Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[Novascotiaboy]

In who's terms is a single ship not sufficient? The RNZN is not as lavishly funded as the RCN RAN or RN so it doesn't have the choice of multiple ships for the littoral warfare role. There was always only going to be one hull acquired for the littoral warfare role. It also comes down to the ability to crew the ship and the RNZN is not awash with suitably qualified and experienced personnel.

The CN in the LoD article was very clear I thought that there would bevtwo vessels. He didnt say the initial ship would be replaced by the military grade LOSC. With such small crews that these size ships demand I am sure there is sufficient crew to provide for such vessels. There are similarities in the RCN, the RN and the RNZN with regard to recruitment and retention from what I can see. The lack of government support to provide consistent funding to provide the necessary resources to maintain the interest of the personnel. Talk is cheap. All three services are suffering from gaps in replacement of new gear. The RNZN with so few "combat" vessels may want to consider crewing with civilian mariners in non critical positions. A look at the RFA or Canadas recent foray with the MV Asterix for crewing options may help.

 

[Todjaeger]

The CN in the LoD article was very clear I thought that there would bevtwo vessels. He didnt say the initial ship would be replaced by the military grade LOSC. With such small crews that these size ships demand I am sure there is sufficient crew to provide for such vessels. There are similarities in the RCN, the RN and the RNZN with regard to recruitment and retention from what I can see. The lack of government support to provide consistent funding to provide the necessary resources to maintain the interest of the personnel. Talk is cheap. All three services are suffering from gaps in replacement of new gear. The RNZN with so few "combat" vessels may want to consider crewing with civilian mariners in non critical positions. A look at the RFA or Canadas recent foray with the MV Asterix for crewing options may help.

I cannot help but wonder if we have even read the same article. Consider the following quote from Line of Defence Vol. 1 Issue 6 Summer 2017/18, page #9, 6th paragraph;

We are now in the situation where we have to revise the scope of the LOSC. In the meantime, we will explore a range of options to procure a replacement ship which will allow the continued generation of an NZDF diving capability. However, the ultimate requirement for the LOSC will remain.

What is clear to me from the above quote is that what is desired in the LOSC remains, but what is being required (and/or considered affordable) has been revised. Keep in mind that there are also plans to bring a 3rd OPV into RNZN service by 2025, and that the RNZN and NZDF has very real limitations in terms of personnel and resources available. There are only ~2,000 regular RNZN personnel to operate the MRV, two FFH's, two OPV's, four IPV's, ready for the upcoming Endeavour replacement, the 3rd OPV, the LOSC, run the various training, support, shore, and planning/command/control functions for the RNZN. In addition, the entire NZDF has to carefully plan out various upgrade and/or replacement programmes which are running concurrently like those for the P-3K Orion, the C-130H Hercules, B757 'Broomstick', the AOR replacement, the FFH Sea Ceptor upgrade, NZLAV modernization, etc. All of these need to be funded either now or within the next few years, after which work should then start on planning for the FFH replacement with the ANZAC-class FFH's being decommissioned by the early 2030's. The does not exactly leave either very much funding for a 2nd LOSC or crew to operate it. Especially if the NZG acknowledges that the RNZN really needs to be a three or four frigate navy to prevent large capability gaps, like are going to be exposed while the frigates are being upgraded with Sea Ceptor.

 

[Todjaeger]

The RNZN with so few "combat" vessels may want to consider crewing with civilian mariners in non critical positions. A look at the RFA or Canadas recent foray with the MV Asterix for crewing options may help.

Attempting something like this might, emphasis MIGHT work in a Kiwi context. There are several potential hurdles which would need to be overcome, and while examining the idea has some merit, I have doubts about the viability of the idea.

One of the first is whether existing Kiwi maritime laws and regulations would permit a vessel owned by the RNZN to be crewed by civilians, and then if that was permitted, what the governing laws/regs would be for operating the vessel. AFAIK that has been an issue and area of concern regarding vessels like ADV Ocean Protector, which is owned by the RAN, but operated by the Australian Border Force agency with a civilian/Customs crew.

Then there is also the question of just how many Kiwi mariners could potentially be available (never mind interested) to crew a vessel. Looking at both the UK's RFA and USN's MSC, there are a number of vessels and berths in both services. In fact, the size of the RFA is close to that of the whole RNZN, while the UK has a population ~13x that of NZ, and ~1,550 commercial cargo vessels which is ~15x the size of the NZ merchant fleet of 103 commercial cargo vessels.

Then there is also the question of if civilians are serving, should the function even be under the RNZN. A number of the Customs, FIsheries, and Hydrographic tasks or roles come to mind. If some of these functions are 'spun off' from the RNZN, then the NZG and/or various depts might find that they were being supported at the expense of the RNZN and NZDF.

 

[KiwiRob]

There's no reason why an NZRFA couldn't be set up to own and operate vessels like Aoteroa and Canterbury, the vessels don't need to be owned by the navy.

 

[ASSAIL]

There's no reason why an NZRFA couldn't be set up to own and operate vessels like Aoteroa and Canterbury, the vessels don't need to be owned by the navy.

I thought Todjaeger produced a cogent argument as to why an NZRFA could not be stood up.
You have simply made a broad statement to the contrary.
Can you please produce your reasons to support your rebuttal of his argument so we can assess their merits?

 

[ngatimozart]

There's no reason why an NZRFA couldn't be set up to own and operate vessels like Aoteroa and Canterbury, the vessels don't need to be owned by the navy.

Theoretically a NZFA* is possible, however practically it could be an expensive and cumbersome option. Whilst this would and does work with large navies like the USN or RN, for a country of NZ's size it is more difficulty because of the smaller quantity of resources and funding available. You would have a completely separate organisation and the associated costs. Secondly, civilian crewing brings its own issues around putting them into harms way. Terms of service are different between naval and civilian crews, with naval personnel already acquainted with the fact that they maybe required to undertake service in a combat area which will be hazardous to their personal health and safety. You accept that when you are attested into service and take the oath of allegiance. If you have a number of civilian crew who refuse to go on active service in a combat zone, then you have an instant capability availability problem which may or may not be easily or quickly solved.

* Wouldn't get the Royal prefix until a significant time has passed. IIRC the RNZAF took about 18 or so years to be endowed by HM the King with the Royal prefix and it changed its name from NZPAF (NZ Permanent Air Force) to RNZAF. The RNZN was different because it was already part of the RN as the NZ Division and in 1941, the NZ Division was renamed the RNZN by Royal Assent and the NZG became legally responsible for it, it's vessels bases and personnel etc.

 

[Todjaeger]

There's no reason why an NZRFA couldn't be set up to own and operate vessels like Aoteroa and Canterbury, the vessels don't need to be owned by the navy.

Really? Please explain.

As Ng pointed out, it would likely be the NZFA, at least initially, until Royal Assent permitted the Royal prefix, in which case it would most likely be the RNZFA...

One very pertinent question would be, who would own the vessels? In fact, this would likely become an even more important than normal issue in a Kiwi context due to the <insert long string of very colourful language here> Capital Charge, which would need to be accounted for, and on paper inflates the budget. Also the issue of ownership and budgeting would likely become very problematic in the future when the vessels reached the end or their service lives. Who would pay for the replacements, and who would set the capability requirements. I could see the NZDF having a requirement for a dedicated amphibious warfare vessel like an LPD to replace the rather half-arsed sealift capability of Canterbury, but that might not be what an NZFA was either willing or able to provide in terms of capability. By way of comparison, HMNZS Canterbury cost ~NZD$130 mil. while the similarly sized but IMO much more capable Endurance-class LPD in service with Singapore and Thailand cost ~NZD$212 mil. back in 2008.

Then there is the potential issue of who has authority over said Fleet Auxiliary vessel. If the NZDF were to need cargo, personnel, munitions, fuel, or whatever else, transported to a given area, at present the RNZN could just order vessels to do so. Absent clear lines of authority, a civilian crew could decide to refuse to sail, and/or crew members could just quit if they felt the conditions were unsafe and/or they were not being adequately compensated (pay, time off, etc.). As a side note, the potential for a Fleet Auxiliary vessel to be in harms way is very real, as evidenced by RFA Sir Tristram being badly damaged and RFA Sir Galahad (I) effectively destroyed during the Falklands War in 1982.

Then there would also be issues with NZ law and international maritime treaty compliance for transporting certain types of cargoes, provision for crew/passenger safety in the event of a need to abandon ship, insurance, and vessel tracking at sea. If the vessel is a naval vessel, then the RNZN can issue waivers and/or the civilian laws and international treaties do not apply. A civilian authority and/or operator likely would not have that ability.

And lastly for now, just where & how would mariners be drawn up to provide a civilian crew to Canterbury and the upcoming AOR? The addition of just two (2) vessels would be a nearly 2% addition to the Kiwi merchant fleet. If there are already problems with the idea of using STUFT in emergencies due to a lack of available vessels and crew, I really cannot see how one could expect there to just be crews waiting for civilian vessels to serve aboard.

Again, looking at some of the current Kiwi laws, regulations, and international treaties and how they would apply to a Kiwi version of the RFA makes sense, but to expect or just assert that there are no issues is folly IMO.

 

[alexsa]

Attempting something like this might, emphasis MIGHT work in a Kiwi context. There are several potential hurdles which would need to be overcome, and while examining the idea has some merit, I have doubts about the viability of the idea.

One of the first is whether existing Kiwi maritime laws and regulations would permit a vessel owned by the RNZN to be crewed by civilians, and then if that was permitted, what the governing laws/regs would be for operating the vessel. AFAIK that has been an issue and area of concern regarding vessels like ADV Ocean Protector, which is owned by the RAN, but operated by the Australian Border Force agency with a civilian/Customs crew.

Then there is also the question of just how many Kiwi mariners could potentially be available (never mind interested) to crew a vessel. Looking at both the UK's RFA and USN's MSC, there are a number of vessels and berths in both services. In fact, the size of the RFA is close to that of the whole RNZN, while the UK has a population ~13x that of NZ, and ~1,550 commercial cargo vessels which is ~15x the size of the NZ merchant fleet of 103 commercial cargo vessels.

Then there is also the question of if civilians are serving, should the function even be under the RNZN. A number of the Customs, FIsheries, and Hydrographic tasks or roles come to mind. If some of these functions are 'spun off' from the RNZN, then the NZG and/or various depts might find that they were being supported at the expense of the RNZN and NZDF.

I suggest using civilian crew in lieu of uniform in a small navy will have an impact on critical mass. Unless you have sufficient ships to warrant a seperate ‘civilian’ structure (noting the different leave and entitlement process) it ill not provide the efficiencies. If you take a significant proportion of the sea berths away from uniform then there will be less slots for uniform. By reducing uniform you may solve a short term manning issue but I suspect it is likely to produce some long term problems
1. Reduced opportuntiy for progression in the uniformed ranks
2. Issue of how ‘civilian’ staff would be employed in a ‘warlike environment’ ..... i.e. they may or wish to be engaged in such activities and you cannot force them ... so what happens if you have insufficient uniforms
3. Legal and legislative issues. If you look at the USNS and RFA There are specific legaislative and regulatory structures that sourrond the operations of these ships as well as a logistic tail. This is a large undertaking that is only really effective and efficient as a large structure.

The RAN have the Ocean Protector as an Auxiliary however this is a bit of a hybrid and is only used for policing activities with a crew provided by a crewing agency combined with Border force and Navy. However, even this is not an easy process and tis vessel cannot be easily deployed beyond the agreed roles given e contracting arrangements. To change this scope could be a time consuming process.

 

[t68]

I thought it was a condition of service with the RFA that they would come under Naval Reserves as part of their employment? Also I believe the RFA are on higher wages as well, that doesn't reduce the budget

But as others have stated its only part of the problem.

 

[alexsa]

I thought it was a condition of service with the RFA that they would come under Naval Reserves as part of their employment? Also I believe the RFA are on higher wages as well, that doesn't reduce the budget

But as others have stated its only part of the problem.

The RFA function under the MCA regulation and it is not a condition of service that RFA crew be reservists. Certainly their contract of employment covers service in warlike conditions and this does involve a premium for such service. The legislation and regulations implemented by the MCA contain certain provision that relate to the RFA and what its ships must comply with. This reflects the fact there is scope for varying the application of mandatory instruments and conventions to Naval Auxiliaries (noting this does mean that visits by RFA ships are subject to the same dipclear as warships and articles 29 to 30 of UNCLOS).

 

[aussienscale]

Attempting something like this might, emphasis MIGHT work in a Kiwi context. There are several potential hurdles which would need to be overcome, and while examining the idea has some merit, I have doubts about the viability of the idea.

One of the first is whether existing Kiwi maritime laws and regulations would permit a vessel owned by the RNZN to be crewed by civilians, and then if that was permitted, what the governing laws/regs would be for operating the vessel. AFAIK that has been an issue and area of concern regarding vessels like ADV Ocean Protector, which is owned by the RAN, but operated by the Australian Border Force agency with a civilian/Customs crew.

Then there is also the question of just how many Kiwi mariners could potentially be available (never mind interested) to crew a vessel. Looking at both the UK's RFA and USN's MSC, there are a number of vessels and berths in both services. In fact, the size of the RFA is close to that of the whole RNZN, while the UK has a population ~13x that of NZ, and ~1,550 commercial cargo vessels which is ~15x the size of the NZ merchant fleet of 103 commercial cargo vessels.

Then there is also the question of if civilians are serving, should the function even be under the RNZN. A number of the Customs, FIsheries, and Hydrographic tasks or roles come to mind. If some of these functions are 'spun off' from the RNZN, then the NZG and/or various depts might find that they were being supported at the expense of the RNZN and NZDF.

Good reply Tod, I think the other issue is you need a "critical mass" of actual serving members to draw from for actual operations, you need that basic critical mass to be able to rotate and man your operational units, and I think the size of the RNZN would make that pretty much impossible

Cheers

 

[Novascotiaboy]

Looking in from the far outside I see the possibility of a mixed crew concept not too difficult if the culture of the service would be open to the change.

IMHO The "warfighting" vessels of the fleet are the two frigates, the tanker, Canterbury and the hopefully future full capability LOSC. The OPVs and IPVs along with the SOPV are all constabulary vessels that wont face military one on one action.
As a result, could not these vessels be commanded by Navy and a small group of navy specialists but crewed otherwise by commercial mariners in the housekeeping, ship handling and engineering trades?
It may seem niave on my part but it just seems so simple. This concept would allow uniform resources to be focused on core capabilities with the higher end vessels.

Under most circumstances the Canterbury and the future Aeroturea could also sail with the same crew structure. The frigates being the only vessels along with the future LOSC as purely uniform manned.
A 28 day on / off schedule is far more a desirable position than straight time of navy life for most people today. I would expect there are many recent ex navy folk who would reconsider a career at sea under these terms of service.

 

[KiwiRob]

I thought Todjaeger produced a cogent argument as to why an NZRFA could not be stood up.
You have simply made a broad statement to the contrary.
Can you please produce your reasons to support your rebuttal of his argument so we can assess their merits?

Tod's opening sentance said it might work. I don't see why it shouldn't either, plus it also opens up employment opportuniuties to Kiwis who would like to go to sea but aren't interested in joining the navy, working the Cook Strait or going fishing.

Just out of interest I was looking through old photos of Auckland and came across the Auckland gaving dock, I never realised we had another one besides Gaillope, it was located approx where the tempid baths are today.

 

[Todjaeger]

Looking in from the far outside I see the possibility of a mixed crew concept not too difficult if the culture of the service would be open to the change.

IMHO The "warfighting" vessels of the fleet are the two frigates, the tanker, Canterbury and the hopefully future full capability LOSC. The OPVs and IPVs along with the SOPV are all constabulary vessels that wont face military one on one action.
As a result, could not these vessels be commanded by Navy and a small group of navy specialists but crewed otherwise by commercial mariners in the housekeeping, ship handling and engineering trades?
It may seem niave on my part but it just seems so simple. This concept would allow uniform resources to be focused on core capabilities with the higher end vessels.

Under most circumstances the Canterbury and the future Aeroturea could also sail with the same crew structure. The frigates being the only vessels along with the future LOSC as purely uniform manned.
A 28 day on / off schedule is far more a desirable position than straight time of navy life for most people today. I would expect there are many recent ex navy folk who would reconsider a career at sea under these terms of service.

If the primary concern you have about the concept of a mixed naval/civilian crew is the culture of the service, then I have to wonder if you even bothered reading the replies of some of the others like Ngatimozart, Alexsa, or Aussienscale.

As has been mentioned, repeatedly, there are a whole pile of potential legal and regulatory issues which would need to be at least examined in a Kiwi context to determine if there were problems which would need to be addressed. As has been mentioned, the UK and US have within the framework of their respective legal systems, laws and regulations which permit the operation of naval auxiliary vessels by civilian mariners/merchant marine. If NZ were to just 'make things up as they go along..." then when (not if, but when) a problem arises, those problems would be magnified.

As an example of something which would need to be examined, what would happen if/when a civilian mariner crewing a naval auxiliary vessel failed or refused to obey orders issued by a commissioned naval officer? Is the civilian mariner prosecuted under civil/maritime statues? Are they tried via court martial? Or would/could they just be sacked?

If the existing laws and regulations do not clearly cover how to handle the above example and other potential situations, then laws and regulations would need to either be changed or created to address situations a naval auxiliary service could encounter. At the same time, the cost and difficulty of addressing any/all needed regulatory and legal issues would need to be weighed against the likely future benefit of raising a naval auxiliary service. And this still has not even got into the question of what impact a naval auxiliary would have on the regular naval service, or whether there would be sufficient civilian mariners who would be interested in serving in a naval auxiliary.

 

[Todjaeger]

Tod's opening sentance said it might work. I don't see why it shouldn't either, plus it also opens up employment opportuniuties to Kiwis who would like to go to sea but aren't interested in joining the navy, working the Cook Strait or going fishing.

I said it MIGHT work, not that it would work. I then preceded to point out several areas which would need to be addressed in some fashion. Since then several others have either added to or expanded on the list of potential problems to be resolved. All of this despite the followed bolded quote

There's no reason why an NZRFA couldn't be set up to own and operate vessels like Aoteroa and Canterbury, the vessels don't need to be owned by the navy.

Can you address any of the reasons which have been raised so far which could either cause problems for or prevent a naval auxiliary from functioning?

If you still do not think that issues raised by others would be problems, please explain why. Blithely responding that you do not see why there could be problems, when several members have pointed out areas of both general and specific issues potentially tends to leave an impression that either one does not comprehend the issues others are pointing out, that one is ignoring those issues being raised, or that one is aware but is trolling for a response.

For those who persist in believing that a Kiwi version of something like the RFA would be something easy to establish, I would be interested in hearing why people think it has not yet happened considering that the RFA has seen wartime service since WWI, well before the establishment of the RNZN, so the concept is by no means a new or recent one.

 

[ngatimozart]

The Moderators have had complaints about the NZFA discussion and how it's become pointless because some posters do not accept the guidance of Defence Professionals who have knowledge and experience in this field. If this continues the Moderating Team will not hesitate to act.

Consider this a polite warning.

 

[Gibbo]

The CN in the LoD article was very clear I thought that there would bevtwo vessels. He didnt say the initial ship would be replaced by the military grade LOSC. With such small crews that these size ships demand I am sure there is sufficient crew to provide for such vessels. There are similarities in the RCN, the RN and the RNZN with regard to recruitment and retention from what I can see. The lack of government support to provide consistent funding to provide the necessary resources to maintain the interest of the personnel. Talk is cheap. All three services are suffering from gaps in replacement of new gear. The RNZN with so few "combat" vessels may want to consider crewing with civilian mariners in non critical positions. A look at the RFA or Canadas recent foray with the MV Asterix for crewing options may help.

I cannot help but wonder if we have even read the same article. Consider the following quote from Line of Defence Vol. 1 Issue 6 Summer 2017/18, page #9, 6th paragraph;


What is clear to me from the above quote is that what is desired in the LOSC remains, but what is being required (and/or considered affordable) has been revised. Keep in mind that there are also plans to bring a 3rd OPV into RNZN service by 2025, and that the RNZN and NZDF has very real limitations in terms of personnel and resources available. There are only ~2,000 regular RNZN personnel to operate the MRV, two FFH's, two OPV's, four IPV's, ready for the upcoming Endeavour replacement, the 3rd OPV, the LOSC, run the various training, support, shore, and planning/command/control functions for the RNZN. In addition, the entire NZDF has to carefully plan out various upgrade and/or replacement programmes which are running concurrently like those for the P-3K Orion, the C-130H Hercules, B757 'Broomstick', the AOR replacement, the FFH Sea Ceptor upgrade, NZLAV modernization, etc. All of these need to be funded either now or within the next few years, after which work should then start on planning for the FFH replacement with the ANZAC-class FFH's being decommissioned by the early 2030's. The does not exactly leave either very much funding for a 2nd LOSC or crew to operate it. Especially if the NZG acknowledges that the RNZN really needs to be a three or four frigate navy to prevent large capability gaps, like are going to be exposed while the frigates are being upgraded with Sea Ceptor.

I had meant to reply earlier but running behind... the CN did quite clearly allude to there being both a dive/survey vessel (scaled back Manawanui replacement) and a LOSC... this from the same 'Line of Defence' article:

Rear Admiral Martin: We shall have fewer ships, but a larger Navy. What I mean by that is we will have nine or ten ships rather than the eleven we have now, but they will provide significantly more capability. We will have introduced six modernised or new platforms: the two ANZAC frigates, the new replenishment ship HMNZS Aotearoa, a dive support ship, the new Ocean Patrol Vessel and the LOSC.

The above makes 9 by my reckoning so the 'or ten' might be a single IPV for training & SouPac patrols!?! Speculation of course on my part.

 

[Todjaeger]

I had meant to reply earlier but running behind... the CN did quite clearly allude to there being both a dive/survey vessel (scaled back Manawanui replacement) and a LOSC... this from the same 'Line of Defence' article:

Rear Admiral Martin: We shall have fewer ships, but a larger Navy. What I mean by that is we will have nine or ten ships rather than the eleven we have now, but they will provide significantly more capability. We will have introduced six modernised or new platforms: the two ANZAC frigates, the new replenishment ship HMNZS Aotearoa, a dive support ship, the new Ocean Patrol Vessel and the LOSC.

The above makes 9 by my reckoning so the 'or ten' might be a single IPV for training & SouPac patrols!?! Speculation of course on my part.

I went back and read through the entire article again to find what you quoted above. Not quite sure how I missed it earlier. I do find it interesting that there was no mention of either dropping or reducing the size of the IPV fleet, but that would clearly need to happen to get down to a fleet size of nine or ten vessels, while 3+ new vessels are commissioned.

One thing which I now have to wonder about is what the timeline and capability set is projected to be for separate diver support and the LOSC vessels, especially if the capability set of the LOSC has been 'revised'.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

The Manawanui is 900 tons and 43 m in length so hopefully a modern larger vessel is chosen as a replacement for dive operations. The Atlantic Condor is a Halifax NS Canada built offshore support vessel that is 73 m and 2334 tons and is of a Rolls Royce UT design. This style of vessel new from an Asian yard could be had for $65 million. On the used market one could easily find a quality product that could be easily modified to remove the unnecessary oil services equipment and install storage areas, work shops and a moon pool if a dedicated pre existing dive support vessel isnt available. Since these vessels are diesel electric there are no shafts running the length of the vessel providing unparralled storage capacity and flexability.

A quuck internet search reveals that 8 to 10 year old UT design vessels are selling on the open market for US$14 million on average.

The "Star Persius" has been in the water for 39 years and has served with distinction. A second hand vessel has proven its value. A replacement vessel will continue the tradition of supplying a very valuable service to the government of New Zealand. Surely the money can be found and a replacement can be sourced asap to ensure as little of a gap as possible. Only a little more than a month to go before yet another vessel flies its pennant into retirement.

 

[Gibbo]

I went back and read through the entire article again to find what you quoted above. Not quite sure how I missed it earlier. I do find it interesting that there was no mention of either dropping or reducing the size of the IPV fleet, but that would clearly need to happen to get down to a fleet size of nine or ten vessels, while 3+ new vessels are commissioned.

One thing which I now have to wonder about is what the timeline and capability set is projected to be for separate diver support and the LOSC vessels, especially if the capability set of the LOSC has been 'revised'.

The demise of the IPV fleet has been foreshadowed in the DWP etc so that sort of makes the numbers almost tally to 9 or 10. I'd be wary of reading anything too exacting in the numbers quoted by CN - Defence are great at spinning PR that means very little when it suits them - and given the vast number of unknowns, especially the big one of politicians whims of fancy, we can't assume that the numbers quoted by CN will ever come to pass.

The ballpark may have changed however for the IPV's as they were a Labour Govt purchase & suits their more 'benign' view of the world, so with plenty of life left in them yet the new Govt is likely to be keen to see them used more. Again this is something that has now also been foreshadowed in that all 4 will return to service, for while at least, to help RNZN provide capacity whilst so many vessels are unavailable. I still scratch my head at the way RNZN ends up not getting replacements for well used assets in the pipeline or even at workup prior to the decomm of the original. All about funding I assume!

I'm a fan of the IPV's - the Fiji patrol of HMNZS Hawea was very successful & absolutely the type of engagement RNZN should be involved with on an ongoing basis - meaningful regional assistance! A new agreement has been signed that expects to see repeats of this type of deployment and doing such has been mentioned in Navy News etc. The IPV appears to have proved itself to be a good fit and I'm not sure I can see an OPV sent up to the islands for as long as 6 months in future so I wonder if the RNZN's thinking is warming to the idea of retaining 1-2 IPV's or this type of work along with training, patrol, SAR etc. The Hawea deployment will have been of enormous training benefit to RNZN crew.

As for the LOSC capability being 'revised' I can only assume, again trying to second guess the meaning of the press release, that this is because a decision appears to have been made to go for a pure Manawanui replacement (ie: primarily dive support) in the nearer term. This then makes dive support less of a core LOSC requirement, although not completely removing it. This means the LOSC probably won;t need a moon-pool, 4 point anchoring and/or azimuth 'stay fast' system and hence the inherent design changes. At the end of the day though it's anyone's guess! The reference (Dec.2017 Navy Today - pg 16) to '...exciting developments regarding Manawanui's replacement...' suggests to me that RNZN are going to get a fairly decent, capable dive support vessel - apparently '...a lot sooner than people think!