Your getting old and forgetful NG.
Kiwi in Exile posted this a couple of months ago.
Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
Kiwi in Exile posted this a couple of months ago.
Well I am not far off going on the old buggers payroll.Your getting old and forgetful NG.
Kiwi in Exile posted this a couple of months ago.
CJohn
Active Member
The RNZN adds four new REMUS 300 UUVs to it's mix of six REMUS 100's from Huntington Ingalls.
www.navalnews.com
Royal New Zealand Navy Orders Four REMUS 300 UUVs from HII - Naval News
Huntington Ingalls Industries announced that the Royal New Zealand Navy has placed the first international order for four REMUS 300 unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs).
www.navalnews.com
Yes, but part of that is price differences. Internal costs (e.g. personnel) are higher, so the same amount of spending buys less in Denmark. Doesn't affect imports (e.g. of weapons), though.Danish GDP is 150b higher than NZ GDP.
Country comparison Denmark vs New Zealand 2024
Country comparison, you can compare any two countries and see the data side by side. Here you have the comparison of Denmark vs New Zealandcountryeconomy.com
Adjusted for that, I think Denmark's defence spending is about 50% higher than New Zealand's. The hardware & personnel numbers suggest that Denmark gets more bang for the krone.
Nighthawk.NZ
Well-Known Member
It really irks when people compare other countries with similar population on defence spending... there is more to than just that;
From the GDP size to the % of GDP, to what their dollar can actually buy, compared to the what the NZD can actually buy, to, do they have their own defence building industry, what are their defence needs, are they land locked or a island nation, requiring a larger navy or more army focused. Are they surrounded my enemies or allies, what do they pay their troops compared to NZ. How many deployments and exercises per year... all comes out of the budget and all this can make a huge difference...
I could go on but you get the point...
From the GDP size to the % of GDP, to what their dollar can actually buy, compared to the what the NZD can actually buy, to, do they have their own defence building industry, what are their defence needs, are they land locked or a island nation, requiring a larger navy or more army focused. Are they surrounded my enemies or allies, what do they pay their troops compared to NZ. How many deployments and exercises per year... all comes out of the budget and all this can make a huge difference...
I could go on but you get the point...
That's a terrible excuse young fellaWell I am not far off going on the old buggers payroll.
Actually, they have only re-released that document. If you read it, it actually came out in 2018. The Chief of Navy is RADM Martin! Remember that the whole NZDF public website died (possibly of old age!) a little while back, no-one had made a backup it seems, and they had to create a new website from scratch. Makes you wonder if these people should have any input into fighting cyber attacks, doesn't it?
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
No doubt for HMNZS Matataua (the former Littoral Warfare Unit), their specialist detachment teams whom deploy on the likes of HMNZS Manawanui (multi-role offshore support vessel), the two Rapid Environmental Assessment (REA) boats Takapu and Tarapunga (and IIRC from the OPV's when required?).The RNZN adds four new REMUS 300 UUVs to it's mix of six REMUS 100's from Huntington Ingalls.
Royal New Zealand Navy Orders Four REMUS 300 UUVs from HII - Naval News
Huntington Ingalls Industries announced that the Royal New Zealand Navy has placed the first international order for four REMUS 300 unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs).
I would like to see the government give some consideration (as to the suitability) of the two "surplus" IPV's being allocated to the Matataua unit in the interim (rather than being sold off), to allow them have dedicated vessels that are self-sufficient and can self-deploy to NZ ports for harbour defence duties and training in the areas of MCM and clearance and so on.
This would add another layer (complementing the larger vessels HMNZS Manawanui and the OPV's, which would likely be deployed elsewhere conducting higher risk/task operations related to their primary roles i.e. way offshore outside of our EEZ or even overseas on formal deployment etc).
From that experience gained, and when the IPV's are due for retirement (2030's?), that consideration be given to acquiring dedicated vessels equipped with the likes of sonar and ASW capabilities, again for harbor and coastal defence duties & ISR (off-shore defence is another situation/solution).
I'm taking into account of what NgatiMozart posted recently, in relation to "unfriendly" submarines transitioning through the likes of Cook Strait and the deep sea trenches off the NZ coast (including hiding in them).
Harbour/coastal defence and ASW was a big issue in WW2 for NZ. Dozens of vessels were requisitioned for local MCM and ASW duties (including a number of specialist vessels eg the Castle Class trawlers, Fairmile Marine motor launches and the HDML's etc). With the previous government's decision to retire the IPC's that were based in the four main ports we appear to have a vulnerability that has not been effectively plugged.
In fact one could argue the 4 port basing was based on outdated (WW2) thinking, with other ports such as Taranaki (offshore gas), Whangarei (oil refinery) or Tauranga (major container shipping destination) that a more flexible approach is needed nowadays (small forward operating bases perhaps). I'd also throw in Wanganui or Foxton (defence of NZ's primary airbase at Ohakea) into the wish list mix (eg "unfriendly" special forces brought in by submarine (including using small drones) to undertake sabotage or disruption against the ASW P-8 Poseidons etc).
Cost wise, these are cheap assets to acquire. (Or near zilch if re-rolling the two IPV's, apart from some mods eg sensors - perhaps some basic enhanced weaponry until a more specialised replacement vessel can be built in the future eg with torpedo tubes or whatever is best practice etc).
Personnel wise, these are low numbers (relative to say Frigate crewing) and could be supplemented by an expanded Naval Reserve.
Basing wise, ideally (wishful thinking) one would setup a forward operating base in Otago (which is being scoped out for the SOPV anyway, reported previously). It could be fantastic to resurrect the former naval bases (again as low-manned forward operating bases) in Lyttelton (Ngati - any idea what happened to the land/base there? Was it demolished or sold off for commercial use post WW2?) and Wellington (although unsure how practical this is - in Wellington's case the former Shelly Bay base that was sold off is locked in a seemingly never ending dispute with developers and Iwi (local Maori tribes) ... I don't think the redevelopment will ever get anywhere so could a prudent government handsomely buy out or lease the land from Iwi ... or simply setup another depot around the peninsula coast, eastside, near the satellite receiving station - there are no houses or Nimby's there! Regardless I would like to stress the importance of Wellington as a FOB due to it's close proximity to Cook Strait). Alternatively I have doubts about Picton - the area could be blockaded by mines (resulting in critical time lost clearing them). For the other ports the Navy would simply tie up at existing port facilities perhaps with appropriate enhanced security measures in place.
Anyway just some random thoughts, could any good bits form part of the Maritime Security review?
Edit: corrected typos and added P-8 Poseidon to clarify target in mind.
Last edited:
Much of the thinking under pinning it goes back to the last DWP which though released in 2016 had most of its conceptual scoping 2 years earlier.
One of the points that Paul Buchanan made in his interview with Selwyn Manning was things have greatly changed since the last DWP.
The DWP16 and the MS18 was all about what I paraphrase as the "Southern Ocean" pivot".
"There will be more emphasis on Southern Ocean and Antarctic operations, an increased presence in the South Pacific to support states in the region to patrol their maritime zones, and increased provision to carry out Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief (HADR) operations."
Which was the obvious signal to never fund immediately a SOPV project and immediately can the IPV's which though pretty underwhelming for what is required, at least with a bit of bloody effort could have been in the very least an overt patrol presence in the South Pacific until a couple of more suitable replacements could have been built.
I have not bothered to read it again to check as non fiction is my literary preference, but does the Navy still go by RADM Martin's vision
"To be a world-class Navy for a large maritime nation."
@recce.k1 HMNZS Tasman was the naval establishment in Lyttelton and the facilities for that are long gone replaced by port developments. The port company is quite protective of its inner port footprint so would be quite resistant to a permanent naval presence within it. I agree with your suggestion about the rerolling of the IPVs. They would be ideal for the role and also other taskings that may come to hand.
@MrConservative Yes the aforementioned documents are somewhat underwhelming. They definitely don't strike fear in any opponents heart and cause quaking of their bowels. "To be a world-class Navy for a large maritime nation." Who are they kidding? Its PR rubbish.
WRT to the upcoming national security strategy workshop in Wellington, I have been informed that it's been run by the DPMC so that will mean that any results will be buried deep never to see the light of day. The person who informed me suggested that the DPMC will use this to muzzle the attendees participation in future debate upon defence and security. That will not surprise me in the slightest.
@MrConservative Yes the aforementioned documents are somewhat underwhelming. They definitely don't strike fear in any opponents heart and cause quaking of their bowels. "To be a world-class Navy for a large maritime nation." Who are they kidding? Its PR rubbish.
WRT to the upcoming national security strategy workshop in Wellington, I have been informed that it's been run by the DPMC so that will mean that any results will be buried deep never to see the light of day. The person who informed me suggested that the DPMC will use this to muzzle the attendees participation in future debate upon defence and security. That will not surprise me in the slightest.
Not playing devils advocate here, just naively curious as this isn't the sort of stuff I'm familiar with...
Wouldn't the DPMC be the logical convenor of a national security strategy workshop? ...and it be sensible that there were some sort of control over what was reported out of it... especially with a defence assesment planned?
Officials Committee for Domestic and External Security Coordination is part of the DPM&C. And yes some things there are obviously TSS level. For a workshop with vetted people bought in with lower clearances their is paper work and signatures first.
TBH it was new to me as well, but when you think about it that would be logical because of the preparatory work required for Cabinet. When I sat down and expanded the post I wrote on the NZDF thread about a National Security Strategy into a paper, I wrote that defence and security policy, procurement etc., should be taken out of the Executive's hands and such authority restored to Parliament. Once the National Security Strategy is defined and agreed to, it should be enacted into law with the provision that changes to policy, NZDF procurement, capabilities etc., require 75% majority approval by Parliament. It would also require a minimum amount of funding per annum for NZDF etc. In my mind that would end the wild swings in NZ defence policy and the continued under resourcing and neglect of NZDF and wider security elements.
Just came accross this item - today in Stiff news and SUnday Times. DIrect ref is Northport - Vision for growth
Northport plans to acquire a floating dock to handle vessels up to 250m long. Mention is made of servicing Nz Navy vessels, rail ferries and other domestic shipping. THe facility would be run and managed by private business interests.
Northport plans to acquire a floating dock to handle vessels up to 250m long. Mention is made of servicing Nz Navy vessels, rail ferries and other domestic shipping. THe facility would be run and managed by private business interests.
Last edited by a moderator:
Pepe le pew
Member
Refining NZ is almost certain to confirm the conversion of the adjoining oil refinery an import only facility next month.
They have indicated that part of their existing site would become available for redevelopment.
Vote on turning Northland's Marsden Pt oil refinery into storage terminal only due next month - NZ Herald
The Government has also recently approved funding for construction of a new railway spur line to Marsden Point. This will make Northport development plans even more attractive to many.
Comment: Latest investment to grow rail for Northland - NZ Herald
And moving Devenport Naval Base up there would make sense as well. They should move RNZAF Base Whenuapai up there too, ensuring that the runway is long enough for a fully laden P-8A Poseidon to take off from on a calm stink hot day.
I also have a problem with the shutting down of the refining capability at Marsden Point because it significantly reduces our resilience. That's something that we don't have a lot of at the moment and I am given to understand the we don't have 3 months of FOL (Fuels, Oils, & Lubricants) supplies in NZ. Whilst we do have some in the Japanese supply, they are of no use to us if we cannot get them here. There are to many assumptions that we can hire tankers as and when required and that they will be able to sail merrily between the Japanese supply and here with impunity. If anything the last 16 months have taught us that world merchant shipping can be disrupted quite dramatically and to our disadvantage.
I get the sad feeling that the Government is going to drop the ball on this one (the refinery). Asleep at the wheel again! Not sure how much influence they can bring to bear though - I believe the major shareholders are the 4 largest petrol companies (ie. private businesses). It will be a poor strategic decision if they stop NZ's only refining activities at Marsden Pt. Unfortunately, NZ private businesses are not known for great thinking strategically (ie they are way too short term focused).
Hopefully, at least the dry-dock development goes ahead (I think the cost was estimated at about $240m). This was one of the 5 Northland projects that Shane Jones & NZ First were trying to get going in the last parliamentary term. To my mind, the dry dock is the most urgent. Maybe Defence could pay $100m, Kiwirail $100m and the remaining private shipping industry the remaining $40m. It looks like the proposed dry dock is one of Damen's modular ones. Hopefully, they remember to add on a large ocean-going tug to the order so they can move the sections of it about.
Hopefully, at least the dry-dock development goes ahead (I think the cost was estimated at about $240m). This was one of the 5 Northland projects that Shane Jones & NZ First were trying to get going in the last parliamentary term. To my mind, the dry dock is the most urgent. Maybe Defence could pay $100m, Kiwirail $100m and the remaining private shipping industry the remaining $40m. It looks like the proposed dry dock is one of Damen's modular ones. Hopefully, they remember to add on a large ocean-going tug to the order so they can move the sections of it about.
Agree a floating dock would be huge step in the right direction... the image even shows what looks like a grey painted 'offshore supply vessel'... maybe that's a nod to the need for a large ocean-going tug! Such a vessel is sorely lacking in NZ as it is... just think RENA type scenario & other potential disasters averted: MO-2009-210 | TAIC https://www.maritimenz.govt.nz/comm...oa-Express-043390-mnz-accident-report2004.pdf
The floating dock may be a hangover from something Cowboy Jones promised in which case it may no longer apply with Jacinderella's mob. Also as for KiwiRail paying $100M, they'd be looking for some pretty serious preferential treatment if they sunk that sort of $$$ into it... they would gain by having a closer & non-COVID affected port to use, but the cost of using a NZ dock is likely to incur way higher labour costs than the ones they currently use (mainly up Asia way AIUI)... although obvious multiple economic benefits to NZ if it's done here!
As for the Refinery... they other half worked logistics for one of the big oil companies, she's been out of the game for 13 years now but has keep abreast of the industry. NZ has been importing fully refined fuel for many, many years...only a portion of what goes into our tanks has been getting refined here in more recent years.
NZ sourced crude is not refined here, it gets sent overseas for refining as it's not suitable for Marsden Point and is generally used to make synthetics & possibly IIRC some lubes... it's a different consistency, I seem to remember the comment it is 'too waxy'. Most of NZ's motor fuel already comes in fully refined & 'vehicle ready' whereas the crude coming in here is generally better suited to, and used for, aviation fuels, lubes & industrial uses...according to the other half.
I like refining here as it supports a lot of high-paid jobs, but the reality is it makes bugger all difference to the resilience side of the argument. For refining the crude has to still be shipped here so if we can't import refined fuel due to security issues, we are also unlikely to be able to import unrefined crude... although I concede that does depend on the scenario. Reason being NZ's refined fuel has been coming largely from Australia & Singapore IIRC & if those supplies are security impacted (being in our neck of the woods) then unrefined crude won't be able to get thru either.
Just asked the other half & she say in her day if crude tankers couldn't get to Marsden Point the country would be 'bone dry' in 7-10 days... the issue is lack of 3 months storage here... having it 'on paper' supposedly sitting in Japan is merely a Govt & industry inspired box-ticking exercise of no actual value to NZ whatsoever... given any fuel from Japan would have to transit the most likely area for a security flashpoint!
Whether the move to making Marsden Point an import terminal will address the 3 months onshore storage concerns... I don't know & I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't!
We have 90 days of petroleum storage up in Japan as part of a 2007 NZ-Japan fuel security agreement. In a security crisis in Northern Asia that fuel will be nice and secure where it is. However, getting New Zealand fuel back here from Japan 9000kms away where it is needed will require us to secure those SLOC's. Good luck with that in the real world with just a single frigate. Remember that is just petroleum. IIRC there are about 40 to 50 critical oil/fuels that are required to keep NZ industry including our massive food producer and primary industry sector ticking over.
RetirementIsGood
New Member
The shutdown of Marsden Point refinery would be a good opportunity to review our onshore fuel, oils & lubricants reserve storage.
Removing the refinery equipment would make a deal of space available to build a Strategic Reserve storage facility at Marsden Point.
It could be financed by a very small (in terms of fractions of a cent per litre) levy.
Unfortunately, another large construction project is probably not what the Northland economy needs a.t.m., however it could be a couple of years before it started as the site would need to be cleared first.
Removing the refinery equipment would make a deal of space available to build a Strategic Reserve storage facility at Marsden Point.
It could be financed by a very small (in terms of fractions of a cent per litre) levy.
Unfortunately, another large construction project is probably not what the Northland economy needs a.t.m., however it could be a couple of years before it started as the site would need to be cleared first.