Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
In 1984 Sims at Port Chalmers built the 1056-ton New Era the largest vessel so far and Sea-Tow 4 an unpowered barge was fabricated and built at Auckland in 1994 at 3565 tons. The local super yacht industry have built vessels up to 85m in the past. Seven Castle Class minesweepers were built at Port Chalmers during the war.
McMullen and Wing could build something based on their Big Fish design. Maybe a 40mm on the sun deck and replace the Jacuzzi with a mk41? I'm not sure what sort of a fighting ship she'd be, but the sailors would love it.
There needs to be a conversation about returning to shipbuilding in New Zealand. At least in the merchant sector there is traction.
Port Marlborough Drydock Media Statement | Scoop News
So lets examine these factors.
1. The need to establish a new dry dock in New Zealand.
2. What we also know is that with the current government butchering the Oil and Gas industry on "environmental" ideological grounds the significant heavy engineering sector that has grown to support it will evaporate. Thus there is an entire skilled technical industry that is looking for a job. The government could have a role in transitioning the skills set of those workers.
3. We also know that the same government has a minister going around the country with a Billion dollars a year looking to "invest" (hand out trinkets in marginal electorates) which could be put to some use - better use in my view.
4. We also know that the RNZN will around 2030 need to replace vessels. This may be (or should be) at least 3, ideally 4 Frigates and a similar number again of OPV's.
5. We also know that moving the DNB is on the agenda.
Prospect of NZDF selling Devonport Naval Base excites Auckland property industry
The $600m cost of a new naval base would obviously included a large graving dock of which could at least take a vessel the size of Aotearoa. That money would be spent over 5-6 years and not all in one hit.
The problem with the NZ Govt is that it operates too much with a silo mentality and lacks vision. MBIE, Defence, Treasury, Transport and Regional Government need to work and plan together with industry much more than what they do now.
Port Marlborough Drydock Media Statement | Scoop News
So lets examine these factors.
1. The need to establish a new dry dock in New Zealand.
2. What we also know is that with the current government butchering the Oil and Gas industry on "environmental" ideological grounds the significant heavy engineering sector that has grown to support it will evaporate. Thus there is an entire skilled technical industry that is looking for a job. The government could have a role in transitioning the skills set of those workers.
3. We also know that the same government has a minister going around the country with a Billion dollars a year looking to "invest" (hand out trinkets in marginal electorates) which could be put to some use - better use in my view.
4. We also know that the RNZN will around 2030 need to replace vessels. This may be (or should be) at least 3, ideally 4 Frigates and a similar number again of OPV's.
5. We also know that moving the DNB is on the agenda.
Prospect of NZDF selling Devonport Naval Base excites Auckland property industry
The $600m cost of a new naval base would obviously included a large graving dock of which could at least take a vessel the size of Aotearoa. That money would be spent over 5-6 years and not all in one hit.
The problem with the NZ Govt is that it operates too much with a silo mentality and lacks vision. MBIE, Defence, Treasury, Transport and Regional Government need to work and plan together with industry much more than what they do now.
I fully support a NZ based shipbuilding and heavy engineering facility. BUT - It would have to be able to provide the necessary expertise to meet our naval requirements at a competitive cost and be able to maintain and repair merchant shipping if and as required. Babcocks continue to provide the RNZN with their vessel maintenance so they may be interested if a suitable facility was built in New Zealand with Government assistance and offering a long term commercial lease. The NZ Navy cannot be expected to pay for the facilities as their resources are needed for the at least a three frigate navy. South Korea is obviously where to look at the moment for a new build but I am a strong advocate for looking into what Australia can offer (Cost and how far they would come to the party). Two of our largest owned RORO vessrels "Rotoiti" and "Rotorua" were built with an Australian Govt subsidy at Whyalla. Australia is so close to us geographically and not in the "Hot spot" as is South Korea. I have no issue with South Korean ships - they have some of the best shipbuilding yards in the world.In the last 30 years the largest Naval ships built in NZ were the project protector inshore patrol vessels.
Both they and the ANZAC modules were built by Tenex in Whangarei. That facility no longer exists.
Naki. Where are your comments? Reposting another reply is not necessary.
Cheers, MrC
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks - You have saved my day - something went badly amiss.
Anyway I intended to throw in Port Nelson as another contender.- mainly because of its infrastructure including some heavy engineering facilities. Main negative may be draft at low water but takes bulkers for log exports and drilling rigs
Who said anything about two ships?
AFAIK the 105 tonne Moa Class IPC built at Whangarei. At present no shipyard large enough to do a job of this size. However there is a requirement for a drydock to take a ship of up to probably 25,000 tonnes which would cover the Aotearoa and other NZ ships. If said drydock was built it could then be used as part of a shipbuilding consortium that would build naval ships, repair and refit both naval and civilian ships. Said consortium would have to have the NZG as a majority stakeholder.
Kiwigov
Member
Certainly the Australian Government offers a model with its (recently announced) sustained investment in South Australia for naval shipbuilding; having a single location seems more efficient than Canada's indicated dispersal for its build strategy.
In the NZ case, our lack of an Upper House in Parliament probably cuts against any political incentive for a substantial regional investment of this nature. SA's senators are a voting bloc with real power, despite the much smaller state population. I can't see the (one) MP for Kaikoura having similar sway in our Cabinet (nor even including the adjacent MP for Nelson
). Leaving aside the perennial problem of defence capital funding in NZ.Afaik, none of the current 'regional development strategies' listed on the MBIE website even refer to the potential for Defence investment. Really needs a ginger group to educate, and then rally Mayors and agencies behind a proposal.
Three ports qualify having the necessary or close to the necessary depth:
- Port Taranaki. To build a drydock and assembly hall etc., would require major restructuring and expansion of the port. I don't believe that Port Taranaki at present is large enough because there appears to be not enough space or such a large expansion, however I think there would be room enough for a company to build ship modules.
- Whangarei with the area between Takahiwai and One Tree Point having plenty of space. Some dredging would be required.
- Shakespeare Bay, Picton. There appears to room for expansion in Shakespeare Bay. That would involve significant dredging and this alone would get the greenies over excited.
Don't wish an Australian style Senate on NZ, it would be masochist's delight.Certainly the Australian Government offers a model with its (recently announced) sustained investment in South Australia for naval shipbuilding; having a single location seems more efficient than Canada's indicated dispersal for its build strategy.
In the NZ case, our lack of an Upper House in Parliament probably cuts against any political incentive for a substantial regional investment of this nature. SA's senators are a voting bloc with real power, despite the much smaller state population. I can't see the (one) MP for Kaikoura having similar sway in our Cabinet (nor even including the adjacent MP for Nelson
Afaik, none of the current 'regional development strategies' listed on the MBIE website even refer to the potential for Defence investment. Really needs a ginger group to educate, and then rally Mayors and agencies behind a proposal.
Our Senate has been best described by a previous Labor PM as "unrepresentative swill" and has had the effect of strangling efficient government here for the last decade with it frustrating both sides of politics when in control of the Treasury Benches.
Be grateful for what you have.
How we got rid of our Upper House, just after WW2 a very cunning PM managed to persuade members of the Upper House to vote themselves out of existence. Our Upper House was appointed by the incumbent govt.
On the down side, Queensland got rid of its upper house leading to the loss of Government by Labor and 23 years of unrestrained government by the other side. Today, witha unicameral house, we are returning to government by executive declaration again, this time by labor.
Sometimes all options don't work well. Churchill knew it, though he didn't originate the famous words, just quoted them.
Unless the public demand good governance - and frankly few of them know what that entails - they'll use the "pox on all their houses" option, elect nutters, single issue cranks and well meaning idiots and making matters worse. Which IS relevant to both NZ and Australian threads, because the best chance of well considered defence policy with at least a strong agreed middle ground is for stability in government (which is NOT necessarily the same as having the same party in power throughout)
oldsig (frightened of any changes in government before the first new frigate is under construction, but mildly optimistic)
As for Port Taranaki in New Plymouth, just to the west of the port is the now decommissioned power station site with 11ha of available land now owned by Methanex and the Port Company. The power house has been demolished but the 198m chimney still stands. This is the heart of the soon to be stuffed Oil & Gas industry with all the engineering firms in place. Across the road is the large Dow industrial site and the second tank farm if addition space for expansion is required.
Cool. Was that Dow industrial land cleaned up properly? I believe it had some real chemical nasties in it. Think it was the place. Of the three locations, New Plymouth or Picton would be the better choices because of their geographic centrality compared to Whangarei.
Come the day of the Glorious Revolution
I would plumb for NP as a better bet for a future dry dock as it is the easier to do as all the infrastructure and experience stemming from the energy sector is there. Its accessibility is better including also having a rail line right to the Port. NP is also a good city to live in (where as Picton is a very small town and thus has limitations) and where the likely workforce live transitioning from from engineering to support Oil & Gas (that the current Government wants to kill off as part of its Green Agenda) into the future ship construction and maintenance jobs.Cool. Was that Dow industrial land cleaned up properly? I believe it had some real chemical nasties in it. Think it was the place. Of the three locations, New Plymouth or Picton would be the better choices because of their geographic centrality compared to Whangarei.
Come the day of the Glorious Revolution
The neighbouring Dow site is a research centre these days and has not produced chemicals for over 20 years.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
If NZ were to pursue a national shipbuilding programme like Australia's, I would have some fairly serious concerns about such a concept, and questions that should be answered to determine whether the idea is actually viable or not,
At in the present defence climate in NZ, my basic impression is that the answer would be, "no."
NZ might be able to get a shipbuilding concern up and running, but I doubt that it could be made sustainable over the long term, never mind be economically viable enough to not have NZ paying an out-sized premium for naval vessels.
Without even getting into the costs associated with establishing or re-purposing infrastructure to enable naval shipbuilding and/or skilling a workforce, the small size of the RNZN and the size/frequency of orders are going to cause problems sustaining the facility and workforce.
We have seen this happen with Australian naval shipbuilding, which has gone through boom and bust cycles repeatedly, even though the orders which have been placed in many cases are for more major vessels than in the entire RNZN.
If the RNZN were to be increased in size to combat force of 4+ frigates, and an ocean-going patrol force of 4+ OPV's, then it might be possible to have vessels ordered and built in batches of four frigates or OPV's, each taking about 24 months to complete, then switching production over to the other type of vessel and build four of them. If this were done, and then in lieu of carrying out a MLU after ~14 years service, a vessel were to be outright replaced by new construction with the 'old' vessel getting decommissioned and sold to another country, this might be able to work.
A major stumbling block though would be that such a scheme would need to have orders consistently placed to ensure little to no gap in work, designs appropriate to RNZN needs would need to be available, and of course the scheme would need to survive successive changes in gov't with the required funding intact.
Without those elements in place, a NZ naval shipbuilding effort would likely resemble the past history of Australian naval shipbuilding.
At in the present defence climate in NZ, my basic impression is that the answer would be, "no."
NZ might be able to get a shipbuilding concern up and running, but I doubt that it could be made sustainable over the long term, never mind be economically viable enough to not have NZ paying an out-sized premium for naval vessels.
Without even getting into the costs associated with establishing or re-purposing infrastructure to enable naval shipbuilding and/or skilling a workforce, the small size of the RNZN and the size/frequency of orders are going to cause problems sustaining the facility and workforce.
We have seen this happen with Australian naval shipbuilding, which has gone through boom and bust cycles repeatedly, even though the orders which have been placed in many cases are for more major vessels than in the entire RNZN.
If the RNZN were to be increased in size to combat force of 4+ frigates, and an ocean-going patrol force of 4+ OPV's, then it might be possible to have vessels ordered and built in batches of four frigates or OPV's, each taking about 24 months to complete, then switching production over to the other type of vessel and build four of them. If this were done, and then in lieu of carrying out a MLU after ~14 years service, a vessel were to be outright replaced by new construction with the 'old' vessel getting decommissioned and sold to another country, this might be able to work.
A major stumbling block though would be that such a scheme would need to have orders consistently placed to ensure little to no gap in work, designs appropriate to RNZN needs would need to be available, and of course the scheme would need to survive successive changes in gov't with the required funding intact.
Without those elements in place, a NZ naval shipbuilding effort would likely resemble the past history of Australian naval shipbuilding.
Parking the Naval construction element aside there is a significant need for a new major ship repair and maintenance facility in NZ including the replacement for the 2 current and now very ancient commercial dry docks in NZ operated by Babcock and Stark Bros which will eventually need to be decommissioned unless they have considerable money thrown at them for rectification and enlargement. NZ is a sea trading and deep sea fishing nation surrounded by a vast Ocean a long way from other facilities. In fact with two Islands two main Cook Strait ferry companies flog their vessels 24/7/365 a replacement is paramount. There are also large fishing trawlers, numerous visiting merchant vessels - all don't have the time or money and productivity loss to send vessels through to Asia.
As for the Naval side, in the early 2000's Babcock's wanted a floating dry dock at Devonport which they indicated they could use to build the OPV's and IPV's for Project Protector alongside their commercial work but were knocked back by local North Shore residents who did not want their harbour views ruined. WECO back in the early 1990s argued that it could build OPV's up to 70m at Whangarei and were gaining influence amongst many of the anti-Anzac Frigate and Union crowd as an alternative to them - this alongside their commercial work.
As raised by the local Shipping Industry there is a critical need emerging for a new ship repair and maintenance facility that can accommodate vessels even larger than the future Aotearoa as per the talk of a dry dock up to 250m. A facility that can look after all the RNZN fleet as CY and Aotearoa will be too big for Calliope Dock but also and most significantly the spectrum of merchant and large fishing vessels in and around New Zealand waters.
The real concern is why has this Dry Dock problem been sliding for the last 5 years when it was first raised. Thus if a new single dedicated facility of the envisaged size, a Govt - Industry joint venture, the question whether to expand beyond the baseline of major ship repair and maintenance and build some vessels locally for either the Deep Sea fishing industry, Ferry operators, commercial vessels as well as some new builds alongside those activities for a future RNZN fleet is entirely valid. NZ jobs, NZ money retained in the local economy.
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
If it was purely built for building naval vessels for the RNZN, yes, but the original post mentioned the prospect of it being used for commercial ship building, repair and servicing too, surely there is enough of that work to keep them busy.And of course creating much needed jobs in the area and long term economic benefits.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
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.
For another, and IMO this would be the larger issue, is managing to both sustain the yard with work, and keep a production schedule for naval shipbuilding. AFAIK unless a shipyard has both a large industrial capacity and order book, then yards tend to do either naval or commercial shipbuilding, but not both.
Again using the hypothetical Kiwi naval yard building a batch of four frigates for the RNZN at a rate of one every ~24 months. Unless the yard has additional dock space or building sheds to permit working on multiple vessels concurrently, then the Kiwi yard would be occupied building frigates for about eight years. If the yard then gets an order for four OPV's, then they can likely be built at a rate of one every 12 months or so. That would be naval orders would take up 12 years of production scheduling for the Kiwi yard, and realistically it would only be towards the end of the OPV build that the Kiwi yard would be in a position to compete with other yards for orders. Then it would be a question of whether or not the yard could get a large enough stream of orders to sustain the yard and work force until the next set of orders for the RNZN would come in. Relating to that, if the yard starts to establish a commercial order base, that can then lead to the yard being occupied building commercial vessels when the RNZN would need to have work done either on existing or new vessels.