Looking back to the past, politicians only take note of advice that suits their political agenda and for any defence plan to go unaltered for more than a decade in the current political atmosphere due to MMP I think would be very unlikely. This does not mean the it will necessarily have either a negative or a positive effect on NZD, this would depend on the political and strategic situation at the time. But i would almost guarantee that it will change and that politics would play a bigger part in the change than the strategic situation due to pollies only wanting to see what they want to see and ignoring bad news until it is so much in their face they cannot ignore the bus that is about to run over them.
Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
Ocean1Curse
Member
Well yeah, you're probably more correct than I am. To much financialisation is bad for RNZN and NZDF. I think the DCP shows why rapid expansion is just bad in general and the weight of NZDF relative to the rest of the economy is rather under weight, a bit contradictory I know considering NZDF just has to grow. So consider that money has to be found for a 3rd or a 4 frigate navy because 2 frigates just isn't enough to provide security for 2, 3 or even 4 logistics vessels from oilers to amphibious ships, and this is where I leave the detail to the more experienced defence enthusiasts.
In the end this has very little to do with The Fiscal Responsibility Act 1994. It's about pure power. Political and financial elites have a million ways to wriggle out of what ever troubles hits the fan. Y'know so the price always gets passed onto the people who are least able to pay, the heaviest burdens always fall on defence people to carry. What it means is if the government is able to balance its books then it makes it almost impossible for NZDF to balance their books. So, more financialisation = bad for NZDF. So yeah, enough with the complicated financial calculus.
Try instead putting up a no fly zone or denying state criminals easy access to sovereign Kiwi resources via the Southern Ocean with the tool box the government has today. Obviously we don't want troops on the ground long term for many reasons. One reason might be because a voluntary force lacks the recruiting numbers to sustain high casualties so we just have to get our heads around putting up no fly zones and denying access to kiwi resources via the sea. And we throw up these defences so that immigrants jumping queues and criminals don't invade. This include boarder security and protection against economic diseases. Right now China is culling an estimated 200 million pigs for fear of swine flue and boarder security agents and testing regimes in Australia, they've been picking up traces of swine flue in cooked meat products from China for quite awhile now - Pigs are being buried alive as China's African swine fever crisis deepens
So there is quite a bit of catch up to do real quick smart in the defence spaces. Definitely New Zealand's boarders and security apparatus is leaking in more ways than one. And I would argue that it is due to a warming and ever changing environment that is ever increasing. So politicians can say what ever they like. Defence spending will rise to meet the challenges whether anti defence mentalities like it or not.
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
I am surprised that no one has suggested that the NZG offer to take over the operation of HMAS Perth to function as the RNZNs third frigate. Apparently she hasnt sailed for three years.
Send her to Victoria ASAP and viola a three frigate navy.
RAN frigate out of service for more than three years largely due to personnel issues | Jane's 360
Send her to Victoria ASAP and viola a three frigate navy.
RAN frigate out of service for more than three years largely due to personnel issues | Jane's 360
Kiwigov
Member
I see the reason given in the article is that the RAN "can't muster a crew" - which is an extraordinary admission. I recall a few years ago the same (lack of personnel) issue was preventing use of the Collins subs. And the RAN (I understand) pays rather more than the RNZN...
To my mind, this Trans-Tasman recruitment and retention problem must be a major risk to the DCP proposal for a 6,000 strong Army; unless NZ further expands recruitment to Pacific nations (as it does quietly already)
To my mind, this Trans-Tasman recruitment and retention problem must be a major risk to the DCP proposal for a 6,000 strong Army; unless NZ further expands recruitment to Pacific nations (as it does quietly already)
As discussed on the RAN thread, both Newcastle’s and Melbourne will decommission shortly and that should solve the problem, if not the RAN needs to “steal” more Kiwis, Brits and Canucks.
Problem being we would then have the same problem. The only reason we have just put our parked IPVs to sea is due to the excess crews from the frigates now being available with nothing but time, once the frigates return we will be back in the same boat so to speak ie short on core trades and back the IPVs go, "on the blocks". They are being sold due to lack of use, unsuitability, change in direction blah blah blah.... As the great tui would say, yeah right.
Recruitment and retention still needs addressing as there is more to putting a ship to sea than just throwing a whole gang of new recruits at it and expecting a functioning crew/ship. Until this is sorted, numbers built and more importantly experience retained then in all honesty as much as I am all for it, another frigate at this point would be rather pointless. If Aus cannot even man their frigates with their pay then imagine our difficulty as ironically alot leave here to go to Aus with their tickets as well, certain trades just cannot match civilian rates and are actually poached. Everyone has a long term plan, defence personnel are no different.
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
Yeah, even crewing the larger ships Aotearoa, Manawanui, and the proposed much larger replacement for Canterbury are going to propose an issue,while I disagree with retiring the Ipvs, I can see why they are. What happens then with local fishery patrols though, surely one extra Opv can't be in four places at once? Will days at sea be increased for the other ships, or will customs get more vessels to cover that role?
Hopefully they have retention sorted by the time the added ships arrive. The whole civilianisation debacle killed a whole lot of experience (not just navy) and pretty much an entire generation of knowledge was lost with the flick of an idea, something that takes time to rebuild, recruits are instant but a knowledge base is grown and the level of both is all dependant on time and effort. This has left certain units and trades struggling to catch up, especially the smaller ones to a point where ex pers are being asked to return. They could increase at sea days all they like on paper but then they just fail to meet them so again a fruitless exercise more for show/justification than action.
I guess it will have to be a case of offloading this role onto civilian agencies as a matter of having to really but then you would think if the SME navy cannot man a few patrol craft then would any other organisation be able to replicate the service without extra funding/resources/manpower to function? (ironically navys issue) and to what standard? Police seem to man their vessels but I think they have the advantage of a larger pool to draw from for a niche posting so get the numbers either way an added cost to someone that will no doubt have to be taken from navy to fund as that is/was a govt output they were otherwise budgeted to do previously. Perhaps a new standalone unit contracted to cater to customs, fisheries, SAR tasks with allocated hours for each as per now rather than each investing in their own duplicate services?
My argument has always been transfer the IPVs to the Reserves and build up their seagoing capabilities again. The idea of the Reserves has always been to back up the Regulars and if you have reserve personnel able to slot into crew positions seamlessly then you can solve a lot of the crewing problems short term. Plus the regulars who leave the regular navy, could be enticed to transfer across to the reserves, which in doing so are retaining that skill set and years of experience and knowledge, that they can pass on to the reserve units. the argument that some regulars use, claiming the ships are to technical for the reserves is absolute bull$hit. There are those in the reserve who are more technically experienced and / or qualified than many regulars because of their civilian occupations. From what I understand, the NZ Army operate their reserves in such a fashion and their is no reason why the RNZN can't.
Exactly, they used to fly them up the country to sail the IPVs back down the coast, return and fly home all to keep the IPVs in DNB, seemed like an officers idea to me as we have had decades of IPCs based in the main centres/ports with the Rockies. The reserves are supposed to be trained to such a standard as to slot into regulars easily so an IPV should be 'technically' a walk in the park along with a cadre crew as all reserve units have anyway. Inshore should be the reserve forces domain just like regional are their land bretherins area of influence, nothing beats local knowledge even in NZ.
Already paid for, already on the books and already known as you can be sure we will make a loss on these if we can even sell them. Trying to say they are not suited to the conditions is another sellout as these vessels are a vast improvement on the old but that's what happens when you shift the goalposts (literally further) with any caoability, that being said the islands deployments have also quashed that somewhat as well.
All this is is a face saving exercise as stating they are unsuitable for the task is a heck of alot easier to sell and for Joe public to swallow than admitting they just cannot man them (even though they already have) and having them parked up alongside (once the frigates return) is a constant reminder and start point for all the naysayers. Getting rid of a problem is not solving another, it's just ignoring it.
Thanks OPSSG for the response.
Singapore's great at getting capability from her ships with minimum crew.
Certainly can understand this as a need from a small population seeking maximum effect form all of her platforms.
Their new Independence class looks very impressive, and certainly makes use of automaton to minimise her crew.
Just as Singapore is challenged with crew numbers, New Zealand will also have this in mind, if not for retention issues, but certainly for budget reasons.
Maybe the starting point for NZ will be the allocated crew / budget for it's two ship Amphibious fleet, and just what is the biggest ship for a class of two that can be afforded.
What Singapore replaces their Endurance class with is still uncertain, but as you have mentioned with the proposed Endurance 170, it may be an option.
It is certainly an very impressive concept and with minimum crewing through automation certainly one of it's attributes
No doubt it has many advantages over a smaller LPD, both in size and flexibility.
A good fit for many a navy
The question for New Zealand is really, can they afford to both purchase, and operate two of such a relatively large class of ship?
If yes, then a great choice.
Realistically, I feel both on budget and politics it will not get up.
Given availability often equals capability, I feel two smaller LPD's would be a better fit, than a aging Canterbury and a Endurance 170.
But who knows what the future holds.
Singapore may strike a good deal to build The Endurance 170 for both counties Navy's, which may prove a win, win for all.
Fingers crossed AH!
Regards S
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Part of the issue has been the areas requiring patrolling. Looking at the Hawk V, which Customs got in early 2018, it is a much smaller vessel requiring a crew of only four, vs. the ~20 not including extra personnel from other gov't departments and agencies that the IPV's require. Also due to smaller size, lower displacement and reduced draught, would likely be able to operate closer to shore/the NZ coastline than the IPV's can. By the same token, the IPV's themselves due to size and displacement, are really not suited to carrying out EEZ patrols up to 200+ n miles away from the NZ coast, not given some of the weather and seas in that area.
And I tend to disagree. The RNZN has finite resources and personnel, and the functions of the IPV's, namely inshore patrolling, can likely be performed more effectively using vessels smaller than 55 m, 340 tonne patrol boats with a crew of 20 + up to 16 additional personnel. After all, Customs has a patrol responsibility for some of the same inshore or near shore waters, and selected an 18 m cat... That suggests to me that the IPV's are "too much boat," for some of the mission tasks, but too little to carry out much offshore work.
We used to take the Moa class IPC 200 nm offshore if we had too, and they rolled on wet grass. The droggies (Hydrographic Branch) used to take their ISCs which had the same same hull as the Moa IPC all over the place. The current IPVs are more capable in all aspects than the IPCs ever were. In the pre Moa class days it was done with HDMLs which were WW2 Fairmile launch MTB / MGB hulls and they were wet boats to say the least.
Define offshore. Is defined by a prescribed distance from a particular datum, of by a prescribed depth of water under the keel? Just for your info, there are two stretches of water in NZ that are the second and third roughest pieces of water in the world and they are no further than 30 nm from land at their widest point. Cook Strait between the North and South Islands, and Foveaux Strait between the South Island and Stewart Island, both of them only eclipsed by Cape Horn.
We did hoki patrols off the South Island West Coast in the middle of winter in a Moa class IPC, going out to wherever the FFVs were 100, 150, 200 nm offshore. This is not a nice place to be when the winds and the sea gets up, especially in winter. The Moa class were rated for 4 m seas and 40 knot winds. They had a max speed of 12 knots and going down hill with a tail wind we could get some more, so when it cut up rough we couldn't run anywhere. It was batten down the hatches, secure the beer fridge and beer store, and ride it out. Made for some interesting times.
Doing a fisheries patrol we had two fisheries officers on board and anywhere from 12 - 16 Reserve crew. The IPC crew was 5 officers, 3 senior rates and 10 junior rates although most of the times I sailed it was anything but with usually 2 - 3 O, 1 - 3 SR, and 6 - 10 JR. I never did a fisheries patrol with any regular navy onboard. TBH when they did sail with us, they whinged about the one watch on two off system which was the norm for us, or couldn't handle the watch on watch off, which we would run if short handed, was known to happen more than once. They also had trouble handling the movement of the IPCs to begin with, so a lot of them fed the fish for the first few days until they got used to the motion of the IPC - we didn't have stabilisers.
So over all I think your argument is somewhat specious because you aware unaware of the local conditions and how the previous craft were operated. You are also unaware of the RNZN culture, especially in the wardroom, where the reserves are looked down upon and devalued - a cultural class hangover from the RN days. It took the RNZAF officer corp years to rid itself of most of the inherent class snobbery inherited from the RAF.
The Protector class IPVs would be ideal vessels for reserve divisions to operate, especially the Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin divisions.
Naval crews are "larger" to cover watches/shifts and provide 24hr operation, handy for multiple boardings and transits to cover the most vessels and wider area, a crew of 4 will be limited in the amount of hours they can do in any one day. Customs do not have to wait for ships to come into shore (probably better not to actually) to check them over and even if an IPV did then they use the RHIBs and mothership anyway, meaning alot more can be achieved in a shorter period.
Customs selected an 18m type because it is the exact same type as the police and coastguard vessels that preceded it for cost benefits on a proven platform family. They do not have the patrol budget of navy nevermind the equipment budget so all rather relative but it would be a given that they do not have the sealegs of an IPV either, better over optioned than under equipped.
As Ngati has stated, from experience, the IPVs are much more capable than the IPCs they replaced so would suggest they can infact do alot more, but then is that not the argument for another OPV anyway? That they can do more? On the other hand if an IPV is "overkill" for inshore work then would that not mean a replacement OPV is then ridiculous for it?
Yes resources are finite, for everyone, not just navy, so now customs would have to fund 2+ more vessels, crews, training etc when navy already does this and more on a daily basis with all infrastructure and knowledge as part of the wider navy, Customs would in fact have to set up their own network. Would be abit like police funding a few Blackhawks to add to eagle flight to cover their own yearly operations due to the cost of operating NH90s or them being deemed overkill. It all costs in the end either way you slice it and in fact what we have found from contracting out services and civilianisation is that the "savings" are not always that clear cut or even that beneficial, limited and constrained yes, flexible and adaptable no, at least not for a price.
Where did you learn geography Ngāti, on the back of a weatbix box maybe?It would depend very much upon the circumstances and what the GOTD deemed necessary. If it was in PNG, Solomon Islands, Fiji, Tonga or Samoa probably at least 3 armoured corps; they're not exactly people you want to be on the wrong side of when they're all fired up and grumpy.
All of them are really nice until you cross them, which you do at your peril; same as us Maori. Tongans, Samoans, Fijians and Maori are Polynesians whilst PNG's and Solomon Islanders are Melanesian. All of these peoples are warrior cultures, especially the Fijian, Samoan, PNG, Tongan and Maori and today that warrior ethos is funnelled either into the armed forces or into sport, but it is always present; some claim that we have the so called warrior gene. There are still tribes in the PNG hinterland who are believed to still practice cannibalism and it was 180 years ago that us Maori were still practising it.
Fiji isn’t Polynesian, it’s geographically part of Melanesia, the Fijian people migrated from Melanesia around 3500 years ago. Indigenous Fijians are predominantly ofMelanesian extraction, with somePolynesian admixture. Besides that Fijians look completely different from Polynesians, they are darker, have curly hair and physically have a different build.
Whangarei pins hopes on a $240m dry dock for economic boost
Progress perhaps on a dry-dock?
Progress perhaps on a dry-dock?
Plenty to fit HMNZS Canterbury and Aotearoa, with scope for HMNZS Canterbury's supplement/replacement to be larger
This would give impetus to eventually shifting the RNZN to Whangarei as well. Possibly sooner
The best location for the new Port of Auckland is at Matingarahi Point on the Firth of Thames and only 25kms of new connecting infrastructure to the city is required versus 160 kms at NorthPort which would double the cost of the Port. The Navy at Whangarei would be a good 2nd prize for Shane Jones and Winston Peters in their quest to spend as much of the taxpayers money as possible in Northland buying NZ First a Parliamentary seat.
I was told by a PO many years ago that the grass did not even have to be wet.
I spent a couple of days in the bigger lake class 33m IPC's including part of a day in Cook Strait with the wind of "only" 35 kts NW and can testify to how wrough it gets as we had to stand or lie flat as the shock loadings when going into wind hurt your back if you sat down and the beer bottles in the fridge broke. So never underestimate Cook strait. The one time I was on Foveaux strait years ago the skipper of the boat said it was only a breese and the wavers were ok as the small ones were only 4 metres
The 18.5m Teknicraft designed and Q-West built vessels in service with the the Police and Customs are used as multi-agency vessels already and often have mixed agency personnel on board. A maritime border force with fit for purpose legislation to get the best out of the personnel and vessels would be a great step forward in terms of better management of resources.
The whole inshore fisheries sector has dramatically changed since the Maritime Forces Review of 2000 leading to the Protector fleet as quotas have rationalised with way less small commercial fishers within the old 12nm limit compared to the 1990's and the fewer quota holders mostly the corporates like Sealords and Sanfords using larger vessels. At the same time more recreational small boats fishing within 3nm than that period.
Fisheries NZ has plumbed for small high speed response craft that are quickly transportable by towed road trailer to meet the need for recreational close shore compliance and monitoring small vessel commercial operators rather than relying on 55m IPV's.
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
A new naval base in the Northland seems to have many benefits none the least of which is housing and the cost of living for naval personnel.
Operationally it looks like there is plenty of land available in the port lands area. The question that keeps going thru my mind is what would the value of Devonport be if it were to be sold for private development?
Would it not make sense to also consider a south island naval facility for the one or two SOPV(s)? This would be closer to the Southern Ocean area of operations as well.
Operationally it looks like there is plenty of land available in the port lands area. The question that keeps going thru my mind is what would the value of Devonport be if it were to be sold for private development?
Would it not make sense to also consider a south island naval facility for the one or two SOPV(s)? This would be closer to the Southern Ocean area of operations as well.