|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Oct 17, 2019 16:02:26 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by gibbo on Oct 17, 2019 16:17:06 GMT 12
Yes is a pity however I wasn't aware that 'Regulatory changes in 2012' had impacted on their suitability. I'm still convinced it's as much about lack of personnel however I'm pleased to see that 2 will remain in service... AIUI effectively they're making official what has been the case by default for a number years... only 2 IPVs in use.
The DCP states the remaining 2 are to face a review of their future - I think it's around the time the SOPV is due to come into service.
|
|
|
|
Post by nighthawknz on Oct 17, 2019 20:34:03 GMT 12
Why don't they give them to the reserves...? if not (for what ever reason) that then donate them to Samoa, Fiji or Tonga etc?
|
|
dgd911
Flying Officer
Posts: 56
|
Post by dgd911 on Oct 19, 2019 10:16:15 GMT 12
Yes is a pity however I wasn't aware that 'Regulatory changes in 2012' had impacted on their suitability. I'm still convinced it's as much about lack of personnel however I'm pleased to see that 2 will remain in service... AIUI effectively they're making official what has been the case by default for a number years... only 2 IPVs in use.
The DCP states the remaining 2 are to face a review of their future - I think it's around the time the SOPV is due to come into service.
Despite the advance warning that two IPVs were to be immediately disposed of this year, it’s still a sad day for the navy. Now down to seven active ships, with armament of about 20 .5cal MG and three 25mm cannon. Yay! its difficult to accept the excuses for decommissioning these IPVs, not suitable for anything but calmish waters inshore duties yet just in 2017 Hawea spent 6 months assisting Fijian navy, it’s surpring it even got there without sinking if the IPVs limited seakeeping is to be believed. Odd how the manufacturer stated these boats were more than capable for patrolling the Southern ocean. Who has decided they are no longer useful? The navy or the politicians? I can’t help thinking there is some salving of coalition partners angst at the recent announcements of defence spending hence the rush to decommission. I’d agree that lack of crew is more likely. That’s always been embarrassing. Best to stay optimistic and be convinced NZ still will have a navy when the frigates eventually return and Atearoa get here. I just hope we have the crews for these and won’t see an OPV and the IPVs parked up again for extended periods. |
|
chis73
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 87
|
Post by chis73 on Oct 19, 2019 13:07:42 GMT 12
Surprised this happened so quickly (and with very little indication - in the recent DCP it gives an indicative date of 2020). Interestingly, the October 2019 issue of Asia Pacific Defence Reporter (APDR) says two IPVs have been sold (link here - see p.54, free if you register) - so I guess let's wait to see if we have an announcement soon. IMHO, it's a real pity one can't rely on the NZDF to speak the honest truth publicly anymore (the change in regulations thing smells like equine excrement to me too). I wonder if the decommissioning is budget related (have the frigate upgrades or the AOR build gone (further?) over budget and something has to go?). More probably, as Gibbo and others note above, it's likely a personnel thing, now that the crews for the new AOR, the new Manawanui and perhaps a frigate are coming onstream. Certainly the IPVs have been a very conspicuous failure for the RNZN. Only commissioned in 2009 (it was supposed to be 2007), then two mothballed since 2013, and now two decommissioned after barely 10 years. A very sad tale. Partly Navy's fault too IMHO - basing all 4 at Devonport is/was a poor choice - at least two should be based somewhere near Cook Strait (Wellington or perhaps Picton), given their endurance is only about 8 days (before they run out of food). Navy just never seemed particularly interested in using them to their potential, the ships themselves appear adequate for what was originally intended (see the Maritime Patrol Review from 2001). They were only intended to patrol the North Island and Marlborough Sounds, yet they have been sent into South Pacific and around the bottom of the South Island. The OPVs were expected to do the lower South Island and the outer EEZ. As for giving them to the reserves - I think the issue there is that they are too much ship for them (both technically and in crewing requirements). Reserves would probably be better with a harbour patrol craft (similar to the size of the old HDML at most). But no one in Navy upper management is going to give up their budget to provide ships for the Reserves, are they? The same thing has happened in Army too. It is often said NZ suffers from chronic Sea-Blindness. I think it's much worse than that, now it looks more like Naval Necrosis! |
|
|
|
Post by nighthawknz on Oct 19, 2019 13:38:56 GMT 12
As for giving them to the reserves - I think the issue there is that they are too much ship for them (both technically and in crewing requirements). Reserves would probably be better with a harbour patrol craft (similar to the size of the old HDML at most). But no one in Navy upper management is going to give up their budget to provide ships for the Reserves, are they? The same thing has happened in Army too. Not sure you what you mean too much ship for the reserves...? There is no need to have the reserves then, if they can not continue their training, with the modern equipment that the regular force have... And just shows the short-sightedness of the policy makers. Quote from Navy website: www.navy.mil.nz/np/naval-reserve/naval+reserves/default.htmWell they are't going to sea and haven't for a long time??? The reserves from the navy are not really reserves any more... and there is no point having them... |
|
tnos
Warrant Officer
Posts: 32
|
Post by tnos on Oct 19, 2019 16:31:32 GMT 12
Partly the problem was the mission envisioned for these ship never materialised. Yes they have be adapted to do patrols up in Fiji etc but that was not the original mission envisioned. And while a credible job was done on those patrols, another truth is the larger OPVs do a vastly superior in the same mission, while the operating cost is not significantly more.
I was on one shortly when it commissioned before posting back to a frigate. The mission was to support other government agencies for their takings around the coastline. Eg police,customs,MPI. Basically it was envisioned as a hire a ship as the budget/cost to run those missions was to come from the Agency requesting it. The tightening budgets across government eventually lead to those other agencies pulling the pin on those types of missions and the and the NZDF having to stomach the running cost of 4 ships with no mission.
To be honest the surprising thing for me is it's just two being decommissioned.
They will be sold and wouldn't be surprised if they aren't already. As they will be a very attractive ship to other countries. I expect to see them in the Mediterranean or similar.
|
|
dgd911
Flying Officer
Posts: 56
|
Post by dgd911 on Oct 23, 2019 20:38:41 GMT 12
An interesting reply tnos and what you say makes sense.
However, IMO its still an absolute balls up that these IPVs are being decommissioned and sold. Despite the apparent lack of mission I find it incredible that our navy prides itself on overseas assignments that often produce positive results with drug interdiction. A wonderful task enforcing global order.
Yet in our own home waters we cannot even patrol to prevent seaborne drug smuggling into NZ. That massive hundreds of Kg of drugs landed on ninety mile beach a couple of years ago by a disorganised group of idiots who were only intercepted because some locals noted their broken down boat abandoned. Local police were then able to track and capture the perps recovering $millions street value class A drugs.
Not a navy patrol anywhere to be seen, no IPV, nothing. How many other major drug smuggling via sea succeed because we have no naval coastguard?
It’s always been a bloody shame that these very mission capable ships were deliberately never used to properly guard NZ coast and interdict drug smugglers and enforce anti smuggling activities.
So what’s the navy’s excuse ‘Not our mission’. No money for this! Can’t recruit enough crew? We are not a coastguard 🙂
|
|
|
|
Post by senob on Oct 24, 2019 13:26:33 GMT 12
An interesting reply tnos and what you say makes sense. However, IMO its still an absolute balls up that these IPVs are being decommissioned and sold. Despite the apparent lack of mission I find it incredible that our navy prides itself on overseas assignments that often produce positive results with drug interdiction. A wonderful task enforcing global order. Yet in our own home waters we cannot even patrol to prevent seaborne drug smuggling into NZ. That massive hundreds of Kg of drugs landed on ninety mile beach a couple of years ago by a disorganised group of idiots who were only intercepted because some locals noted their broken down boat abandoned. Local police were then able to track and capture the perps recovering $millions street value class A drugs. Not a navy patrol anywhere to be seen, no IPV, nothing. How many other major drug smuggling via sea succeed because we have no naval coastguard? It’s always been a bloody shame that these very mission capable ships were deliberately never used to properly guard NZ coast and interdict drug smugglers and enforce anti smuggling activities. So what’s the navy’s excuse ‘Not our mission’. No money for this! Can’t recruit enough crew? We are not a coastguard 🙂 Actually, monitoring and enforcement of illegal importation of contraband goods into NZ is a Customs responsibility, not a responsibility nor core role for Defence. The NZDF only undertake such taskings at the request of Customs, because Customs do not fund and operate its own green water air and maritime surveillance and enforcement fleet. Same with MAF and the fisheries. Even SAR is not a core role for Defence - all of these roles are secondary roles, however they help to justify the acquisition of certain platforms with expensive capabilities. In the case of the IPVs, apart from training, there is no core defence role. I would prefer them going to the RNZNVR rather than being sold off, enabling the VR to return to its core role of providing trained qualified sea going reserves for the regular navy. However, senior navy, unlike senior army, don't value their reserves seeing them as a hindrance rather than as a viable asset with a wide skill base and expertise, that in many cases the navy didn't have to pay for.
Another point is that nothing has been acquired to replace the 2 retired IPVs; an OPV would be great. All we get is the promise of a SOPV which is slated for 2029 or thereabouts. Politicians promises are like what comes out of the back end of cows. The tired old political and treasury harlot of austerity claim that the country cannot afford to invest more money in defence and increase defence expenditure is also the same as that which comes out the back end of a cow. As is the claim that the public won't support such an increase. Just read the comments in the media after recent stories about defence. The politicians and media think that the public are stupid, when in fact the public are more astute than the politicians and media give them credit for. So they reduce our capabilities whilst claiming how they are buying new kit for NZDF creating what they term as an effective and credible defence force. Excuse me whilst I choke.
|
|
tnos
Warrant Officer
Posts: 32
|
Post by tnos on Sept 16, 2021 15:59:15 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by nighthawknz on Sept 16, 2021 20:18:32 GMT 12
They have been eyeing them up for some time... |
|
