The IPVs are now not too large for some close inshore work as they now also have multiple RHIBs, much like the OPVs just cheaper to operate.
Operating the fleet of four IPV's consumed more naval resources than the two OPV's in terms of manpower and fiscal budget. Yet the OPV's could do every thing that the IPV's could do yet much more and more effectively. RHIB's from the IPV's or OPV's for boarding ops but they are not there for autonomous patrolling in lieu of a patrol vessels.
I still cannot see what exactly has vastly changed in terms of inshore patrolling from decades gone by and in fact as MrC has pointed out there are vastly more craft in the "inshore" spectrum (1000+) and the further offshore you go the ships capable of operating in these margins drop off dramatically (double digits).
What has changed is that in the 1970s we had 14000 licensed Fishers mostly inshore and enclosed waters, but that got down to a 2400 by 1983 and 1400 by 1986 the under QMS regime. In fact we are down to 1100 this year of which 115 are deep sea vessels, the inshore spectrum are quite a few hundred and the local vessels going beyond 12nm through to the 50nm Coastal limit make up the remainder but are less than 30m.
The operational cost is actually not that much different between the IPV and the OPV. The inshore spectrum 0-12nm NZTL dominated numerically by small local vessels which quite often fish close inshore around 3nm and enclosed waters numbering in the mid hundreds (But also this area does include the majority of the 250000 private vessels used by recreational fishers - a 55m IPV is not really the most cost effective solution to deal with this).
What has also changed is ISR - which is vastly superior and can inform the NZ Government and making monitoring of vessel movements much more precise than patrol patterns of the old Moa Class days. Also coming on line is short range airborne ISR via the KingAir - which should have happened 15 years ago.
Rather moot though as any vessel can fish close to NZs coastline, large or small, they just have to sail there to do it.
No that is not the case there is actually a demarcation line at the 50nm coastal limit based on factors such as vessel size, power output, master & crew qualification /SCTW. 3500GWT FFV's are restricted from playing within the close inshore zone. For example vessels over 40m cannot enter the NZTL to fish.
The larger ships that account for most of the catches actually have other monitoring measures such as a seconded onboard fisheries officer and cameras able to be accessed from mainland NZ.
Only about 30% of FCV's have an Observer. Yes there are cameras these days and ALB's mandatory since 1993 - but there are non QMS foreign vessels which transit into the EEZ from international waters which are the illegals or IUU's. That is the real problem - environmentally and in economic loss. Over 50& of the total catch by tonnage is by FCV's. IPV's are not much help as experience has shown.
It's all well and good to say it should be the job of fisheries and customs to do these jobs locally themselves but if they do not have the ships to do this then it's all rather pointless and it does not get much easier then essentially having a vessel provided for you, and yet last reports stated clearly they did not achieve their allocated patrol hours as they could not get the time on the naval vessels in the first place. Having 50% of the IPV fleet tied alongside and essentially mothballed probably does not help.
More appropriate vessels should be built for Customs, Fisheries and Maritime Police to monitor and respond to the close inshore and inshore role out to 12/24nm and hopefully Customs gets a couple more Hawk V types and FishServe look at a few as well.
But more appropriate vessels built for the RNZN to deal with and beyond the 50nm Coastal zone is where the issue is. It is good to see that a SOPV vessel is coming down the track. Another 4th OPV would be better - and there is a better chance of that happening if all the IPV's went.
Customs want more time on OPV's to the north and FishServe want more time on OPV's to the West and South. Two IPV's alongside are not much help - because they do not really serve the target goals of what Fish and Customs really want.
I still think it is merely a cost cutting measure fuelled by lack of funding, diminishing of resources and shortage and retention of key personnell driving this particular "re-focussing" and all smoke and mirrors trying to save face. Blaming the equipment for something it was not designed to do is merely a cop out and changing the guidelines to suit the scenario is alot easier then funding the problem to sort the issues. This just smells of another ACF type axing whilst trying to sugar coat it with the promise of another OPV instead whereas that should already be in lieu of the lost frigates (1 OPV is not the equivalent of 1 frigate in my books).
The same kind of cost cutting that is seeing $800m likely to be spent on the next three RNZN vessels. One of which Aotearoa is the virtually the same amount of money we spent on the whole of Protector Project.
If a comparitively large organisation that is essentially the subject matter experts of all things nautical with motivated pers to match cannot adequately man a few inshore patrol vessels then how exactly is civilian outfit supposed to find the equivalent numbers to fill the void with a similar albeit less technical capability? Has'nt yet and these IPVs have been sitting idle for more than a few years now, surely enough time to have implemented a plan B at least.
There really is only a difference of 13 crew between the baseline manning of a 55m IPV (22 RNZN crew and 4 Govt) and an 85m OPV without air element (35 RNZN crew plus 4 Govt). So crew numbers wise we have been trying to man effectively nearly 5 OPV equivalents. IPV's are about 2/3's of the operational cost of an OPV but offer about a 1/3 of the patrol capability. That is the glaring problem.
Frankly the sooner the Navy is divested of the inshore (0-12/24nm NZTL / NZCZ) policing role and we have the enforcement done by a civilian government agency(s) MPI/Customs/Police the better as they have the direct statuary jurisdiction and powers of enforcement, arrest and prosecution. Not Navy - they are just the water taxi! If one Protector IPV is kept for basic sea training like Kahu and possibly another is kept for the VR and Fleet Reserve then that is fine.
The Navy needs to concentrate on military maritime matters well beyond the NZTL zone. Keeping the IPV's only diverts resources not just fiscal but significantly human resources away from its core military business and the business end of the EEZ. The Customs and FishServe roles inshore can more effectively be handled by them and hopefully further Q-West type vessels can be procured for this - but if the problem is to be solved we really need 4 OPV's and not 4 IPV's! Navy knew this all along and are not to blame for this situation. There preference was always OPV's. But they lost that argument with the DPMC 15 years ago when the mistakes were made.
