40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Nothing a cruise missile carefully aimed at No1, The Terrace wouldn't fix!
Sorry, shouldn't joke about such things.
Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
Sorry, shouldn't joke about such things.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Brownlee: US Navy vessel visit for 75th anniversary celebrations not discussed - Politics - NZ Herald News
US naval boss stays mum on ship visits | Stuff.co.nz
No US decision on whether they will send a ship to RNZN's 75th celebrations, or what ship it will be.
The money quote
US naval boss stays mum on ship visits | Stuff.co.nz
No US decision on whether they will send a ship to RNZN's 75th celebrations, or what ship it will be.
The money quote
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/training-simulation/rnzn-furthers-seaeye-falcon-training/
From Shepherd, news of RNZN doing some training with a piece of sub-surface kit I had never heard of.
Seaeye - Falcon & Falcon DR
Built by SAAB, it looks like a very useful underwater tool.
From Shepherd, news of RNZN doing some training with a piece of sub-surface kit I had never heard of.
Seaeye - Falcon & Falcon DR
Built by SAAB, it looks like a very useful underwater tool.
On the good news front - ships leave port! An SH-2G(I) Seasprite finally makes it to sea - and flies! Wahoo! :jump2
https://www.facebook.com/RoyalNewZealandNavy/photos/pcb.10154937292838009/10154937270478009/?type=3&theater
Hard to believe it's now over 3 years since the decision was made to buy these (Apr 2013), and over a year since the first aircraft arrived in-country. Has there been an official announcement that the I-model is now in-service, if so I've missed it. There was an announcement that the NZ-model had been retired.
Looks like the harpoon system has now been fitted too.
It will interesting to see if the new Seasprites spend more time embarked on OPVs from now on.
https://www.facebook.com/RoyalNewZealandNavy/photos/pcb.10154937292838009/10154937270478009/?type=3&theater
Hard to believe it's now over 3 years since the decision was made to buy these (Apr 2013), and over a year since the first aircraft arrived in-country. Has there been an official announcement that the I-model is now in-service, if so I've missed it. There was an announcement that the NZ-model had been retired.
Looks like the harpoon system has now been fitted too.
It will interesting to see if the new Seasprites spend more time embarked on OPVs from now on.
Looking at the shots (thx for posting) - is Endeavour missing a RAS boom (starboard)?
It appears that the Minister has been accused of making a "Captains" call with regard to the sale of two IPVs. The term used is "making policy on the hoof". Apparently the Minister of Finance and Treasury are unaware. If the allegations are true then this is not good for Defence at all, because it should be collegial within Cabinet and it shouldn't be at a Ministers personal whim.
Yep very clearly missing.
Interesting that only document released is one from 2013 which mentions a possible sale as one option. Could someone please bring back Mr Mapp to the Defence Portfolio.ngatimozart said:
There is no need for the Treasury to be officially informed at this exploratory phase of a potential sale. The allegations are the usual Ron Mark mischief. It is the DPMC / Key, English, Brownlee, Joyce and Findlayson that matter. No one farts without Key telling them when, why, how and where.
As much as it galls me to say it, the NZ First claim against Brownlee is clearly false. I've posted a link previously (see post #4348), but here is the text from the Navy's 2020 Strategic Plan (p.2) by the former Chief of Navy, Rear Admiral Steer himself, released July 2015:
The IPVs are a great asset. They are almost identical in performance, crew, endurance etc to the RANs ACPB but without the Typhoon and have that added advantage of a steel hull. They would be an asset to any regional navy in the Indo Pacific area and it seems a shame that the RNZN doesn't use them on sovereign patrols in their Pacific protectorates.
They will be very easy to sell if that's their fate and if the RAN acquisition policies and politics were a whole heap different, they would be ideal supplements to the ACPBs, probably much better than the two loaned BF Capes.
I'm a fan of that hull, it's based on the Tenix design which lost out in the Fremantle replacement to Austal and the Philippines Coast Guard versions are highly successful.
They will be very easy to sell if that's their fate and if the RAN acquisition policies and politics were a whole heap different, they would be ideal supplements to the ACPBs, probably much better than the two loaned BF Capes.
I'm a fan of that hull, it's based on the Tenix design which lost out in the Fremantle replacement to Austal and the Philippines Coast Guard versions are highly successful.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
There has been some discussion in the NZDF general thread about the IPV's. The impression a number of us have formed is that while the design is sound, it does not quite enable to sorts of patrol operations the RNZN needs right now, and there are insufficient personnel to crew all four and an additional OPV which should be able to patrol where/how the RNZN needs to.
Given the small size and limited resources I am not surprised that the RNZN does not operate them from some of the more distant possessions. It would be beneficial in terms of patrol area, but I suspect the cost of operations and sustainment would be a bridge, err, boat too far...
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Well, knock me down with a feather - politician makes unfounded claims. Though coming from Ron Mark, it's very doubtful he would have read any of the official documents floating an IPV sale before putting out his press release.
I'm pleased that there is one party that asks questions about Defence in Parliament. It's just a shame that party has to New Zealand First, who in my (doubtless unbiased!) opinion are the biggest group of muppets ever to embarrass the nation by being elected.
Interesting read with the usual excuses/reasoning/justifications. Just good to see where and who they are coming from, who to believe is another matter...
Government challenged on sale of inshore patrol boats | Radio New Zealand News
Another interesting read is the table for at sea fishery patrols for the current fleet (incl MAN), lets just say the decline in actual patrolling is so marked and blindingly obvious that I honestly do not think we even need another OPV, not for fishery patrols anyway, as even the 2 remaining IPV and OPV barely do fishery patrols as it is which I found strange for our EEZ and coastline. Tried to post this link and a skipper article from when the IPVs were first introduced for abit of reflection and re-hashing of capabilitiy vs role(s) but could'nt for some reason however pretty easy to find anyway.
Government challenged on sale of inshore patrol boats | Radio New Zealand News
Another interesting read is the table for at sea fishery patrols for the current fleet (incl MAN), lets just say the decline in actual patrolling is so marked and blindingly obvious that I honestly do not think we even need another OPV, not for fishery patrols anyway, as even the 2 remaining IPV and OPV barely do fishery patrols as it is which I found strange for our EEZ and coastline. Tried to post this link and a skipper article from when the IPVs were first introduced for abit of reflection and re-hashing of capabilitiy vs role(s) but could'nt for some reason however pretty easy to find anyway.
Last edited:
Why did Phil Goff and Phillip Burton when in Cabinet think that following the official ratification by NZ of UNCLOS in 1996 and following the phasing out of the Moa IPC's think it would be a good idea to then acquire only 2 OPV’s when NZ has the 5th largest EEZ to monitor?
Can Phil Goff and Ron Mark explain how it that the Irish Naval Service can man 5 Offshore Patrol Vessels of similar size to the Protector OPVs (though ours were cheap knock offs) as well as 80's era Coastal Patrol Vessels that are considerably larger (700 tonnes/63m) than our Protector IPV's with only 1100 personnel?
Well it comes down to selecting the right vessels for the role in the right numbers, which is something the Irish did effectively whilst we failed to do so when we embarked on the omnishambles that was/is Project Protector.
Can Phil Goff and Ron Mark explain how it that the Irish Naval Service can man 5 Offshore Patrol Vessels of similar size to the Protector OPVs (though ours were cheap knock offs) as well as 80's era Coastal Patrol Vessels that are considerably larger (700 tonnes/63m) than our Protector IPV's with only 1100 personnel?
Well it comes down to selecting the right vessels for the role in the right numbers, which is something the Irish did effectively whilst we failed to do so when we embarked on the omnishambles that was/is Project Protector.
But if the IPVs replaced the IPCs one for one and we got 2 OPVs for 1 frigate with more of an emphasis on these patrolling our EEZ (rather than an inefficient frigate) then along with the supposed 'patrol' days of CY (whislt again not a wise use of assets) and legacy fleet then we still actually improved our EEZ patrol force (and obviously sealift) albeit at the expense of our combat fleet (cough). If we had enough work and justification to keep 4 IPCs employed and at sea then what has actually changed in terms of role? Coastlines still as large as it was back then and current IPV is leagues ahead of IPC and yet all of a sudden inadequate?
As the defence adage goes replace with like or better, the IPV is not an OPV same as a frigate is not an OPV, they are in different roles and for good reason. Defence even made the roles politician proof and included them in their title, inshore and offshore but as per usual they are trying to do a job with equipment it is not designed or intended for and then blaming it on said equipment rather than the obvious elephant of manning and funding. If it is a "new" area gap or deficiency then ideally we should be plugging that gap with added capbility as opposed to just taking from another area to the detriment of that then role. The whole point of the OPV was to free up the frigates to do core taskings not mundane EEZ work and same theory should apply with IPV freeing up OPV from inshore work to concentrate on outter limits, it's all relative. If it has been deemed we are lacking in the offshore range then either bring in a frigate (again stretching/ wasting that asset) or add another OPV to cover (not in lieu of another range) but I guess with a skills shortage and funding limitation this would be unheard of. Could'nt help but notice navy is getting less in this years budget as well, what does less than less get you? Less navy.
IMO regardless of the fact that we may have identified a requirement and benefit of having a 3rd OPV to fullfill a role it again should not equate into a diminishing of capability in another as we are then again causing a gap in a particular area that eithers leads to a downgrade in service, pressure on remaining assets or inefficient compromise using unsuited equipment.
I would have thought our forces could not get any leaner without something having to break and the govts policy of retiring without replacement, "consolidation" and trade offs is slowly but surely depleteing capability in the guise of improvement but the fact is we seem to be taking one step forward and two back everytime the experts come up with policy, "improvement" or direction change. It's funny you should mention the Irish model as in fact I do see ourselves eventually heading down this path in terms of role, ideals and capability, we will just see how the ANZAC replacements go for direction.....
I possibly could have entertained the idea that the ships were unsuited to task and another OPV would alleviate issues if it were not for the fact that the EEZ patrol fleet as a whole is lacking in overall use in this area, OPV included, so unsure really what throwing another one into the mix is going to realistically acheive as we should probably look at getting our current fleet out there first and all of them at some stage would be good. What's best policy for treasury is rarely best practice operationally and in fact mostly contradict each other. This is not in NZs overall best interest.
Instead of merely an OPV replacing 2 IPV in that role maybe the new vessel should be geared for deep south operation (properly this time) with OPV attributes and replace the late Resoloution instead being more aligned to work with the new littoral rather than the naval patrol force as end of the day any ship in the RNZN can patrol in our context, true multirole rather than essentially just adding numbers to current.
Much of the Maritime Forces Review of 2000 used datasets from the early 1990's. Technology has changed and this was reflected in a research paper over a decade ago out of Auckland University noting how inefficient the old IPC patrolling methods were and how resources were being targeted in the wrong places. The Fishing industry has also dramatically changed due to quota consolidation around fewer larger players who are fishing for species targets further out. There are now less than 1300 registered commercial fisherman in NZ waters most of them are on sub 28 metre vessels but going back a couple of decades there where well over a thousand. The NZ small commercial fisherman are monitored and are not really the problem. The requirement for inshore patrol vessels is not as pronounced as it once was.
I would not place the blame of the Protector vessels on the Navy. They tried to make it work but had the wrong vessels in the wrong numbers. The Navy lost their valiant battle to have 3 Frigates and have 3 OPVs. They did not want the IPVs, they were not listened to by people who thought they knew better.
It is not new. The requirement for 3 OPVs with an emphasis on the southern ocean and the wild west coast of the south island has been known for years. Noted in the review back in 2000.
This is not robbing Peter to pay Paul as Paul has long sold his fisheries quota and the current Protector fleet cannot get to where Peter is.
The CY was sold as the 'patrol' vessel to 'free up' the Anzacs. The only frigates used as fisheries outer EEZ patrol vessels were Taranaki then Southland as a sideline to their primary training mission. That was a time when the CY was to also take over the training role.
OPV's only came to the fore due to UNCLOS and the 200mn EEZ limit ratification. They were first raised when Tizard and Flynn were the Ministers who both sort them as supplementary to the Anzacs.
What the Navy and Govt are trying to do is rectify a $500m policy debacle that they inherited over a decade ago. That they had gifted to them the wrong vessels in the wrong numbers.
There is no point spending taxpayers money in the short term on white elephants such as the IPV's (and the current OPV's for that matter) when they are not capable of doing the roles required.
Thus the reasonable possibility eventuates that once they get the new LWSV, the improved OPV, the new AOR vessel, then they can sell the unwanted final 2 OPV's and replace the hapless Protector OPVs with three new fit for purpose OPV like they should have had in the first place.
Yeah so there might be a small operational cut that I can live easily with for now knowing that from now on changes are to be made for the better.
You may have to accept that there is no longer a need for the IPVs and there role within the remit of the Navy. That the inshore role is now dwindling as it once was and is now focused on a far larger fleet of local commercial fisheries managed by a smaller number of corporate players. Do we need a IPV of the protector size to deal with a couple of hundy guys called Bill and Bob and their recreational mates in their 5m fizz boat on the weekend?
Simply No. We do not. For the price of a single IPV we could have bought 8 Q-West Cat style 20m inshore patrol craft to cover the 0-24nm inshore zone where the fewer small scale guys are as well as the recreational fleet. This is a role clearly more for MFish, plus Customs and Maritime Police in their inshore constabulary role under that context.
If people want that role monitored then do not waste the Navy's resources on that. Give the RNZN the tools to find and monitor the big players well offshore and mostly well south and south-west. Give them the OPV's )which they are doing and fund the civilian agencies directly to deal with it.
I am very confident that the Navy of 2020 will be better then the Navy of 2010. More relevant, newer vessels, more focused and not looking to the past. Finally getting over the botched Protector Project that cost the Navy a generation and north of 1.5 Billion to sort out once the replacements are built. I direct my anger at that and not at the people now trying to sort it out.
I mentioned it because I am getting sick of the BS around manning levels. They would man the bloody IPV protector vessels if could actually achieve something with them other than ploughing around in vain. The Navy knows this - that is why it wisely does not wish to waste money in the short term. The Navy does not want to throw good money after bad, it want better vessels in the right places.
The Irish are not upgrading frigates, or building a new AOR, or a LWSV. Completely different Conops. By ditching our current failures we can get on and rebuild the Navy. The Irish experiment was the last government who bought the Protector class and attempted to turn the Navy into a Coast Guard and they even ballsed that up with the Protector class.
The Maritime Review of 2000 stipulated 3 Offshore Patrol Vessels. Treasury advice was only a component in Project Protector and the Patrol force configuration was driven by the far more powerful DPMC and the interested civilian agencies.
The vessels are lacking in use because there limitations to achieve the outputs are so poor that it is wasteful to use them other than in the areas in which they can and do work well work. It is not a numbers game with the IPV's and their effect on output. Even if we had a dozen IPV's we would not be doing much other than burning diesel and vainly swallowing resources.
The 3rd OPV will be geared to the Southern Ocean as recent Project Leaders have been saying at conferences over the last 12 months. But all that is happening is that they are going back to undo the damage done. This should have been done in the first place had the right vessel class had been chosen.
I agree that synergies between the 3rd OPV and the LWSV are a must. By all accounts this may happen as the Navy may end up with ORV type vessels being chosen for both solutions. Variants of the Skipsteknisk ST-344 like what is being delivered to Peru for example.
Last edited:
Just for general interest vaguely related to these discussions there is a video doing the rounds of the NZ media featuring HMSNZ Otago going through some rough weather in the southern ocean at the end of 2015
WATCH: Navy battered by storm during Southern Ocean patrol | Stuff.co.nz
The angle of the gun barrel seems to change pretty significantly after hitting the wave
WATCH: Navy battered by storm during Southern Ocean patrol | Stuff.co.nz
The angle of the gun barrel seems to change pretty significantly after hitting the wave
Could you possibly post links to some of these findings (I'm a sucker for putting names to claims) as some of what I have been sourcing somewhat contradicts or does not match up and I am unsure why organisations such as MFAT, MPI, customs and indeed navy would say one thing if they mean another especially if it is not in their interest to do so and merely creates confusion.
I would'nt assume radio live is prone to making up things but I guess wikipedia shows anything is possible.
Customs lacks resources to patrol NZ seas | Radio New Zealand News
Alittle coincidental this report is also around the time the IPVs were being parked up but I'm sure their crews had other more pressing jobs.
Warning over Navy patrol cuts | Radio New Zealand News
If even the navy admitted they had crewing issues in 2013 then I'm inclined to believe them and even if they recruited immediately after this there is still no way those pers would be fully qualified in the skilled trades even now, taking into account actual naval training/activity times before they even begin their trade training for specific roles. I spent a career in the forces doing courses and nothing happens overnight in fact they would still be considered junior now if anything dependant on what level of seniority, experience and skill level left initially and therefore slots that needed replacement. I also have naval friends who have either recently had postings cut short, trips denied or roles adjusted to fill slots so unsure why you could'nt possibly think of ships being mothballed due to manning issues and it's therefore BS? If so then as there should have been 2 spare crews floating around (pun intended) for the remaining IPVs/OPV then these should have at least been able to meet if not exceed their proposed at sea days, figures show this was not the case, or did we just stop all together? On the plus side they have probably been promoted quicker then they otherwise would have considering.
MPI also states we have 1300 commercial fishing vessels in NZ with 50 of these deep sea vessels including 26 international (I assume these would be the likely candidates for monitors and cameras as well as they catch 60% of our fish) that are permitted to fish in our EEZ so a few more than 300 to patrol unless the rest have recently parked up in the past 2-3 years?
The same report that stipulated we ideally have 3 OPV in the same vein reccommended 5 IPV as well so obviously we don't always get what we ask for but seems they did in fact ask regardless (or at least someone did). Is the statement navy did not want IPVs in an official document somewhere as I would be interested to see their reasonings and updated data to support in regards.
Now don't get me wrong I understand an OPV would be far superior to an IPV in terms of capability in most instances I am just more wondering if it is more of a case of you can have this OR have that (a classic NZDF trait) but you need to choose as we are not going to pay for both regardless of role and is mainly being pushed by lack of resources vs lack of requirement as TBH the conducted patrols by even the remaining fleet is pitiful IMO when surely the remaining should be getting used more if anything to compensate? 9 days this year so far for fisheries across the 'patrol fleet' to me seems alittle inadequate even if they are just burning diesel considering protection/patrolling of our EEZ should be a cornerstone of our navy. Seems to me they are justifying a 3rd OPV for EEZ reach when we barely even seem to be doing that. Actual patrol days (incl OPV) have been steadily declining for the past 5 years and while I'm sure technology can account for some I'm quite sure there are underlying reasons as well.
I get you think IPVs are a waste of rations and OPVs are the way of the future and I am not arguing the benefit of a 3rd OPV (just as I support 3 frigates) however I just feel they are being alittle disingenuous in their reasonings behind their (IPV) sudden fall from grace and expecting more from them knowing full well they would be unsuited and thus creating doubts to their ability, I would rather them just blatantly say we cannot afford both options instead of making excuses as to why they essentially sunk $60m.
Whilst I may resign to the fact Brownlee will sell off these ships to fund something else does not automatically mean I will agree with it and it's much akin to how me and Helen disagreed over the ACF decision and I guess how others look at that. Oh well yet another downgrade/upgrade in the NZDF toolbox, lets see how it goes over time.
I would'nt assume radio live is prone to making up things but I guess wikipedia shows anything is possible.
Customs lacks resources to patrol NZ seas | Radio New Zealand News
Alittle coincidental this report is also around the time the IPVs were being parked up but I'm sure their crews had other more pressing jobs.
Warning over Navy patrol cuts | Radio New Zealand News
If even the navy admitted they had crewing issues in 2013 then I'm inclined to believe them and even if they recruited immediately after this there is still no way those pers would be fully qualified in the skilled trades even now, taking into account actual naval training/activity times before they even begin their trade training for specific roles. I spent a career in the forces doing courses and nothing happens overnight in fact they would still be considered junior now if anything dependant on what level of seniority, experience and skill level left initially and therefore slots that needed replacement. I also have naval friends who have either recently had postings cut short, trips denied or roles adjusted to fill slots so unsure why you could'nt possibly think of ships being mothballed due to manning issues and it's therefore BS? If so then as there should have been 2 spare crews floating around (pun intended) for the remaining IPVs/OPV then these should have at least been able to meet if not exceed their proposed at sea days, figures show this was not the case, or did we just stop all together? On the plus side they have probably been promoted quicker then they otherwise would have considering.
MPI also states we have 1300 commercial fishing vessels in NZ with 50 of these deep sea vessels including 26 international (I assume these would be the likely candidates for monitors and cameras as well as they catch 60% of our fish) that are permitted to fish in our EEZ so a few more than 300 to patrol unless the rest have recently parked up in the past 2-3 years?
The same report that stipulated we ideally have 3 OPV in the same vein reccommended 5 IPV as well so obviously we don't always get what we ask for but seems they did in fact ask regardless (or at least someone did). Is the statement navy did not want IPVs in an official document somewhere as I would be interested to see their reasonings and updated data to support in regards.
Now don't get me wrong I understand an OPV would be far superior to an IPV in terms of capability in most instances I am just more wondering if it is more of a case of you can have this OR have that (a classic NZDF trait) but you need to choose as we are not going to pay for both regardless of role and is mainly being pushed by lack of resources vs lack of requirement as TBH the conducted patrols by even the remaining fleet is pitiful IMO when surely the remaining should be getting used more if anything to compensate? 9 days this year so far for fisheries across the 'patrol fleet' to me seems alittle inadequate even if they are just burning diesel considering protection/patrolling of our EEZ should be a cornerstone of our navy. Seems to me they are justifying a 3rd OPV for EEZ reach when we barely even seem to be doing that. Actual patrol days (incl OPV) have been steadily declining for the past 5 years and while I'm sure technology can account for some I'm quite sure there are underlying reasons as well.
I get you think IPVs are a waste of rations and OPVs are the way of the future and I am not arguing the benefit of a 3rd OPV (just as I support 3 frigates) however I just feel they are being alittle disingenuous in their reasonings behind their (IPV) sudden fall from grace and expecting more from them knowing full well they would be unsuited and thus creating doubts to their ability, I would rather them just blatantly say we cannot afford both options instead of making excuses as to why they essentially sunk $60m.
Whilst I may resign to the fact Brownlee will sell off these ships to fund something else does not automatically mean I will agree with it and it's much akin to how me and Helen disagreed over the ACF decision and I guess how others look at that. Oh well yet another downgrade/upgrade in the NZDF toolbox, lets see how it goes over time.
Last edited by a moderator:
Just a bit of roughers that sorts the sailors out from the landlubbers.Just for general interest vaguely related to these discussions there is a video doing the rounds of the NZ media featuring HMSNZ Otago going through some rough weather in the southern ocean at the end of 2015
WATCH: Navy battered by storm during Southern Ocean patrol | Stuff.co.nz
The angle of the gun barrel seems to change pretty significantly after hitting the wave
20m seas apparently which is about par for the course for that part of the world. There is a huge fetch there, the largest in the world because the predominant westerlies can blow right around the planet with out encountering any geographic obstacle such as mountain ranges. The furious fifties and sixties are very aptly named.I note that some of the old salts have said that they had worse on the Rothsay Class and Leander Class frigates in different parts of the world. A couple mentioned a typhoon out of Honkers (Hong Kong) as being rather exciting with the sea somewhat lively. In the old days they used to train the gun turret aft in order to protect the guns and mechanism from such seas.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I thought the winds were the furious fifties and the screaming sixties. In any event the geography of the southern ocean's lack of any wind breaks makes for some pretty ugly seas.