Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
Flexson
Active Member
I certainly wouldn't argue against that. I was just remarking on how they came to the 144 missiles as opposed to 96.
I just realised the Hunter could only carry 32 X 4 ESSM and 8 ASMs for a max of 136 missiles.
Canning of the Inshore Patrol Vessels as per DCP 2019
"Operational experience has confirmed that specific tasks required of the naval patrol force are better conducted by offshore patrol vessels than inshore patrol vessels, particularly in the South Pacific, due to their longer range, endurance and embarked aviation capability. Two inshore patrol vessels will be withdrawn from service and disposed of immediately, leaving two vessels to meet the demands of domestic patrols within the exclusive economic zone. Prior to the Southern Ocean Patrol Vessel coming into service, which will give greater capacity to the offshore patrol fleet, the future of the remaining two inshore patrol vessels will be reassessed. Indicative dates: Initial two vessels withdrawn from service – 2020."
"Operational experience has confirmed that specific tasks required of the naval patrol force are better conducted by offshore patrol vessels than inshore patrol vessels, particularly in the South Pacific, due to their longer range, endurance and embarked aviation capability. Two inshore patrol vessels will be withdrawn from service and disposed of immediately, leaving two vessels to meet the demands of domestic patrols within the exclusive economic zone. Prior to the Southern Ocean Patrol Vessel coming into service, which will give greater capacity to the offshore patrol fleet, the future of the remaining two inshore patrol vessels will be reassessed. Indicative dates: Initial two vessels withdrawn from service – 2020."
If the choice for patrol forces is binary then this decision makes sense regarding the budgetary circumstance, however, there is an absolute need for small patrol forces in the Pacific as the Pacific Patrol Boat programme from Australia has demonstrated so...
Maybe the best option would be to gift the boats to Fiji/Samoa and provide operational and technical support from the RNZN.
Last edited:
Indeed. And this could come out of the MFAT budget which has been increased by $740m in the recent budget as part of the Pacific reset.
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
So that means a capability gap then, how are they going to continue with the Fijian patrols the Ipv have been doing if the remain two are earmarked for local, the Opv are busy elsewhere ? No SOPV tender on the horizon either.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Would they viably be able to operate them though? IIRC a number of the recipient nations of Pacific-class patrol boats, which were designed to be supported locally by the various receiving nations, had encountered problems in sustaining the Pacific-class boats in terms of fueling, maintenance and logistical support. The RNZN IPV's, which are considerably larger vessels (~twice the LoA and displacement) with a larger minimum crew, I would expect would similarly be more resource intensive to sustain.
Now if the NZG was to provide a RNZN detachment to carry out the maintenance and support functions locally, as well as ensuring a parts/spares supply chain, that might work. Not sure that MFAT would be quite willing to fund a Defence establishment overseas though.
The IPV's might do well in the Philippines, or possibly even PNG (with some RNZN and/or RAN help).
It all comes down to money and yes it could work if it was based in Fiji which at least has some support infrastructure and a small marine industry who could manage it. The others would struggle though.
MFAT would fund the Pacific Forum Secretariat and not directly to a nation. Thus ideally it would be not be a direct Mil2Mil donation but a gift to the Secretariat of initially the vessels and the ongoing receipt of NZ Aid money. MFAT would only have reporting oversight of making sure the funds were appropriately managed. RNZN staff seconded to train a cross-section of Pacifika personnel. The vessels could return to NZ for more significant maintenance and support contracted at Babcocks or other with NZ GOTD picking up the tab.
Noting, of course, that most of the island nations are already receiving Guardian class 39.5 metre PBs from Australia; two for most, one for the smallest, and four for PNG. They are specifically designed to be readily maintainable locally (but with Austal contracted to do DLM in Cairns for the first seven years at least), and I think in all cases come with at least an RAN technical sailor and a 2 1/2 dibbie as the maritime security advisor. That said, Fiji or PNG could probably handle the IPVs and might want them and Samoa and Tonga possibly could. The others, probably not..
And noting the fact that Fiji are already slated to get two of the new 40m patrol boats under SEA 3036 along will all the logisitic support. The two ex-NZ IPV would need a similar support level (which is not minor and includes wharf facilities) and additional crewing.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Which I suspect would be problematic for Fiji, especially since the IPV crewing requirements in RNZN service is ~20, not including additional gov't personnel.
The solution to all that is as I said by working through the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat's Council for Security Cooperation with personnel drawn from the member nations. They would be the programme manager of record. Not an individual government. A shared asset under the Forums umbrella and the Secretariat direction - which already includes customs, fisheries, immigration, policing liaison between the states. Fiji makes sense as a base because of its central location and Suva is where the PIF Secretariat is based.
Yes there is the 40m Guardian program to small states on an individual basis. However, eventually up to 4 55m ex RNZN IPV's would be a separate programme providing additional capacity when required for individual nations as directed by the Secretariat.
Yes there is the 40m Guardian program to small states on an individual basis. However, eventually up to 4 55m ex RNZN IPV's would be a separate programme providing additional capacity when required for individual nations as directed by the Secretariat.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Royal New Zealand Navy
As as aside to the DCP discussions underway, I found this response to a question on the RNZN Facebook page. The post was about the Edda Fonn, and the post noted that her voyage from Denmark to NZ was done on a single tank of fuel. The vendors were presumably also responsible for paying her passage through the Panama Canal, which I think is close to $500,000 per commercial vessel.
Royal New Zealand Navy The ship has the tank capacity to hold 1.1 million litres of marine gas oil. It left Denmark with 1 million litres on board and arrived in NZ with 320,000 litres remaining. As part of the vessel procurement the owners were responsible for all the costs in delivering the ship to New Zealand. Whilst the ship can do 15 knots, for an extremely long transit journey such as that the most economical configuration is two (of the four) engines running with one (of the two) stern thrusters maintaining 10-11 knots.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
So $25k instead of $500k, pretty significant difference which likely explains why the "Cape" alternatives were off the table. What are the Suez rates like?
milliGal
Member
I've been considering what kind of sealift vessel NZ might go for following the announcement in the DCP. The document suggests a Landing Platform Dock style vessel equipped with a well dock. They want something larger and more capable than HMNZS Canterbury, which displaces 9000T, but I don't think they'll go all the way out to a helicopter carrier (theres not much need with our small fleet). Something along the lines of the Royal Navy's Albion class seems to fit quite well with their requirements.
Well it turns out these ships might be surplus to the Royal Navy's requirements. They currently alternate between ships with one held in a state of extended readiness while they other gets used. Perhaps the NZ Government should consider making an offer on one of these vessels. They would get the capability they need some 8 years earlier than currently planned, and at a fraction of the cost. They could then take their time with procuring a more tailored replacement for HMNZS Canterbury in the 2030s, and recycle the savings into other programs.
Well it turns out these ships might be surplus to the Royal Navy's requirements. They currently alternate between ships with one held in a state of extended readiness while they other gets used. Perhaps the NZ Government should consider making an offer on one of these vessels. They would get the capability they need some 8 years earlier than currently planned, and at a fraction of the cost. They could then take their time with procuring a more tailored replacement for HMNZS Canterbury in the 2030s, and recycle the savings into other programs.
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
Heh, I made that same argument here a few months ago about amphibious warships like Hms Ocean, sold to Brazil when it was only commised in 1998, and had and in recent years refit! Seeing we are building Aotearoa , a ship with much larger tonnage it's not like we're not prepared to handle ships that size.Ship went for a song at £85 million, not much more than actually paid for a much less capable Hmnzs Canterbury, once you do the money conversion to Nz dollars. Surely the 20 Billion touted on the news last night could contribute to the extra navy personell and logistics to support a vessel that size.
Both ships are 20 years old and we would likely have to undertake an expensive MLU to get another 15 years out of whichever one we acquired. Also they have a crewing complement of 325 which is basically the combined total of both our ANZAC FFHs. The question would be for short term gain would it be a worthwhile option; i.e., value for money? It would most likely take 3 - 4 years to plan and undertake a MLU, which is about the same time that it would take to tender and build a LPD / LHD from an existing design iif they got their act together. The DCP has a indicated budget of $1 billion for such a vessel, so the money is now budgeted and out of that budget approximately $600 - 700 million will be for the vessel including landing craft, with the remaining $300 - 400 million for other costs such as training, manuals, simulators, maintenance contracts etc. Depending upon the type of vessel chosen, design and fitout, the ships complement could be as low as 150 including permanently drafted (posted to the ship) RNZAF and NZ Army personnel. There is no real reason why such a new build could not be in NZ waters around 2024 - 2025, apart from politics. Personnel are an Operational Expenditure budget output, not a Capital Expenditure budget output.
I think that we may have to give Helen Clark as some of the credit for the LPD/LHD as she was responsible for HMNZS Canterbury which I think showed how useful such a ship could be but how bad the limitations were if you did not do a proper job of the ship in the first place and took the cheap option.