seem to have been many trips to Fiordland). If the intention is to sell them and buy another OPV, surely that will take several years to construct and enter service? These vessels were removed from service in 2012/2013, why hasn't a new OPV been ordered already?


The question I'm left with is: if the IPVs are so unsuitable, what was the navy doing in 2005-2007 then, where they manned the 4 smaller IPCs for 306 sea days in FY 2005/06* and 407 sea days in FY 2006/07? This was a time when the IPCs had been transferred to the regular navy from the reserves (3 in mid 2005, the 4th in 2006), and doesn't include the 5th IPC HMNZS Kahu. It should be noted in reference to the sea day figures that in the 2006/07 total, two IPCs were actually decommisioned in early 2007 and the other two at the end of that year.

The IPVs were expected to enter service in 2007, but were delayed due to defects and Lloyds certification problems until 2009, resulting in an initial exodus of navy staff. The second exodus caused by the 2011-2012 civilianisation reforms seem to have been the final nail in the coffin.

I really think the time has come for a good ol' public sacking. The Minister is at the top of my list.

Alternatives to selling these vessels: try rebasing some closer to where they need to patrol. The most active inshore areas are the arc from the Bay of Islands, through the Bay of Plenty, perhaps around to Mahia Peninsula, and the Nelson/Marborough - Wellington region, with occasional trips to Kaikoura/ Christchurch and to Greymouth / Hokitika. If you want to look further afield then these vessels could be employed up in the Pacific territories of the realm, perhaps replacing Pacific Patrol Boat class vessels. So,my suggestion:
a) base 1-2 in the Cook Islands (where we have responsibility for defence)
b) base 2 in Wellington, to patrol the southern North Island, and the north of the South.


In other news, the SH-2G(NZ) officially retired from NZ service yesterday (here). No word yet on the SH-2G(I)s entering service.

* NZDF Annual reports use a Jul-Jun reporting year, so 6-months out of phase with the sea day figures recently released by NZ First in their press release.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

Thanks for that, interesting to see the maritime resources review you provided links to shows they believed 5 IPV and 3 OPV would be prefered to fill the role. Yet they could in the end only provide the needed support for half that it seems.

 

[MrConservative]

I have a somewhat different take on the IPV's. IMO the RNZN should divest itself of the IPV's, and 'gift' them to Customs and/or Fisheries. year after year.

I am for divesting all the IPV's too - there would be poetic justice in MFish & Customs getting them. But selling them to another small Navy who really does need inshore vessels would be the best approach.

In my view two further new build OPVs should be sequentially built to replace the 4 of them. Once they they are commissioned order the next replacements for the current OPV's and have them paid off early. Lets be honest here - they have real issues which we have frequently commented on over the years. Off load them before any significant midlife refits are required.

From all accounts the IPVs are not bad vessels. The least problematic of Protector fleet at introduction. The problem is that they are as the Minister has been correctly advised not fit for the kind of tasking that the NZG now requires or able to go where the government wants them for as long as the NZG wants them there for. The Navy knows that it requires patrol vessels to have endurance in weeks and not in days.

The Navy really did not want IPV's in the first place. Even back in the 1970s when paying off the HDML's they were aghast that the government ignored their advice and bought rubbish IPCs off UK Brooks Marine that were a "great deal" and with the replacement Moa class a lot of their procurement rationale was based around that they could build at Whangarei. Fisheries pushed really hard for continuing an IPV type vessel got their way and Customs went along with that. So for the 3rd time the Navy was stuck with a vessel size it did not want.

 

[MrConservative]

The reported manning issues betray one salient fact that has never really gotten reporting or admittance from the powers that be. Because it is politically incorrect.
Nevertheless it is because a number of the experienced sailors got out because they had joined the Navy to go to sea on Warships, they did not join the Coast Guard.
That has been said to me a number of times usually with the inclusion of traditional sailor linga franca which one cannot repeat on a public forum with standards.

 

[MrConservative]

Thanks for that, interesting to see the maritime resources review you provided links to shows they believed 5 IPV and 3 OPV would be prefered to fill the role. Yet they could in the end only provide the needed support for half that it seems.

They also completely ignored the MPR 2001 recommendation of providing further air surveillance as a preference for inshore EEZ work. A capability killed off 17 years ago.

 

[recce.k1]

Nevertheless it is because a number of the experienced sailors got out because they had joined the Navy to go to sea on Warships, they did not join the Coast Guard.

Although I can understand that sentiment, to me having coastal/harbour patrol vessels would be simply be a component (albeit at the lower end) of any small navy (and is a good place for junior officers and ratings to gain sea-keeping experience etc).

Then again perhaps my thinking is simply sentimental (thinking WW2 type harbour ASW/mine detection duties) and times have changed. I suppose if we look at our Australian counterparts their Arimidale IPV's are actually based where they are needed, in the Northern Territory for very real-life border protection duties (and are not based around their Western/ Southern/ Eastern coastlines where there won't likely be any foreign incursions), so in that context I guess the RNZN hierarchy thinking (of not needing IPV's) would be "correct" so to speak and align with RAN thinking? The only difference being the AusGov (unlike NZ) has the luxury of having a dedicated civilian Customs/border protection service equipped with suitable vessels (and aircraft) to patrol its vast coastline (happy to be corrected on this).

Ok, if the RNZN hierarchy never really wanted IPV type vessels for inshore patrolling, then the current approach of having a dedicated IPV patrol fleet is wrong. What was also wrong was the RNZN removing the IPC's from the Naval Reserves scattered around the country in the late-2000's and concentrating them in Auckland.

(Although perhaps there were other genuine reasons at the time such as, with the retirement of Frigate HMNZS Canterbury 12 years ago or so and the then Govt ignoring RNZN advice to lease a vessel to maintain personnel skillsets and time at sea, then the resulting several year gap before the delayed Protector fleet were commissioned, perhaps having a concentrated IPC/IPV fleet at Devonport was a wise move for those times (so that greater numbers of personnel could go to sea).

Nowadays then, wouldn't it make more sense for the RNZN to transfer the IPV's (or obtain some simpler vessels) back to the provincial Naval Reserves (in Wellington, Canterbury, Otago etc)? Perhaps that way the Reserves could team up with Customs/Fisheries jointly and maintain skillsets by undertaking the non "warship" functions of border protection for the civilian side but also the likes of mine-counter measures for the naval side of things? Of course this all requires new funding ... but if it could be pulled off it'll be win-win for the civilian agencies and the Reservists (and the RNZN too because it can then concentrate on its proper naval taskings)!

To me NZG's (all of them) are very good at cutting capabilities but I would hate to see this Govt (or any Govt) kill off the IPV's and not having something for the Reserves. With the cost of living in Auckland becoming even more unrealistic what would it take for the Govt to stop following short-term "neo-lib" thinking (as their critics say!) and instead have some foresight and re-establish a functioning naval reserve around the country, where reasonable personnel numbers can be found (and where the cost of living isn't impacting personnel as great as it does for those based at Devonport)?

I do realise what I'm saying seems to be counter to all Govt's thinking since the 1990's (that of closing down smaller bases scattered around the country and concentrating efforts on the larger ones), but "damn" this short-sightedness when we had the likes of RNZAF Base Shelly Bay at Wellington close down, because if it were still operational today we could have had "jointness" in the form of RNZAF/RNZN sharing the facility to base a couple of Reserve IPV's there to service the lower North Island and top of the South Island (as per Chis73's thinking)!

(For those interested in history Shelly Bay was the former WW2 naval base HMNZS Cook, built for the Fairmile patrol boats of the period. I got to know the place quite well in the '80's as our Air Training Corp unit was based there).
https://rnzncomms.org/2011/10/09/hmnzs-cook/
http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/WH2PMed-fig-WH2PMe32b.html

 

[recce.k1]

In my view two further new build OPVs should be sequentially built to replace the 4 of them. Once they they are commissioned order the next replacements for the current OPV's and have them paid off early. Lets be honest here - they have real issues which we have frequently commented on over the years. Off load them before any significant midlife refits are required.

One last post for the day (better get on with other things)!

Sounds like what the RNZN ought to have (assuming the IPV's are eventually ditched or given to the Reserves to practice on, if only) are OPV's, which perhaps could also be used for some "inshore work" (as well the off-shore functions), that is, the OPV's have the endurance to travel around the coastline (which the current IPV's lack), but could launch smaller craft into harbours or places of interest, intercept civilian vessels etc.

Unsure if this would be a new design (with the ability to carry something larger/ more sea-worthy than a RHIB), that can be launched from the OPV mothership .....

Or instead a new design better suited for off-shore patrolling (including having the abilities to undertake overseas anti-piracy/coalition operations, ice-strengthened again for the Southern Ocean), certainly no inshore patrolling functions. This may mostly align with what the RNZN are wanting when they expressed interest in another OPV a couple of years ago .... AND also modify the two existing OPV's for those off-shore/in-shore border protection functions closer to home (eg remove the helo deck so as to accommodate something larger than a RHIB, which could be off-loaded by the crane... but retain the hanger for a small UAV in lieu of the Seasprite).

Unsure how practical any of this actually is, but it could make for some interesting possibilities!

 

[Lucasnz]

My personnel view is that the existing IPV are to large for the individual reserve divisions particularly in terms of sustaining personnel manning. The IPC could be operated with a crew of 12 and I would suggest that would be a sufficient crew size for any reserve boat, though additional training berths could be provided. Given the difficulty with the current recruitment process for the reserve units - having to do 5 weeks basic in one stint - is a having a negative effect on the reserve units. The removal of the IPC from the VR division was to a large extent a combination of the CN view of the VR at the time (this is my personal view) and the need to regenerate patrol craft seamanship skills.

In terms of capability a Tenix document and the acquisition of only two OPV the document markets the IPV as being

The IPV is more than capable of extending the Crown's operational envelope to southern ocean patrol duties. Endurance of IPV >7 days

I would also note that the Tenix document called for 6 IPV crews to meet the sea day requirements..

Another document notes that Canterbury was to supplement the OPV with 100 days of patrol time. The response to a parliamentary question in the PDF shows that the RNZN across the fleet is not even close to achieving 200 days per year (ignoring ships in refit). With 420 days OPV, 950 days IPV and 100 days supplemented from the MRV each ship each ship (including the MRV) would need to achieve 210 days on EEZ tasking to meet the Maritime Patrol Review requirements. Based on the 2015 annual report fewer days are actually required, though it is not clear how many requests the RNZN was unable to fulfil. In terms of capability I would acquire the 5 small IPV referred to in the Maritime Forces Review for the reserve units (i.e. 100-120 tonnes and modular capability) and acquire 3 - 4 more capable OPV. The existing IPV could be given to the Cook Islands etc.

 

[ASSAIL]

There has been an interesting discussion here on IPCs, Reserves etc.
I'd make a couple of observations; firstly, the IPCs are based on the Tenix hull which ultimately lost out to Austal and the Armidales in the competition for replacement PBs in the RAN and I can guarantee that most would agree that we made a miscalculation and that the Tenix offering would have been far superior, was more robust and would have lasted longer, plus would have been a better seakeeper.
This certainly seems to have been the case with the like Philippines Coastguard ships.
So there's no argument about the IPCs utility. I've read one suggestion here that they could be deployed to NZs Pacific protectorates which seems eminently sensible.

Second, on the matter of the Reserve Divisions, from our experience in the RAN it has been shown that even with much smaller ships such as the Attack class PBs, Reserve Divisions are not well equipped to man and maintain them. (I remember a classic case when our West Australian Reserves were bringing a PB back down the WA coast in foul weather, they were coming from Exmouth, they reached Geraldton and were so over the trip that all walked of the ship and left the full time engineer and greeny to hold the fort until some permanent could be sent from Perth to complete the voyage)
The point is that the Port Division structure has had its day, it's clumsy and bureaucratic and and extremely rigid. Has any process been taken to follow the RAN example where reserves are simply embedded into and they serve alongside the permanent force. For example the RAN has approximately 5,000 reservists currently serving under very flexible arrangements.
This may be of benefit in solving some of your manning issues?

 

[gf0012-aust]

RAN example where reserves are simply embedded into and they serve alongside the permanent force. For example the RAN has approximately 5,000 reservists currently serving under very flexible arrangements.
This may be of benefit in solving some of your manning issues?

a lot of RAN areas, project areas, JOINT op areas are heavily reliant on reserves for topping up - and they get a budget allocation every year for using reservists

also applies to other services and ADO areas where they need reservists skills to back up the regs

 

[Lucasnz]

There has been an interesting discussion here on IPCs, Reserves etc.
I'd make a couple of observations; firstly, the IPCs are based on the Tenix hull which ultimately lost out to Austal and the Armidales in the competition for replacement PBs in the RAN and I can guarantee that most would agree that we made a miscalculation and that the Tenix offering would have been far superior, was more robust and would have lasted longer, plus would have been a better seakeeper.
This certainly seems to have been the case with the like Philippines Coastguard ships.
So there's no argument about the IPCs utility. I've read one suggestion here that they could be deployed to NZs Pacific protectorates which seems eminently sensible.

Second, on the matter of the Reserve Divisions, from our experience in the RAN it has been shown that even with much smaller ships such as the Attack class PBs, Reserve Divisions are not well equipped to man and maintain them. (I remember a classic case when our West Australian Reserves were bringing a PB back down the WA coast in foul weather, they were coming from Exmouth, they reached Geraldton and were so over the trip that all walked of the ship and left the full time engineer and greeny to hold the fort until some permanent could be sent from Perth to complete the voyage)
The point is that the Port Division structure has had its day, it's clumsy and bureaucratic and and extremely rigid. Has any process been taken to follow the RAN example where reserves are simply embedded into and they serve alongside the permanent force. For example the RAN has approximately 5,000 reservists currently serving under very flexible arrangements.
This may be of benefit in solving some of your manning issues?

While I tend to agree that the port based concept is finished, from a NZ perspective the lack of permanent basing, especially in the South Island poses response issues. I'm thinking specifically of when the regulars didn't have the capability to respond to a plane crash of Stewart Island (about 1995) and the reserves from Dunedin deployed to support the police. Same with the Aramoana massacre in 1990 when the reserve unit patrolled the harbour entrance for the Police. The distinct difference between the NI and SI is that NI has more police, customs and other government agencies with integral maritime support. In fact the police have no maritime capability in the SI, though the Wellington boat does go across to the sounds for Christmas / New Year.

In terms of the issue around personnel and the ability to man the IPV; current regular force numbers are similar to when the Protector vessels were introduced (See Attachment). I would also note the VR are in better shape than they have been in years, for personnel. I've had a look at the Annual Accounts for 2015 and its impossible to tell how much was spent on the Naval Patrol Force in 2015, however earlier years show increasing expenditure as the ships come into service, however the years since 2013 expenditure was static.

It is interesting to note that the 2014 report states that unavailability was the result of both personnel along with the need to undertake superstructure repairs and other maintenance. In addition the NMCC forwarded tasking requests for 293 sea days from the Naval Patrol Forces, of which 272 days (93%) were delivered. My take on the issue is that the original IPV requirement for sea days was inflated and that the waters around NZ aren't that friendly on small vessels. I actually watched a patrol craft play submarine (literally) off the east coast of the North Island once.

 

[ngatimozart]

I sailed off the West Coast of the South Island during the winter in a Moa class IPC. They were rated for 4m seas and 40 knot winds with anything above those parameters decidedly unwise and unsafe. We went out to 100 - 150 nautical miles offshore in deep waters, for five days at a time during the hoki fishing season and no way to reach shelter in a hurry. The max speed was 12 knots although we once got Kiwi's log up to 18 knots surfing a northerly following sea into a southerly wind at night. Was interesting to say the least. They were pig boats too, because they rolled on wet grass. The Kiwi was the Christchurch based Reserve Division boat and it used to undertake the hoki patrol every year in conjunction with the Dunedin Reserve Division boat Moa, and the Wellington Reserve Division boat. These patrols lasted for anytime up to a month depending upon availability, usually of crew.

We ran short crews of 12 - 13 once or twice but it was difficult if it was for more than a couple of days because it was basically watch on - watch off. We had senior rates standing conning watches during the night at sea more often than not too, because of not enough deck qualified officers, either able to, or willing to go to sea. Kiwi went down to the Snares Islands in th Southern Ocean once. The Snares are South of Stewart Island and are a wildlife sanctuary. Anyway, on the way back they hit 60 knot winds and 6m seas. I wasn't on that trip, but the guys who were said that the trip back was the worst that they had done. When they got back to Halfmoon Bay at Stewart Island, they locked the boat up and went straight to the pub. Strictly for medicinal purposes of course.

 

[RegR]

Although I can understand that sentiment, to me having coastal/harbour patrol vessels would be simply be a component (albeit at the lower end) of any small navy (and is a good place for junior officers and ratings to gain sea-keeping experience etc).

Then again perhaps my thinking is simply sentimental (thinking WW2 type harbour ASW/mine detection duties) and times have changed. I suppose if we look at our Australian counterparts their Arimidale IPV's are actually based where they are needed, in the Northern Territory for very real-life border protection duties (and are not based around their Western/ Southern/ Eastern coastlines where there won't likely be any foreign incursions), so in that context I guess the RNZN hierarchy thinking (of not needing IPV's) would be "correct" so to speak and align with RAN thinking? The only difference being the AusGov (unlike NZ) has the luxury of having a dedicated civilian Customs/border protection service equipped with suitable vessels (and aircraft) to patrol its vast coastline (happy to be corrected on this).

Ok, if the RNZN hierarchy never really wanted IPV type vessels for inshore patrolling, then the current approach of having a dedicated IPV patrol fleet is wrong. What was also wrong was the RNZN removing the IPC's from the Naval Reserves scattered around the country in the late-2000's and concentrating them in Auckland.

(Although perhaps there were other genuine reasons at the time such as, with the retirement of Frigate HMNZS Canterbury 12 years ago or so and the then Govt ignoring RNZN advice to lease a vessel to maintain personnel skillsets and time at sea, then the resulting several year gap before the delayed Protector fleet were commissioned, perhaps having a concentrated IPC/IPV fleet at Devonport was a wise move for those times (so that greater numbers of personnel could go to sea).

Nowadays then, wouldn't it make more sense for the RNZN to transfer the IPV's (or obtain some simpler vessels) back to the provincial Naval Reserves (in Wellington, Canterbury, Otago etc)? Perhaps that way the Reserves could team up with Customs/Fisheries jointly and maintain skillsets by undertaking the non "warship" functions of border protection for the civilian side but also the likes of mine-counter measures for the naval side of things? Of course this all requires new funding ... but if it could be pulled off it'll be win-win for the civilian agencies and the Reservists (and the RNZN too because it can then concentrate on its proper naval taskings)!

To me NZG's (all of them) are very good at cutting capabilities but I would hate to see this Govt (or any Govt) kill off the IPV's and not having something for the Reserves. With the cost of living in Auckland becoming even more unrealistic what would it take for the Govt to stop following short-term "neo-lib" thinking (as their critics say!) and instead have some foresight and re-establish a functioning naval reserve around the country, where reasonable personnel numbers can be found (and where the cost of living isn't impacting personnel as great as it does for those based at Devonport)?

I do realise what I'm saying seems to be counter to all Govt's thinking since the 1990's (that of closing down smaller bases scattered around the country and concentrating efforts on the larger ones), but "damn" this short-sightedness when we had the likes of RNZAF Base Shelly Bay at Wellington close down, because if it were still operational today we could have had "jointness" in the form of RNZAF/RNZN sharing the facility to base a couple of Reserve IPV's there to service the lower North Island and top of the South Island (as per Chis73's thinking)!

(For those interested in history Shelly Bay was the former WW2 naval base HMNZS Cook, built for the Fairmile patrol boats of the period. I got to know the place quite well in the '80's as our Air Training Corp unit was based there).
https://rnzncomms.org/2011/10/09/hmnzs-cook/
An aerial view of the base at HMNZS Cook, Shelly Bay, July 1944 | NZETC

To me even trading 2 IPVs for another OPV is not really solving the issue as if it's a manning, funding or size problem(s) then these will all still remain to some degree. Crewing is not much different, 40 pers for 2 IPVs vs 35 for an OPV and if 2 IPVs worth of crew are unavailable then that also rules out crewing a further OPV so again we will just trade 2 parked up IPVs for a parked OPV. I would assume an OPV due to its larger size costs more to operate, maintain and aqquire than the smaller IPC and more on par with 2. In saying that the IPCs are either too small for some tasks and too large for others also seems strange as if you needed a smaller vessel then aqquireing another OPV is not exactly going to solve that and if you require something larger then use a current OPV instead.

Losing 2 IPCs for 1 OPV will still drop our already small fleet from 11 to 10 (or 8 if they get rid of all IPCs) meaning less platforms available for tasking, training and ops. Some mention endurance but is'nt the beauty of being inshore the proximity to ports and therefore ease of resupply? We have had various forms of inshore vessels since the navys inception, surely the requirement for such a capability has not changed so dramatically over the recent few years?

I feel the IPV fleet gives us the oppourtunity to grow our future naval leaders from all ranks and gives them a stepping stone up to the larger fleet units, somewhere to gain their sealegs so to speak before moving on to the more operationally focused ships. Give them back to the RNZNVR units around the country saving on transit times to patrol areas and improving response times whilst maintaining a presence in the regions which can only add to recruitment. Bolster numbers with a cadre of regulars in key positions at each unit to aid in training and operation of the more complex systems and supplement more with dedicated local Mfish, customs etc with more hands on even becoming part of the crew for easier tasks aboard leaving the SME naval pers to do the hard yards.

Whilst the younger fresh naval pers enjoy all the sea travel to exotic ports spending weeks or months at sea on a frigate or tanker there would also be the older family guys who have been there done that and just want to go out for shorter stints in a less stressfull environ to keep their seamanship skills up as well, always good to have options to avoid burn out from constantly being away and vary time away, pace and type of work.

As you say govt is good at taking defence resources away as cost cutting measures but do not replace them with something similar or even at all so overall the capability deminishes or is lost all together and once gone near impossible to bring back ala ACF.

 

[recce.k1]

I feel the IPV fleet gives us the oppourtunity to grow our future naval leaders from all ranks and gives them a stepping stone up to the larger fleet units, somewhere to gain their sealegs so to speak before moving on to the more operationally focused ships. Give them back to the RNZNVR units around the country saving on transit times to patrol areas and improving response times whilst maintaining a presence in the regions which can only add to recruitment. Bolster numbers with a cadre of regulars in key positions at each unit to aid in training and operation of the more complex systems and supplement more with dedicated local Mfish, customs etc with more hands on even becoming part of the crew for easier tasks aboard leaving the SME naval pers to do the hard yards.

To add to that, IPV's showcase the Navy to the wider NZ public and community, via visiting dozens of ports (and anchorages) dotted around the coastline. Perhaps the Reserves could carry on that tradition?

Unlike the Army and Air Force presence which can be regularly seen all around the country, Navy would otherwise be invisible, which seems strange for a maritime nation (after all it's not like the Frigates or Auxiliary's get to many of these places unless on an occasional exercise), so I wonder if that affects recruitment?

 

[RegR]

To add to that, IPV's showcase the Navy to the wider NZ public and community, via visiting dozens of ports (and anchorages) dotted around the coastline. Perhaps the Reserves could carry on that tradition?

Unlike the Army and Air Force presence which can be regularly seen all around the country, Navy would otherwise be invisible, which seems strange for a maritime nation (after all it's not like the Frigates or Auxiliary's get to many of these places unless on an occasional exercise), so I wonder if that affects recruitment?

Exactly, and not everyone would like to be confined to Auckland for their entire career (let alone even be able to afford housing there on naval pay) so actually having posting options around NZ could only be beneficial to some at least.

Even when I was in the forces I rarely saw the navy and I liked to keep informed on all services so imagine what joe public sees or even knows bar the usually bad press on the news from time to time.