Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
From my POV there are problems with expecting commercial activity to help/sustain a naval shipyard. For one thing, some of the more important and complicated skills for naval shipbuilding are not particularly applicable for commercial/civilian shipbuilding.
We are not talking about a specific Naval yard. We are talking about a new commercial vessel construction, repair and maintenance yard that may have the additional capability to locally build under license some naval vessels like OPV's and be able to maintain the current and future RNZN fleet and other NZ and South Pacific vessels like we have done locally since Calliope and the Lyttelton Dry Docks have been open.

This future facility may indeed have more than one drydock, floating dock or shiplift - it may have specific naval and commercial sections.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
We are not talking about a specific Naval yard. We are talking about a new commercial vessel construction, repair and maintenance yard that may have the additional capability to locally build under license some naval vessels like OPV's and be able to maintain the current and future RNZN fleet and other NZ and South Pacific vessels like we have done locally since Calliope and the Lyttelton Dry Docks have been open.

This future facility may indeed have more than one drydock, floating dock or shiplift - it may have specific naval and commercial sections.
I agree that NZ should have a naval maintenance & repair facility (two or three might be better IMO), though I can sort of understand why there has been little movement on either expanding Calliope or replacing it with a new facility in the last five years. From my POV, the decisions to do so should not be made in isolation from other decisions regarding the basing of RNZN and other NZDF assets. The problem with that is in order to be done properly, a degree of strategic vision unfettered by wishful thinking, mis-placed optimism, or the rose-tinted glasses of ideology, and then the will to carry out this strategic vision over the course of years/decades, and the resulting successive gov'ts and changes in which parties are in power.

One of the areas where I would have concerns about operating a mixed commercial/naval facility would be ensuring that the facility can/will meet RNZN demands when needed.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Posted here as it concerns an idea for the RNZN.

I think RegR idea has some merit ,but not in the way he envisions it ..As I have said before I have no military background (apart from NZ National Service where I reached the rank of Signalman).
I propose the thought that a couple of surplus turrets be placed on a standard container base as a fully self supporting unit (hydraulics ,power etc) .The Navy could then be able to use them as additional firepower if they require them .I am aware that there are problems attached to this ,but I feel in the case of the OPV for example a gun in the front is only of some use. A LAV turret with some stabilization would be more use than an unstabilized .5 HMG. .As quite a few ships have container docks .I would surmise that some would have available power points for reefer containers.
I realise that there will be holes in my proposal so feel free to shoot me down (Mods ,do whatever you want to with this post).
Honestly this idea is about as bad IMO as having NZ develop a land-based ISO containerized Bushmaster mounting.

If additional 25 mm guns are deemed necessary for the OPV's, the RNZN would be better off acquiring Mk 38 guns, or Typhoon mountings with 25 mm guns. The NZLAV turrets are stabilized for and kitted out with optics appropriate for use on land, not firing while underway at sea in potentially pitching and rolling conditions. Why would it make sense for NZ to spend coin to spend what would likely be a fair bit of coin to take existing kit to deliver a half-arsed re-purposed capability?

To give people an idea of the cost, in 2007 the USN purchased 62 Typhoon 25 mm weapon systems in a joint contract with BAE and Rafael for USD$36 mil. with delivery by 2009. Yes, this order was a decade ago, but it worked out to less than USD$600k per weapons system. I just do not see NZ being able to either develop, or fund someone else to develop, a system which can re-use a NZLAV turret effectively while attached to an ISO container, for that kind of money per unit. Or the 2012 contract for the USCG to purchase 21 Mk 38 Mod 2 stabilized naval 25 mm guns for USD$24.2 mil.

To develop a weapons system like people have suggested is not as simple or inexpensive as just purchasing a 20' ISO container for USD$3,000, cutting a hole in the top and dropping a turret in. As an easy example, without proper reinforcement, the weight of a NZLAC turret with the gun, ammunition, sensors and crew would likely at least deform an ISO container, since those are designed to support the weight on the corners which is why they can be stacked. If weight is applied to the sides or top but not at the corners, the containers collapse, as can be seen if one looks at shipping containers people buried to create underground bunkers.

I am not going to bother going on, but from my POV the only economically viable re-use for surplus NZLAV turrets would be as a source of spares for the NZLAV fleet being kept in service. Anything else is likely to provide either an overly expensive or ineffective capability, and very likely both.
 

Womble 47

New Member
Thanks for your reply.I really did not think it would work ,otherwise someone would have developed it..
I only tossed it up to have informed comments on it .
Thanks Again and please keep up the good postings.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
HMNZS Matataua had the command role during the MCM phase of RIMPAC. They have deployed with a four 20ft TEU container kit including for the first time a NZDF-secure communication suite and 2 chefs, so they were completely self sustaining.
 

KiwiRob

Well-Known Member
I agree that NZ should have a naval maintenance & repair facility (two or three might be better IMO), though I can sort of understand why there has been little movement on either expanding Calliope or replacing it with a new facility in the last five years. From my POV, the decisions to do so should not be made in isolation from other decisions regarding the basing of RNZN and other NZDF assets. The problem with that is in order to be done properly, a degree of strategic vision unfettered by wishful thinking, mis-placed optimism, or the rose-tinted glasses of ideology, and then the will to carry out this strategic vision over the course of years/decades, and the resulting successive gov'ts and changes in which parties are in power.
I don't think it would be an easy job expanding Calliope Dock, it's pretty well hemmed in, it could extend out into the harbour but it will still have a width issue.

It would cost tens of millions to rebuild it, probably more, digging a new one along with a new naval base would surely be more cost effective.
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
I don't think it would be an easy job expanding Calliope Dock, it's pretty well hemmed in, it could extend out into the harbour but it will still have a width issue.

It would cost tens of millions to rebuild it, probably more, digging a new one along with a new naval base would surely be more cost effective.
It also would never get a resource consent from Auckland Council.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I hope they had a beer frigde??
I doubt it. All RNZN ships are now dry, except for official functions. That includes shore establishments, except for the wardrooms , senior & junior rates messes, and approved sports clubs who will have set bar hours. This was bought in by the previous CN, RADM Jack Steer about 2 or 3 years ago. Basically similar same rules to the USN.
 

kiwipatriot69

Active Member
I doubt it. All RNZN ships are now dry, except for official functions. That includes shore establishments, except for the wardrooms , senior & junior rates messes, and approved sports clubs who will have set bar hours. This was bought in by the previous CN, RADM Jack Steer about 2 or 3 years ago. Basically similar same rules to the USN.
There must have been a lot of servicemen and women upset about that, id bet. Was drinking on the job really an issue? I mean our forces do have a good reputation for professionalism in general, locally and abroad. Is there a rule about smoking too i suppose.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
There must have been a lot of servicemen and women upset about that, id bet. Was drinking on the job really an issue? I mean our forces do have a good reputation for professionalism in general, locally and abroad. Is there a rule about smoking too i suppose.

Yeah it seems like a silly rule to me, when you shifts over be nice to windown with a beer or two. What is really wrong with the old two can rule?
 

kiwipatriot69

Active Member
Yeah it seems like a silly rule to me, when you shifts over be nice to windown with a beer or two. What is really wrong with the old two can rule?
Is Australian military, Usa ect operate a "dry ship" policy too, or is this just what we do here?
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
There must have been a lot of servicemen and women upset about that, id bet. Was drinking on the job really an issue? I mean our forces do have a good reputation for professionalism in general, locally and abroad. Is there a rule about smoking too i suppose.
The whole culture within NZDF has changed since the 1990s. It's become very PC. Some of the changes did need to happen, such as the respect for women and womens equality. Definitely a rule about smoking too which is good. Don't get me wrong, I smoked like a steam train and drunk like a thirsty fish back then. Had been on the odd occasion known to turn up to work unsober. In fact, one time 3/4 of the section got sent home because of being unsober. That included the Warrant Officer, whose promotion we were celebrating. The word unsober was coined by the boss who wasn't in much better condition himself :D

When I was in the RNZAF from 1974 - 82 the work and social places, except dining halls were fogged up with smoke unless there were fire hazards such as fuel, explosives etc. Drinking was a huge part of the culture and on exercise the mini tanker (300+ gallons) was first on the C-130 and last off. However from about 1978 onwards if you lost your drivers licence for DIC, and your job entailed you to drive, the NZDF could discharge you from the service if it so desired. That was promulgated in Defence Force Orders. When I was in the RNZN from 1990 - 94, changes were on the way with some behaviours that were acceptable in the 1970s, frowned upon in the 1990s.

The suggested reason the previous CN banned alcohol on ships etc., was that he was getting sick of reports crossing his desks on Monday mornings about Kiwi Jolly Jack & Jenny Tars latest drunken escapades, usually, but not always, involving civilians. So now like the USN sailor the Kiwi Jolly Jack & Jenny Tar makes up for it on runs ashore :D They just can't preload with duty frees onboard.
 

beegee

Active Member
When I was in the RNZAF from 1974 - 82 the work and social places, except dining halls were fogged up with smoke unless there were fire hazards such as fuel, explosives etc. Drinking was a huge part of the culture and on exercise the mini tanker (300+ gallons) was first on the C-130 and last off. However from about 1978 onwards if you lost your drivers licence for DIC, and your job entailed you to drive, the NZDF could discharge you from the service if it so desired. That was promulgated in Defence Force Orders. When I was in the RNZN from 1990 - 94, changes were on the way with some behaviours that were acceptable in the 1970s, frowned upon in the 1990s.
I was in the RNZAF from 88-96 as an avionics tech. What trade were you if you don't mind me asking?
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
I don't think it would be an easy job expanding Calliope Dock, it's pretty well hemmed in, it could extend out into the harbour but it will still have a width issue.

It would cost tens of millions to rebuild it, probably more, digging a new one along with a new naval base would surely be more cost effective.
Calliope Dock might be able to be widened, at the expense of what appears to be a carpark. Whether or not that would be viable or worthwhile is of course another question, and one of the reasons why I mentioned earlier that I am not really surprised at the lack of movement or progress.

Is the RNZN base going to remain at Devonport? I am somewhat agnostic on whether the RNZN should remain at Devonport, or relocate to a new/better facility on a greenfield site nearby. I am of the opinion that the RNZN, possibly as a whole of gov't effort, should have additional facilities scattered elsewhere around NZ at other ports.

If the Devonport naval base were to close, I have some interesting ideas on how it could be preserved/re-used to annoy the locals and frustrate land-hungry developers.

If the naval base were to relocate, or new bases established, then I would have a question about whether or not a naval dockyard which can conduct maintenance, repairs and possibly upgrades should be co-located, of if there is no specific value in having a naval base and maintenance facility together.

As little as this might appeal to the average Kiwi, and certainly to some of the ideologues active in Kiwi politics, I do believe that much of the base rationalization and consolidation which has been done was a mistake, especially given that NZ has tectonic activity. A significant quake or eruption in the Auckland area has the potential to damage or neutralize the RNZN, close a major Kiwi port and int'l airport, as well as a major RNZAF base. By way of example, the 2016 Kaikoura quake on November 14 damaged the CentrePort container shipping facility in Wellington, preventing it's use of ~10 months following the quake. By having assets concentrated together, NZ risks everything all at once. Better IMO for things to be spread out a little more.
 

Kiwigov

Member
We are not talking about a specific Naval yard. We are talking about a new commercial vessel construction, repair and maintenance yard that may have the additional capability to locally build under license some naval vessels like OPV's and be able to maintain the current and future RNZN fleet and other NZ and South Pacific vessels like we have done locally since Calliope and the Lyttelton Dry Docks have been open.

This future facility may indeed have more than one drydock, floating dock or shiplift - it may have specific naval and commercial sections.
Probably off-topic for the RNZN thread, but consideration of a long-term naval threat to NZ from climate change is indicated from reviewing the latest published research on forecast killer heatwaves in Northern China and India (i.e. the 'wet bulb temperature', where a combination of high heat and humidity can kill). Given the worsening outlook for these events, then this reinforces the logic in the recent Defence Policy Statement. One can all too easily imagine the adverse naval implications of other, better-armed countries demanding access to cooler Southern climes for their (high-status) citizens
 
Top