Hidden amongst that groupthink gobbledygook from the latest millennial HR manual is a fairly decent plan. (I’m showing my age again)
Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
I also seem to remember seeing a figure for USN P8A flight-line availability of 95%+ - whatever the number was it was a phenomenal rate of serviceability. Yes that will decline over the years but the Boeing spares train & heavily proven components shared with commercial frames would, it seem, be a major factor.
The major reason for increasing the P3 fleet from 5 to 6 in the 1980's was to give the ability to have one aircraft on station 24/7 if required as this could not be achieved with 5. This took into account routine servicing cycles and serviceability rates transit times etc to achieve 24/7.
Last edited:
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Well worth a read.
See p13, which has the navy in 2017 operating 11 ships in six classes weighing 34,000 tonnes (this includes the paid-off Endeavour and Manawanui).
IN 2025, they are predicting eight ships in six classes, weight all up 53,000 tonnes.
The ship reduction is due to the disappearance of the IPVs, while the weight gain is from the new tanker, southern OPV and LOSC.
Also clear that at the time this plan was written, the diving support measure was considered a stop-gap until a purpose-designed LOSC was available.
Kiwigov
Member
Agree with the points made regarding (lack of) commercial interest to date; as noted, this would really need to be seen as a key piece of public infrastructure open to commercial users, using much the same rationale as past public investment in our international airports (i.e. too large an investment for NZ capital, strong public and industry benefits, commercial spillovers). Perhaps the NZ Super Fund could be enticed as a future part-owner once the business was established, I doubt they would front up initially given uncertainties.
Given Resource Management Act issues for existing ports, then one place this could feasibly be located is...Devonport base?
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
Even more ships lost when you see how many IPC, Frigates we were operating, plus Resolution, prior to the 'Protector Fleet' replacements. So by 2025 our Navy force would be effectivly half what it was prior to then. So how is one extra OPV going to make up for the loss of what is now only four IPV?
How on earth is a mere eight ships, however enhanced supposed to cover off all these roles and have a greater presence in multiple roles, even if Navy intends to dramatically increase their days at sea?
This is also going to bite them in the proverbial 'a' with the missions being reprioritised over others, workload decreasing their fleets lifespan and more mechanical issues arising within the fleet. And looks like that confirms no extra frigates then, not like that OPV is going to be filling in with piracy patrols, an island conflict, when the Frigates are needed elsewhere.
NZ seems to be totally out of step with what is happening in the rest of this region. Just about every other navy in the region are expanding or at the very least maintaining the size of their fleet.
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
Agreed. Unless Nz govt plans to offset this by establishing a coast guard to take over the role IPV were doing, look at what is happening in the South China seas,Pacific islands, Antarctic waters and even between France and Britian, in the news yesterday civilian vessels ramming each other over shellfish, of all things? Meaning to say we need more of a both regional and local presence, poaching of our fish and shellfish accounts for hundreds of millions of potential lost sales to Nz.
I read it and agree with ASSAIL that it has plenty of the "groupthink gobbledygook from the latest millennial HR manual" tone about it BUT there is NOT enough vessels to make this plan actually viable. To spin it that the increased weight of the reduced fleet is somehow a capability offset is either delusional or disingenuous. They are replacing the 4 IPV's with a single SOPV and they will end up thrashing both frigates and crews due to under resourcing.
There is a total disconnect between words and actions. The right words are there on page 16:
An overall theme of uncertainty surrounds geopolitics
for the medium term. The shift of the locus of power
from the West to the East, rapid technological change
and associated disruption, and demographic changes
in the region are just some of the factors producing a
climate of uncertainty, and with it, a degree of risk.
What has been a ‘benign strategic environment’
has changed dramatically over the last decade, as
shown by heightened tensions in the East and South
China Seas, and degraded relations between Russia
and the West. A number of states in the Asia-Pacific
region, though committed to cooperative strategies,
are investing in high-end military capabilities,
including maritime aviation capabilities, advanced
submarines, surface combatants and 5th generation
fighter aircraft. These investments are in the
billions of dollars, and suggest that some states are
preparing for a degeneration in the current peaceful
environment.
New Zealand is one of the world’s most globalised
states. Keeping the oceans and sea lines of
communication open for trade is vital to New
Zealand’s security and economic prosperity. This is a
task that requires a broad array of partners, and is not
one that we can afford to leave to others.
They outline that they have used PESTLE modelling in preparation of the plan and referred to the DWP, but when it comes to capability delivery all we get are the same comparative level of naval combat capability as 2005 in 2025. Such a fundamentally mendacious response encapsulated in the papers branding.
"To be a world-class Navy for a large maritime nation."
Bluntly put this will not happen. Happy that they have acknowledged that we are a large maritime nation and great that they aim to be a world class Navy. However, it is not even close to been plausible when there are just 2 Frigates. If it is such the strategic challenge as presented in the earnest paragraphs of page 16 of the 2025 Plan, one would expect honesty in the response reflected. The margins between policy failure and policy acceptability are actually small. This plan could have been plausible if there were 3 frigates and 4 OPV's in at least in a minimal attempt to scope the likely strategic outlook.
My warning is that we are setting ourselves up for a time of great vulnerability between 2025-2040 with respect to our maritime domain and strategic interests due to reductions in fleet size leading to sub-marginal depth and breadth in our core capabilities. All at the time we will need it most. Future frigates to replace the current 2 Anzacs will not appear until 2032-2034 based on a 35 year hull (5 years more than original expectation and the same as F421) and a third and ideally fourth replacement not be possible until 2036-2040.
We will need an interim Frigate solution to act as a band aid over this period of time. The only practical solution in my view is to acquire, takeover and operate one or two ex RAN ANZAC's once they are removed from Australian service, alongside their remaining Anzacs during that period of time as they transition over to the Type 26 from the mid 2020's to mid 2030's. It would bridge the gaping capability hole of around a decade, retain regional capacity and allow us to make a measured decision into a long term Frigate replacement class without rushing into buying into a fresh programme uncooked. At least going for an ex RAN option is that their is a comprehensive support structure and will continue until the last of the 8 RAN Anzac vessels are out of service, that it is in reasonable proximity, and that the next 7 years will allow us time to second and embed personnel with the current RAN Anzacs to what are familiar yet different vessels as part of that transition.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
My understanding is that the Navy brass have long considered the IPVs to be too limited in capability to do much useful work, but still requiring half the crew of an OPV. It remains to be seen whether the deployments to Fiji will affect that view. The decision to pull the IPVs out of their de-facto mothballed state is presumably due to the absence of other vessels; with three vessels retired in the fairly recent past and one frigate in refit. The Plan makes it clear they are intended to be gone by 2025.
I agree with your wider point that the navy still has too few vessels for the range of tasks they aim to undertake, and zone of ocean they are supposed to cover.
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
Surprising really, considering the Defence still has most of that defence spend money left over after the P8 deal. Was the frigate upgrade, dive vessel coming out of that too? Even so, why skimp like there is no money available, and no justification for spending it, when this article, and many others, official and otherwise points out such a need ?
I think you need only to go to page 23 of the “PLAN”, the world map showing NZs geographic area of strategic responsibility, to see that the IPVs should be vital to your interests in the Pacific dependencies.
Given the growing influence of China in the region I would have thought that an enduring presence would be required, supporting the Oz Pacific Patrol Boat presence, giving operational guidance and possibly supported by some kind of sustainment infrastructure either fixed or mobile.
Some of these areas are sovereign NZs responsibility, they simply can’t be left to the whim of Chinese influence.
NZ is serious about its responsibility in the Antarctic, it should be matched by continuing action in the Pacific
The IPVs need to continue and be replaced when required
The IPV's, though limited in the context of the NZ EEZ's maritime conditions, should still be used in the Pacific if nothing is going to be able to look after that huge expanse of Ocean. There must be hybrid ways to fund, staff and base them up there on a semi permanent basis. Partially crewed by locals who have gone through NZ based and funded training, construction of joint use berth facilities under NZ Aid programmes ... if thinking caps were put on the right way round then solutions flow.
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
That is the way to deal with the IPV issue MrC .. Get some of Wnstons foriegn policy budget and use it to develop NZ Government facilities in the islands to support local based IPVs and KA 350 ER MPAs to deal with EEZ and SAR issues. These assets provide immediate aid during natural disasters and provide soverienty presence. Having a joint base if possible would reduce overall costs. Would be a nice deployment rotation with perks for family. If done where would be the likely locations that have infrastructure that can be expanded?
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
This might be a good solution for the islands to establish a base of operations there, provided they don't see it as an impingement on there sovereignty. Given how thier PM Frank Bainimarana has reacted in the past to Nz and Australian input that's where im thinking. If not, all good. Still raises the question of having most of the time nothing available post 2025 to prosecute inshore violations of our Nz fisheries via a seaborne navy vessel. Mpa aircraft obviously can't stop and inspect, detain, prosecute criminal activity.
Really? From what is widely available from the net and from Navies own admission is that they purely did not have the resources to crew them ie specialist positions such as marine engineers in particular due to recruitment, replacement and especially retention issues (due to higher paying civilian jobs) and only snowballed during the civilanisation debacle so had to come out.
Customs and MPI worries from the same period confirm they also could not meet their patrolling targets (along with navy, both IPV and OPV) for the same reasons, lack of resources, so surely if crewing was not the root problem then one would obviously cancel out the other as in IPVs would have been used and patrols would have been done.
Every ship in the navy has the exact same core crew requirements ie captain, OOW, engineers, medic, seaman etc irrespective of size or role it's only the basic number of which adjusts accordingly so obviously the larger fleet units with the "glamour" status'es and role dependant get priority for crewing and seemingly rightly so as imagine the uproar if say an ANZAC was mothballed due to lack of key crew? Would also not bode well for justifying their replacement. Average joe just assumes everyone in the navy drives the boat just like everyone in the airforce is a pilot and has no clue about specialist roles required to make the wheel spin.
I'm sure if navy could afford (littorally in some instances) to keep them then they would but it's a hard juggling act when you cannot put to sea 1 ship nevermind 4 as the pacific patrols have proven they can actually deploy and patrol (as in do their job) despite how certain politicians try to spin the situation to save face in the eyes of joe public taxpayer for yet another seemingly bad defence investment.
Under resourced is not the same as under required, just depends on what costs the least to justify that'll win the argument. IMO we should be funding and resourcing the 3rd frigate, 3rd OPV and retaining the IPVs (they also have other tasks) if govt was actually serious about our international, regional and local responsibilities as a small navy getting smaller only makes things harder but alas even our mighty navy is at breaking point and somethings gotta give in that large ocean so it's a classic case of which capability can we talk our way out of with least resistance from an apathetic public, reminds me of the ACF axe in some ways. Govt sits pretty each term meanwhile DF shrinks just that little bit more in terms of size, capability and outputs each decade.
Last edited:
Surely our pacific dependancies or struggling neighbours would welcome any investment in infrastructure, financial input and local employment to support such a venture as an FOB as well as the obvious patrolling assistance and presence.
We already have a large PI representaion in the DF and navy in particular so could provide for an adequate chance for any cadre positions "closer to home" as well as a decent regular posting cycle as I'm sure navy would have no shortage of volunteers especially during our winter.
I do think if Navy cannot correct it's manpower shortfalls in spec trades anyway then it would all still be rather a moot point as the IPVs would still have to sit idle when short of crew as per now, just in a nicer location. We only have trades to burn at the moment due to the number of ships in refit or sadly gone all together so in a weird way somewhat useful, for the IPVs at least.
@beegee All for a strong defence force but if we (Australia) had the money to buy an extra 2 ships much rather we buy 1 extra for our selves and use the rest to field it over its life. At best you are going to get Australia subsidizing the build, More likely doing it at cost but no way will we be gifting them to a nation that while we love you guys has on there own volition weakened there own armed forces. Would be one thing if we had a threat from our East but we don't, All of our threats are to the north and the west so if we give ships away for our own defence would be to those nations to the north and west that we have good relations with.
------
@Redlands18 While having one anti military person could cause some waves its unlikely would cause any serious changes. Oz gov is starting to do more and more work in Australia which means jobs, Which means the budget and force is safe. Worst case is they could limit how closely we work with the US but to that extent we are on a level hedging our bets by increasing cooperation with Singapore, India, Japan, South Korea while also laying the groundwork for a few other nations.
-----
What I'd like to see NZ do, If the politicians and community at large don't want 'warships' that they leave the option there. Get ships fitted for but not with, Leaves chance to fit them if needed but in peace time they can claim they are for peace keeping because they dont have offensive weapons. This way may be able to get more then 2 ships with no one to start throwing a tantrum about the RNZN readying to 'invade' some poor nation.
------
@Redlands18 While having one anti military person could cause some waves its unlikely would cause any serious changes. Oz gov is starting to do more and more work in Australia which means jobs, Which means the budget and force is safe. Worst case is they could limit how closely we work with the US but to that extent we are on a level hedging our bets by increasing cooperation with Singapore, India, Japan, South Korea while also laying the groundwork for a few other nations.
-----
What I'd like to see NZ do, If the politicians and community at large don't want 'warships' that they leave the option there. Get ships fitted for but not with, Leaves chance to fit them if needed but in peace time they can claim they are for peace keeping because they dont have offensive weapons. This way may be able to get more then 2 ships with no one to start throwing a tantrum about the RNZN readying to 'invade' some poor nation.
I would actually rather us to get an absalon to be the third "frigate", easier to sell to the masses and arguably just as/if not more useful for what we actually do with its added lift and comparitively just as/if not more capable defensively/offensively as our current frigates at least so nothing technically lost but still a considerable gain, especially since we only have 2 frigates now and have had for sometime with seemingly no issues so "just another frigate" will be quite an ask at this point in time, heck there's even talk of downsizing to upgraded OPVs so there's definately some convincing to do as is.
Get an absalon ball rolling soonish and in service before the timecard expires on the ANZACs and then replace those as per normal with 2 Ivers so as we are not left in a situation like we have now with multiple big ticket items needing replacement all around the same time.
Much like the ACF once gone a very hard, and expensive capabilty to justify getting back (the current govt was the axeman at that time so shows their "combat colours") so perhaps what is needed is an alternate angle for a goal.
We should really never have downsized the frigate fleet to begin with but then again we did gain a semi-decent sealift ship and 2 OPVs in lieu so not a bad deal as far as capability goes just a hard trade off but as per now a hard decision for a small navy to make IOT stay afloat so to speak.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I recall an article by Jim Dorschner at the now closed casr.ca site that proposed an Absalon as a replacement for Canada's Iroquois class destroyer. He proposed a hull plug that would allow for two additional engines to jack the speed up. Even without modifications this ship would be a useful ship to both the RCN and RNZN just for the RO/RO feature alone. As you say, the masses would be pacified by the HADR capability. Of course NZ would fare better as the ship would be built in Asian yard for an amount not to much higher than OMT charged the Danes. In Canada, Irving, Davie, or SeaSpan wouldn't do one for less than a billion and this amount is optimistic.