Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

kiwipatriot69

Active Member
Fortunately, at this stage it's a battle for diplomatic influence. There are plenty of non-military tools to consider; increased aid, educational scholarships targeting future leaders, guest worker programmes etc.

As this is a military forum, we tend to look first at military solutions. Ideally, NZ would use a multi-pronged approach, but if funds are tight (and they always are), other avenues might be considered to give better bang for buck.
I suppose that depends on how the 'diplomacy' is spent, I'm sure you as are many fellow kiwis here aware of the billion dollars Labour is spending on Pacific aid? With the corruption and misappropriation of funds to some of these islands by officials there I'd say it's far better spent on military aid, ships ect. At least treasury would more accurately be able to track what coin is spent, and where.
 

Novascotiaboy

Active Member
40 DEG SOUTH funds are only TIGHT because the politicians choose to expend money where they feel will get the best vote count and that will always be social programs and feel good personal agenda projects. Like any other western nation there is money available to fund military programs. But unlike most NZ does not possess nor maintain high end offensive capabilities such as submarines, tanks, fighter aircraft etcc. Simple offshore patrol vessels with sufficient capacity to effectively work in the dangerous natural environments with sensors and weaponry commensurate with the threat seem to be an issue along with the other force requirements left better discussed in other forums.

Kiwipatriot69 you are likely very accurate in your assumptions regarding how the money gets spent. Using the funds to cover the deployment costs of patrols by the IPVs and OPVs in the islands would go much further at developing relationships. I also think that one or two small LSTs such as the DAMEN 120 or the newly released Vard designs would have value in the islands as they would be able to provide logistics support and aid right up to the beach. This has a correlating military function as it allows regular amphibious operations but in support of other government agencies.

Much has been made of the current deployment to Samoa supporting the provision of dental services. Can you imagine what services could be provided by Canterbury with a containerized medical facility aboard able to support treatment of numerous medical specialties. Again this is doable with adequate funding. Foreign Affairs funds used to provide a capability that during a military conflict would be very welcome to those at the pointy end.
 

kiwipatriot69

Active Member
40 DEG SOUTH funds are only TIGHT because the politicians choose to expend money where they feel will get the best vote count and that will always be social programs and feel good personal agenda projects. Like any other western nation there is money available to fund military programs. But unlike most NZ does not possess nor maintain high end offensive capabilities such as submarines, tanks, fighter aircraft etcc. Simple offshore patrol vessels with sufficient capacity to effectively work in the dangerous natural environments with sensors and weaponry commensurate with the threat seem to be an issue along with the other force requirements left better discussed in other forums.

That's exactly what I had in mind. A bigger presence in the Pacific with more air, sea patrols in those worst affected areas by tropical cyclones such as Fiji,Vanuatu Samoa etc, by doing so freeing up Australian,USA, french ships regionally would make a better showof diplomacy in action than throwing cash at a govt only to see it squandered, case in point, the Solomon islands airfield upgrade, of 20 million in recent yrs that was underused and over budget, helicopters being bought for several million dollars to the tokelau islands,Papua New guinea $15 million to buy 40 maseratis and hundreds of other for an APEC meeting all this just a few cases of many in recent years.

Kiwipatriot69 you are likely very accurate in your assumptions regarding how the money gets spent. Using the funds to cover the deployment costs of patrols by the IPVs and OPVs in the islands would go much further at developing relationships. I also think that one or two small LSTs such as the DAMEN 120 or the newly released Vard designs would have value in the islands as they would be able to provide logistics support and aid right up to the beach. This has a correlating military function as it allows regular amphibious operations but in support of other government agencies.

Much has been made of the current deployment to Samoa supporting the provision of dental services. Can you imagine what services could be provided by Canterbury with a containerized medical facility aboard able to support treatment of numerous medical specialties. Again this is doable with adequate funding. Foreign Affairs funds used to provide a capability that during a military conflict would be very welcome to those at the pointy end.
 

kiwipatriot69

Active Member
Exactly, there are many examples of misapropriation of those Pacific funds in recent years propping up underused airfields , a buy of several million by tokelau for two helicopters, Papua New guinea spending 15 million dollars on luxury vehicles and others for the Apec meeting a few yrs back, a 20 million dollar upgrade of the Solomon Islands airfield/overbudget and underused. Just a few examples of govt waste.
 

Novascotiaboy

Active Member
I would say that the likelihood of NZ taking advantage of the hot production line in Halifax for the "Harry Dewolfe" class AOPS as an optiin for the SOPV is nil given the cost revealed today for two additional ships for the Canadian Coast Guard at $750 million CAN each. Nice looking vessels but stupid expensive. Ten times what Norway paid for the Svalbard OPV.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Fortunately, at this stage it's a battle for diplomatic influence. There are plenty of non-military tools to consider; increased aid, educational scholarships targeting future leaders, guest worker programmes etc.

As this is a military forum, we tend to look first at military solutions. Ideally, NZ would use a multi-pronged approach, but if funds are tight (and they always are), other avenues might be considered to give better bang for buck.
Fisheries are the major resource for many in the Pacific and their protection is beyond the resource capability of most of them.
This is where the RNZN can contribute in a significant way.
Yes there are many other projects which can be funded by NZ but most of these don’t involve a huge investment in a non productive activity such as PBs. This is where the Pacific PB programme adds to their marine policing capability and where the IPVs can be deployed, even co manned with local police forces, to make a major contribution. This is something that aid donors can’t do.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Fortunately, at this stage it's a battle for diplomatic influence. There are plenty of non-military tools to consider; increased aid, educational scholarships targeting future leaders, guest worker programmes etc.

As this is a military forum, we tend to look first at military solutions. Ideally, NZ would use a multi-pronged approach, but if funds are tight (and they always are), other avenues might be considered to give better bang for buck.
What about NZ coming on board with Australia on this proposed Pacific Ship, help with operating costs and help Crew it.
 

Calculus

Well-Known Member
I would say that the likelihood of NZ taking advantage of the hot production line in Halifax for the "Harry Dewolfe" class AOPS as an optiin for the SOPV is nil given the cost revealed today for two additional ships for the Canadian Coast Guard at $750 million CAN each. Nice looking vessels but stupid expensive. Ten times what Norway paid for the Svalbard OPV.
I thought that price was for both?
 

40 deg south

Well-Known Member
I suppose that depends on how the 'diplomacy' is spent, I'm sure you as are many fellow kiwis here aware of the billion dollars Labour is spending on Pacific aid? With the corruption and misappropriation of funds to some of these islands by officials there I'd say it's far better spent on military aid, ships ect. At least treasury would more accurately be able to track what coin is spent, and where.
I'm going to respectfully disagree with everyone else on this thread. Explanation below.

Firstly, I agree the military has a significant role to play in responding to natural disasters. They are well-suited to putting significant amounts of trained capability on the ground promptly, and deploying into areas where they have to be largely self-sustaining. NZDF already do this well and could do it even better if their logistics capability (e.g. air and sea-lift) were improved.

For training exercises, there can be benefits in deploying defence forces into aid-type situations. It gives the staff experience working outside their comfort zone, and presumably benefits the handful of people that are treated (assuming, for example, it is a medical team). However, this is a woefully ineffective way to deliver primary health care (or bridge-building, road construction etc).

Take the recent NZDF dental mission to Samoa. It ran for about a week in a village an hour from the capital - presumably chosen for access reasons and its very kiwi-friendly council of chiefs (I used to drive through it regularly, and every second house/shack/fale and outhouse boasted an All Blacks flag). I'm sure the people of the village with dodgy teeth benefited. Unfortunately, Samoa has round 250 villages, so it would take five years of continuous deployment to get round all of them at that rate. Apart from the direct cost of the NZ personnel deployed, there will be a large and expensive back-office operation that organised the visit, got the team into the field, and supported them while they were there.

The same amount of money would pay for a lot more dental treatment if funneled into the local health system. Or via civil society groups - the Mormons run a very good dental service using semi-retired dentists from Utah (local joke - the Vaimoso dental clinic is the only place in the world where unbelievers knock on the door of the Mormons, rather than the other way around). So while using the NZ military to deliver health services looks good and generates newspaper coverage, it's wildly inefficient. This is something Australia is about to find out, if they follow though with their proposed Pacific support ship.

If we wanted to minimise corruption and misuse of funds, we'd give all our aid money to Sweden or Norway. (Or, ahem, Canada!). Unfortunately, the countries that could most effectively manage the money don't need it. Pretty much by definition, developing countries have weak governance and financial controls. However, it is possible to reduce this a lot by careful management. For instance, the Tokelau helicopter purchase mentioned above came from their own fishing license revenue, as the dodgy officials involved knew they'd be sprung instantly if they tried to use NZ aid funding. Notwithstanding this, undoubtedly some money will always go astray - it comes with the territory.

If NZ wants to maintain our level of influence in the south Pacific, we will have to spend more. But it is important to use the military for the things they are good at, and not try to push them into areas better served by other means.

I could go on at length, but I hope you get my point.
 

Calculus

Well-Known Member
Yes, but that is a planning number only, as it has been publicly stated that the government is still in discussion with Irving on final costs. Also, that number is the ship cost (hull + systems) plus lifecycle costs (training, parts, infrastructure, documentation, LCM, etc...) including disposal (but NOT including maintenance - that is done under a separate budget). That's how DND budgets capital projects. Finally, that number will include a contingency (normally around 10%). The ship costs for the RCN AOPVs are widely believed to be around $400 million (CAD). That $400 million is the average cost, by the way, of all 6 ships. The latest update from government is the labour cost for AOPS 2 was 40% less than AOPS 1, and that there was a further 15% decrease from AOPS 2 to AOPS 3 (Challenges—Canada’s National Shipbuilding Strategy: 2018 annual report - National Shipbuilding Strategy reports - National Shipbuilding Strategy - Sea - Defence Procurement - Buying and Selling - PSPC). So, from this, one can assume that ships 7 and 8 should be less than $400 million, given the program's increasing efficiency.
 
Last edited:

KiwiRob

Well-Known Member
Take the recent NZDF dental mission to Samoa. It ran for about a week in a village an hour from the capital - presumably chosen for access reasons and its very kiwi-friendly council of chiefs (I used to drive through it regularly, and every second house/shack/fale and outhouse boasted an All Blacks flag). I'm sure the people of the village with dodgy teeth benefited. Unfortunately, Samoa has round 250 villages, so it would take five years of continuous deployment to get round all of them at that rate. Apart from the direct cost of the NZ personnel deployed, there will be a large and expensive back-office operation that organised the visit, got the team into the field, and supported them while they were there.

The same amount of money would pay for a lot more dental treatment if funneled into the local health system. Or via civil society groups - the Mormons run a very good dental service using semi-retired dentists from Utah (local joke - the Vaimoso dental clinic is the only place in the world where unbelievers knock on the door of the Mormons, rather than the other way around). So while using the NZ military to deliver health services looks good and generates newspaper coverage, it's wildly inefficient. This is something Australia is about to find out, if they follow though with their proposed Pacific support ship.

If we wanted to minimise corruption and misuse of funds, we'd give all our aid money to Sweden or Norway. (Or, ahem, Canada!). Unfortunately, the countries that could most effectively manage the money don't need it. Pretty much by definition, developing countries have weak governance and financial controls. However, it is possible to reduce this a lot by careful management. For instance, the Tokelau helicopter purchase mentioned above came from their own fishing license revenue, as the dodgy officials involved knew they'd be sprung instantly if they tried to use NZ aid funding. Notwithstanding this, undoubtedly some money will always go astray - it comes with the territory.
Or we could have used our military if they want to practice there dentistry skills on kiwis, I read an article yesterday that over 50% of kiwis can’t afford annual dental checks and only go when they are in pain. I’m all for giving aid when necessary, after a cyclone or similar, but I’d rather our defence forces do their good dental deeds at home rather than playing away on a Pacific island.
 

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Or we could have used our military if they want to practice there dentistry skills on kiwis, I read an article yesterday that over 50% of kiwis can’t afford annual dental checks and only go when they are in pain. I’m all for giving aid when necessary, after a cyclone or similar, but I’d rather our defence forces do their good dental deeds at home rather than playing away on a Pacific island.
I think you would find that in a significant proportion of the 50% they simply choose not to afford it an probably don't even think about it until they are in pain, when the options are a couple of cases of beer , smokes or weed or a check up, the beer/smokes etc always wins. It has also been noted in surveys that a high proportion of kids and teens do not have regular check ups, even though it is free for under 18 year olds. But I have to admit that I am guilty of not having regular checks too.
 

Calculus

Well-Known Member
Not sure if this poster showing the extent of the NZ frigate upgrades has been posted yet. If so, my apologies. Quite an impressive refit!

anzac-poster.jpg.pc-adaptive.1920.medium.jpeg
 

seaspear

Well-Known Member
In the old days sailors would've been over the side chipping and painting so that when she came alongside she looked tiddly. Now because of these outsourced maintenance contracts they aren't allowed to do that and they look like scran bags. Also I believe that the RNZN has changed the shade of battleship gray that it uses and Canterbury will have been painted in the old shade whereas Edda Fonn is in the new shade.
I know paint can be boring and I will ignore the fifty shades of grey jokes just but the article attached is worth a read
New blue pigment for cool Navy coatings
there have been stories of sailors finding a noticeable difference walking on a deck treated with paints that resisted heat build up ,there was even a story of a visiting P.L.A.N offocer to a U.S.N ship attempting to kick up chips of paint for a souvenir
 

40 deg south

Well-Known Member
Or we could have used our military if they want to practice there dentistry skills on kiwis, I read an article yesterday that over 50% of kiwis can’t afford annual dental checks and only go when they are in pain. I’m all for giving aid when necessary, after a cyclone or similar, but I’d rather our defence forces do their good dental deeds at home rather than playing away on a Pacific island.
Defence Force and Hawke's Bay District Health Board team up to provide essential dental care

Good short piece on NZDF outreach in one the poorest communities in Hawkes Bay. Presumably good for maintaining/developing core skills, but not the same as deploying into a country with dodgy infrastructure/different language/strange food etc.

It's good PR, but not a replacement for a functioning welfare system (in NZ) or development aid (in the South Pacfic).
 

kiwipatriot69

Active Member
Defence Force and Hawke's Bay District Health Board team up to provide essential dental care

Good short piece on NZDF outreach in one the poorest communities in Hawkes Bay. Presumably good for maintaining/developing core skills, but not the same as deploying into a country with dodgy infrastructure/different language/strange food etc.

It's good PR, but not a replacement for a functioning welfare system (in NZ) or development aid (in the South Pacfic).
Lack of dental hygiene and poor diet from an early age factors into that, as well as many being slack with check ups! I remembe the local high school teachers I work with as a caretaker telling me that even free school lunches, healthy meals in tuck shops they piloted a few years back failed in some cases the kids were simply dumping the food! With the obsety rates too in Nz, I reckon its not going to help recruitment either.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Lack of dental hygiene and poor diet from an early age factors into that, as well as many being slack with check ups! I remembe the local high school teachers I work with as a caretaker telling me that even free school lunches, healthy meals in tuck shops they piloted a few years back failed in some cases the kids were simply dumping the food! With the obsety rates too in Nz, I reckon its not going to help recruitment either.
Then there was the murder house (dental clinic staffed by dental nurses) from primary school. Terrible place and gave me a morbid fear of dentistry because those dental nurses I had were sadists.
 

Catalina

Member
Shangri-La Dialogue

Will New Zealand be represented and engage in track one defence diplomacy at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore at months end?
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
Shangri-La Dialogue

Will New Zealand be represented and engage in track one defence diplomacy at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore at months end?
The Minister of Defence and a senior NZDF officer traditionally attend the Shangri-La Dialogue as well as the NZDF defence attache to Singapore who is a Colonel equivalent.
 
Top