Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

CJohn

Active Member
An update on the Navies Remus 300 UUV acquisition, Martac Mantas T12 unmanned vessel, and a future parthway for ship based UAV's

 

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Nothing new... use to do that when I was in the Navy back in 1985...? Take parts of one vessel to keep the other going while you wait on spare parts to arrive... nothing new at all... not even sure why this is news.
Yep, we were doing this in the RNZAF in the years I was in the air force to keep aircraft flying. civvy companies do it a lot with their gear. The only problem was that the frigate was in Sydney, not Auckland. :rolleyes:
 

SP_viewer

Member
Nothing new... use to do that when I was in the Navy back in 1985...? Take parts of one vessel to keep the other going while you wait on spare parts to arrive... nothing new at all... not even sure why this is news.
Glad to have experienced people around here to reign in some of the news over-hyping.
 

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
Yep, we were doing this in the RNZAF in the years I was in the air force to keep aircraft flying. civvy companies do it a lot with their gear. The only problem was that the frigate was in Sydney, not Auckland. :rolleyes:
Yes I agree this is commonplace and supply chains mean that problems can be addressed within days. Also we cannot realistically keep spares in stock of every item our military needs.

However we are disadvantaged in that the industries that produce most of our military hardware are largely based overseas and typically far away.

Whilst not so much an issue in peacetime (because of these supply chains), this is risky not only in times of tensions and conflicts, it is also problematic if we have a vessel partaking in (peacetime) exercises where time is of the essence (and what if both Frigates were on exercise or the second deployed elsewhere anyway)?

Although again we realistically cannot keep spares in stock of every item our military needs, I would hope that a number things result as a consequence of this incident.

1. Re-assessment of critical spares stocks across the armed services (and by the end of the year?). The Minister of Defence to then bring this to Cabinet's attention (in the new year?) seeking additional funding "immediately" to obtain the highest priority items (and perhaps a second and third tranches later or in time with the Defence Assessment reporting back etc).

2. Govt-to-Govt level talks on some of our key needs/dependencies and whether agreements could be made for "shared" critical components and war-stocks to be stored in NZ (with NZ buy-in of course). For example naval wise could a deal be made for Seaceptor missiles to be stored here which could also be used to restock Royal Navy vessels operating in the Indo-Pacific? Engines, propellers, lubricates, fuel, cabling and power supplies, small arms munitions, aerials and so on?

(Thinking Australia is playing a greater part with USN support so perhaps there could be an opportunity for NZ with RN common system support and pooling? Potentially also there could be a tie in with resuppplying the UK presence at the Falkland Is. particularly if the Atlantic ocean supply routes are threatened. But hey if not practical for NZ as a suplly base then at least partner with AU & UK to base and have access to RN common system pooling "over the ditch", as it better than relying on UK supply chains etc).

3. Future project re-prioritising to participate and align more with Australian projects (particularly ship building and module fabrication, Army vehicles, air/sea/land munitions, cyber and IT systems) in order to take advantage of closer supply chains and trans-Tasman support and co-operation and to ensure better interoperability and support wherever practical.

The challenge surely for Defence and Govt is to improve processes and self sufficiency (as security challenges increase) and not continue to rely on the current "benign strategic environment" business as usual approach?
 

RegR

Well-Known Member
Sounds like it was an intercom system anyway, not exactly something you would A. Expect to break down or B. Hold a spare set of "just in case". TBH would any navy hold spares of such a system or would they just do the same and order said part from the original manufacturer?

Would be alittle like having spare oven parts in your house just in case the oven knob falls off, not overly realistic, and extremely lucky you just so happened to have the exact same oven sitting in your other house that is undergoing a Reno, albeit in another country...

These faults happen regularly to air force aircraft as again, chances of carrying all spare parts for every single component on every mission or even in stock are not always feasible, it's the importance of the system(s) affected that dictate the continuation or not. Could be worse places than Sydney to be "stranded" as well I guess, just saying...
 

SP_viewer

Member
Sounds like it was an intercom system anyway, not exactly something you would A. Expect to break down or B. Hold a spare set of "just in case". TBH would any navy hold spares of such a system or would they just do the same and order said part from the original manufacturer?

Would be alittle like having spare oven parts in your house just in case the oven knob falls off, not overly realistic, and extremely lucky you just so happened to have the exact same oven sitting in your other house that is undergoing a Reno, albeit in another country...

These faults happen regularly to air force aircraft as again, chances of carrying all spare parts for every single component on every mission or even in stock are not always feasible, it's the importance of the system(s) affected that dictate the continuation or not. Could be worse places than Sydney to be "stranded" as well I guess, just saying...
That was the point of the 9th NH90, right? Guess we just need to buy a 3rd ANZAC to strip for spares lol /s
 

Sender

Member
Sounds like it was an intercom system anyway, not exactly something you would A. Expect to break down or B. Hold a spare set of "just in case". TBH would any navy hold spares of such a system or would they just do the same and order said part from the original manufacturer?

Would be alittle like having spare oven parts in your house just in case the oven knob falls off, not overly realistic, and extremely lucky you just so happened to have the exact same oven sitting in your other house that is undergoing a Reno, albeit in another country...

These faults happen regularly to air force aircraft as again, chances of carrying all spare parts for every single component on every mission or even in stock are not always feasible, it's the importance of the system(s) affected that dictate the continuation or not. Could be worse places than Sydney to be "stranded" as well I guess, just saying...
This is odd. That system was reported to be the Leonardo Shincom 3100 (DRS To Provide Tactical Integrated Communications Systems For New Zealand Navy - Defense Daily) which is in widespread use with the RCN, USN, AND the RAN. Hard to believe one of those three wouldn't have been able to come up with a spare...

More on Shincom: SHINCOM 3100 Shipboard Integrated Communications | Leonardo DRS
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Sounds like it was an intercom system anyway, not exactly something you would A. Expect to break down or B. Hold a spare set of "just in case". TBH would any navy hold spares of such a system or would they just do the same and order said part from the original manufacturer?

Would be alittle like having spare oven parts in your house just in case the oven knob falls off, not overly realistic, and extremely lucky you just so happened to have the exact same oven sitting in your other house that is undergoing a Reno, albeit in another country...

These faults happen regularly to air force aircraft as again, chances of carrying all spare parts for every single component on every mission or even in stock are not always feasible, it's the importance of the system(s) affected that dictate the continuation or not. Could be worse places than Sydney to be "stranded" as well I guess, just saying...
If it is the main or MCR broadcast, or the DC or Ops net, then you would certainly expect that you would hold spares; they are critical safety and operational systems.
 

RegR

Well-Known Member
If it is the main or MCR broadcast, or the DC or Ops net, then you would certainly expect that you would hold spares; they are critical safety and operational systems.
That is a bit like holding a spare engine, spare phalanx, spare radar system, spare helicopter etc etc etc etc. Critical safety and operational systems.
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Spare parts for it, not a complete spare system; and a main broadcast as an example is made up of microphones, a switching panel or two, several amplifiers, speakers and a whole lot of wire. Holding spare circuit cards or even a spare amplifier complete, a microphone and a couple of speakers is certainly possible, depending of course on the combination of MTBF and part to equipment criticality. Given most of such things is now solid state, the MTBFs might be long and therefore the item does not compute as an onboard spare; but long is not the same as never, and sometimes you get caught out.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Spare parts for it, not a complete spare system; and a main broadcast as an example is made up of microphones, a switching panel or two, several amplifiers, speakers and a whole lot of wire. Holding spare circuit cards or even a spare amplifier complete, a microphone and a couple of speakers is certainly possible, depending of course on the combination of MTBF and part to equipment criticality. Given most of such things is now solid state, the MTBFs might be long and therefore the item does not compute as an onboard spare; but long is not the same as never, and sometimes you get caught out.
Correct. Methinks people are making a mountain out of a molehill. Sometimes $hit happens and you just deal with it as best you can at the time.
 

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Correct. Methinks people are making a mountain out of a molehill. Sometimes $hit happens and you just deal with it as best you can at the time.
Talk about shit happening, I once ordered an aircon pipe guide for a Skyhawk, which was a small light ceramic roller. When it arrived the package was very large and heavy, on opening it I found the tube base and firing pin of an 81 mm mortar. It turned out that it had the same federal stock code as the Skyhawk part but due to the US army and Navy having separate systems at that time no one had noticed until it arrived in our combined system. :D
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Once demanded as an onboard spare for a DE an actuator for a mortar mark 10 and received, on the back of a flatbed, a mortar mark 10 complete (I think it had been a gate guardian somewhere) - one digit wrong in the NSN - and nobody thought to query it ….
 

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
An update on the Navies Remus 300 UUV acquisition, Martac Mantas T12 unmanned vessel, and a future parthway for ship based UAV's

An informative update on the Martac Mantas T12 has been provided by Tim Fish writing for ADM. Looks like an initial 3 month lease has been extended to 24 months and with an option to purchase for "experimental purposes" and not as an in-service capability at the moment, however:
"The NZDF spokesperson said the lease extension to the battle lab “will enable RNZN and NZDF to step into the USV space closely behind our partners subsequently making RNZN/NZDF a more informed customer when the time comes to bring future uncrewed surface capabilities into service.”
Seems some the experiments were conducted for hydrographic and bathymetric (seabed topography) purposes and as the manufacturer (Martac) states it also offers a very useful MCM detection capability.

@NG: This is more your area of expertise, be great to hear your thoughts on such applications for the RNZN looking ahead?

 
Top