Less likely today than 15 years ago.
Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
It is possible with a hard left - green influence in govt. But that is getting fairly remote considering that the hard left - green influences within the current government are failing through lack of ability to deal with the responsibility of government.
Treasury are not opposed to warships per-se as they do receive the same intel reports as governments direct national security departments. I understand that in recent years their analysts are more realistic than a decade or two ago - personal and personal biases within institutions do change. The P-8A buy was an example of where they understood the bigger picture. VFM is still important nevertheless. Deep in the haze of numbers their is not that much strategic clarity though.
Shane Jones in the NBR on 19 Sept reporting that the preferred option for a new dry dock is Northland. Notes Picton was cheaper but lacked infrastructure. Report been drafted by EY and Northport. No clear picture on future of current drydock, but remediation costs noted. Looking at fast tracking under the RMA
Good news progress is finally being made. Realistically the increasing size of ships will force either relocation of DNB or a move to two base option, which I favour. I don't see how need to move DNB just stay beside the drydock. Mainly because you don't need to cut holes in the side of a ship like you use to. We would be better with a second base in Piction and leveraging off Woodbourne facilities for a logistics base etc
Good news progress is finally being made. Realistically the increasing size of ships will force either relocation of DNB or a move to two base option, which I favour. I don't see how need to move DNB just stay beside the drydock. Mainly because you don't need to cut holes in the side of a ship like you use to. We would be better with a second base in Piction and leveraging off Woodbourne facilities for a logistics base etc
Last edited:
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
In the mean time will Aotearoa be birthed in Devonport, or will it be Austrailia? At least the proposed Lpd and Frigate replacements are up to ten years away.Though the planning for infrastructure should be now.
Berthed or dry-docked? It would never be berthed in Australia other than when on operations or showing the flag. As we speak DNB's main wharf is being lengthened at each end to a total of something like 70 metres or so... one end is a dolphin & the other is a true extension.
'Birthed' on Devonport .... that conjures up unfortunate images
...... i know, I know .... off topic and silly
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
A typo, apologies. I'm too cheap to pay for prescription glasses.
The latest issue of APDR (Oct 2019) - link - has a nice piece (dare I say a puff piece, there is no criticism) on the current & future RNZN fleet, see p52.
Apparently, the NZ MoD will outline the requirements for the SOPV to industry later this week (9 Oct) at the Pacific 2019 marine industry conference in Sydney. Given the over-optimistic requirements specs we usually see from the MoD (even though it is supposed to be basically a commercial-spec vessel), and the fact that this vessel won't be in service till 2027, I wouldn't be getting overly excited.
Apparently, the NZ MoD will outline the requirements for the SOPV to industry later this week (9 Oct) at the Pacific 2019 marine industry conference in Sydney. Given the over-optimistic requirements specs we usually see from the MoD (even though it is supposed to be basically a commercial-spec vessel), and the fact that this vessel won't be in service till 2027, I wouldn't be getting overly excited.
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
Why is the SOPV going to be delayed up to 8 years, given the urgency requiring it? Money has been allocated hasn't it? And even on the numbers of Hercs were getting So much for Jacindas ' Pacific reset'.
The SOPV was originally touted by the previous govt for 2023, so it's not an 8 year delay. Secondly, it's not part of the so called "Pacific Reset" because it's designed for the Antarctic and Sub Antarctic.
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
Yes, SOPV was meant for Antarctic and Southern Ocean duties, but also as mentioned in the DCP 19 that's to free up the other two OPV for Pacific duties, so it's relative.
Strange all the same, given the current climate,security crisises the worlds facing now.that other big ticket items like the frigates get pushed further down the road too.And so while the RAN sends one of it's biggest task forces to sea, the RNZN reaches a new low of just 5 operational commissioned vessels... wow we're really pulling our weight in the region aren't we!... although to be fair this was documented in the DCP.
Navy decommissions two Inshore Patrol Vessels
Navy decommissions two Inshore Patrol Vessels
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
If they are not fit for task then I agree that their capability should be replaced with what is required, more OPV capability. I will again advocate for an interim capability in the form of a leased offshore support vessel to provide the better sea keeping capability. As was done with the Edda Fonn there must be an acceptable vessel available on the open market that could provide the service until the SOPV is in service. An 80 to 85 m could be easily modified with military spec communications, HMG mounts at a minimum although a 25 mm should be able to be mounted, plus shipping container service pods for RPAS operations, armoury, and a limited transport capability should be an easy fix. What appears to be needed is a presence able to handle the rough sea conditions.
This vessel could serve as a trials ship for new technologies allowing the RNZN to field test systems in advance of the new SOPV and the replacements for the current OPVs.
This vessel could serve as a trials ship for new technologies allowing the RNZN to field test systems in advance of the new SOPV and the replacements for the current OPVs.
Fit for task? Well that all depends on the task though does'nt it. An IPV has/was never intended to be "projected further afield" ie pacific (although ironically just what they did) and was always just that, an inshore patrol vessel.
All smoke and mirrors but anything to not mention the capability shortfalls (exp personnel) as that would be admitting failure much like the govts failure in police recruitment so easier to feign policy change rather than admit defeat. Can't have 2 policy failures on watch.
The added OPV should be just that, added, not in lieu of considering we have been losing fleet numbers in various roles for quite a few years now, roles we still need to conduct. Any inshore work taken up by a OPV will now be at the expense of offshore tasks in kind or more likely just not done, as per when the IPVs were parked up anyway. The SOPV should have no bearing on inshore requirements considering the IPVs would never deploy to that theatre anyway so again manning issues robbing Peter to pay Paul. Some will see this as an upgrade, I still see it overall as another loss in capability under the guise of filling another (when in fact both should still be maintained), especially considering the touted OPV is still awhile off yet anyway. Heres hoping we get on top of the manning issues at least by then otherwise we will merely just park up an OPV where the 2 IPVs were.
"Surplus" IPVs to park next to the idle LAVs in the empty hanger?
Last edited:
Paper delivered by Commander Steve Lenik, RNZN, at the Australian Naval Institute’s 2019 Goldrick Seminar
In order to conflate security implications with maritime trade there are three main points to consider from the New Zealand perspective. First, due to our geographical remoteness we are utterly dependent on maritime trade for the nation’s prosperity and wellbeing. Second, the New Zealand public is largely ‘sea-blind’ to the importance of maritime areas beyond our Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Beyond this horizon in New Zealand’s ‘maritime periphery’ lie important geopolitical reference points crucial in developing security measures in support of trade; and third, Defence is an important tool but, due to the potential for a revisionist form of maritime trade warfare, characterised by ‘Grey Zone’ activities, there are other levers of national power that are required as part of a global effort to safeguard the free and unencumbered trading routes that are so pivotal to New Zealand’s prosperity.
Full paper: Implications for maritime trade – a NZ perspective
It is well worth the read and very informative.
EDIT: @t68 & @kiwipatriot69 Link fixed. My apologies.
In order to conflate security implications with maritime trade there are three main points to consider from the New Zealand perspective. First, due to our geographical remoteness we are utterly dependent on maritime trade for the nation’s prosperity and wellbeing. Second, the New Zealand public is largely ‘sea-blind’ to the importance of maritime areas beyond our Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Beyond this horizon in New Zealand’s ‘maritime periphery’ lie important geopolitical reference points crucial in developing security measures in support of trade; and third, Defence is an important tool but, due to the potential for a revisionist form of maritime trade warfare, characterised by ‘Grey Zone’ activities, there are other levers of national power that are required as part of a global effort to safeguard the free and unencumbered trading routes that are so pivotal to New Zealand’s prosperity.
Full paper: Implications for maritime trade – a NZ perspective
It is well worth the read and very informative.
EDIT: @t68 & @kiwipatriot69 Link fixed. My apologies.
Last edited:
t68
Well-Known Member
Hi NG
You need to fix the link as it just takes me straight back to DT same page as the your post.
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
Yes it is pathetic Gibbo. And the IPV's leaving service has been signalled for years so it is not like they have had no warning.
As the inshore role requirement decreased the offshore role increased and one wonders how hard would have been to simply spend not a hell of a lot of money to build a couple of rugged, nothing fancy, do what it is meant to do on the tin Offshore Patrol Vessels along the lines of a licensed Batch 1 River Class or similar to replace the the four IPV's.
It is a shame that as an interim solution we could not have snapped up the three Royal Navy B1 Rivers before their decommissioning was reversed 12 months ago due to potential post brexit wobbles.
The NZ Government has a $7.5B+ surplus at present or in other words $20 million a day being left over. Crikey, just one weeks worth of that pot of cash and the OPV/IPV problem would be solved for at least a decade, never mind the cold hard cash we'd get for the four lightly used IPV's anyway.
Let put it in perspective. Could one imagine the outcry if the NZ Police announced tomorrow that they were going to take off the road one third of their patrol cars from next month!