Looks good, but it's worth pointing out that neither of the two ships pictured in that gallery are the Edda Fonn.
The vessel was in class with an IACS member so there really was no choice with regard to minimum maintenance. The same cannot be said for warships as they are able to negotiate the maintenance cycle. I accept there are ‘levels’ of compliance within ships classed by IACS members but it is harder to get away with deferring things for operational reasons.
As a comparison, how often would say a warship like our frigates go through a similar overhaul?
It’s not how often but the scope of coverage. If will look at B1, B2 and Tobruk ,,,,,,, a lot of the condition issues were made worse by the fact inspections were deferred or work was deferred in order to keep the ships at sea. Warships are not required to comply with survey cycle (be it annual or continuous) and in some case no such set cycle exists.
Agree but there is still scope within the seaworthiness process to push it back or modify the maintenance process. Added to that I understand that some maintenance and test processes are over done (i.e inspection of LSA) while otters tend to be underdone. There also a need to clear URDEFS and (noting this is second hand) that is getting our of hand in some cases.
I was actually refering to rnzn navy and our frigate maintainence frequency. Or say the Opv or Mrv in service. What sea states was Edda fonn designed to deal with, for that matter?
Kinda a buy one get two free deal.
I had a spare 20 minutes, so I thought I'd come up with a thoroughly researched and deeply reasoned solution to NZ's ANZAC replacement requirement and Australia's frustration with NZ's weak commitment to defence. A true win-win solution.
Instead of NZ buying 2-3 ships to replace the ANZACs, we instead buy only one, a single Hunter class frigate. Now here's the genius part; in order to secure NZ's purchase, the Australian Government will then commit to build two extra Hunters for NZ, for FREE.
Why on earth would Australia do that, I hear you ask. Several reasons. Firstly, adding an extra three ships to the build will lower the average hull price across the entire build. Secondly, since the ships are being built in Australia most of the money will go straight back into the Australian economy, securing jobs and helping ensure the success of Australia's continuous build policy. Thirdly, the ships will be manned, armed and operated by the RNZN, so for the cost of two hulls Australia will have gained an ally with three powerful warships, increased interoperability and will have added to the combined strength of both nations.
We just need Australia to come to the party.
So Australia, which is still $18B short of a budgetary surplus and has government debt of over $550B is going to gift a country which is already an ally, which has surpluses of $4B and debt of $87B two free vessels worth at least $3B. Yep I can see that would go down enthusiastically in OZ voter land.I had a spare 20 minutes, so I thought I'd come up with a thoroughly researched and deeply reasoned solution to NZ's ANZAC replacement requirement and Australia's frustration with NZ's weak commitment to defence. A true win-win solution.
Instead of NZ buying 2-3 ships to replace the ANZACs, we instead buy only one, a single Hunter class frigate. Now here's the genius part; in order to secure NZ's purchase, the Australian Government will then commit to build two extra Hunters for NZ, for FREE.
Why on earth would Australia do that, I hear you ask. Several reasons. Firstly, adding an extra three ships to the build will lower the average hull price across the entire build. Secondly, since the ships are being built in Australia most of the money will go straight back into the Australian economy, securing jobs and helping ensure the success of Australia's continuous build policy. Thirdly, the ships will be manned, armed and operated by the RNZN, so for the cost of two hulls Australia will have gained an ally with three powerful warships, increased interoperability and will have added to the combined strength of both nations.
We just need Australia to come to the party.
Be careful of sea states. The RNZN OPV’s were a northern design but the design required modification for the wave period and height expected in the southern ocean (this does not mean they can withstand everything that the southern ocean will throw at them but means they have a strengthen fore structure wiht withstand wave pressure on the deck). Sea state is very generic and does not capture such subtleties. I would expect the NZ DoD would be well aware of the vessels operating capabilities and limitations. I expect it will be capable of operating in pretty horrible conditions without necessarily being built to withstand the worst of the southern ocean.
We could throw in some free butter and the Bledisloe cup to sweeten the deal.
Maybe with a change of govt leadership in Australia, oh wait, that's already happenedWe could throw in some free butter and the Bledisloe cup to sweeten the deal.
I know it's not going to happen.
well least its never boring and gives the jorno's something to do
Could be worse, there might be an Australian junior lurking in your future.
Seriously though, I have the impression most Australians appreciate the need for a capable defence force, something voters in Canada and NZ don't think is all that important. In NZ's case, geography negates the need, while Canada's next door neighbour is our excuse. Both reasons are no longer valid IMO and probably never were.Yes, one thing that has surprised me about Australia, despite the many changes of leadership over the last ten years, no major cuts to defence! Something I envy about them,apart from the weather, the better wages, etc.Could be worse, there might be an Australian junior lurking in your future.
When there next gen IPad or 4K TV or Mobile(Cell) Phone or Laptop or there fav Game Playing snack is sitting at the bottom of the South China Sea maybe they might start caring about Defence.Could be worse, there might be an Australian junior lurking in your future.