Originally posted by na grohmití
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
EPV for naval service
Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
-
- Likes 1
-
Hopefully RNZN highlighted the issues
Comment
-
Originally posted by DeV View Post
Lesson to be learned.... stay the fcuk away from that type of design.Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe
- Likes 5
Comment
-
That ship was a bad bad decision by NZDF its pi$$ poor to think that naval people could consider that a commercial design created to plough the irish sea for a couple of hours at a time could become a military vessel designed to traverse the southern oceans. I really really hope that our lot only went over to learn what kind of design WONT work for us in the atlantic."He is an enemy officer taken in battle and entitled to fair treatment."
"No, sir. He's a sergeant, and they don't deserve no respect at all, sir. I should know. They're cunning and artful, if they're any good. I wouldn't mind if he was an officer, sir. But sergeants are clever."
- Likes 4
Comment
-
The ship will exhibit poor sea keeping qualities for ocean patrolling in the higher sea states but, over time, the RNZN should be able to develop practices and procedure to accommodate the sea keeping performance.Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by morpheus View PostThat ship was a bad bad decision by NZDF its pi$$ poor to think that naval people could consider that a commercial design created to plough the irish sea for a couple of hours at a time could become a military vessel designed to traverse the southern oceans. I really really hope that our lot only went over to learn what kind of design WONT work for us in the atlantic.
It was not the RNZN's fault. They did not want it - but were politically forced to go along with it. Their preference was either the RSS Endurance which was mentioned favourably in the Sealift Review of 2000 or the Hyundai offering. The oversight of the whole Project Protector was run out of the Department of PM and Cabinet and Treasury. The RNZN also did not recommend the 55m IPV's that were bought but again were forced by their 'clients' - the Ministry of Fisheries and the Customs Department whose policy thoughts dominated the 2001 Maritime Forces Review and played into what essentially was the anti-defence bias of the then NZ Government leadership. To keep the then government under its 1% of GDP max defence spend they got a measly $500m for seven ships. Thus the cheapest MRV, the smallest OPV they could get away with that had a hanger and a flight deck - which they then put a limited ice belt which was only realistic on a vessel ideally 15m longer (another Naval suggestion ignored) and even then cut a OPV and IPV from the original 2001 MFR recommendation.
You guys should understand that often Defence is treated like a second class citizen if the Taoiseach does not really care or value them.
- Likes 7
Comment
-
Did I hear the IPVs are all tied up at port and would probably be binned soon?
It is unfortunte when non defence agencies get to have too much influence on the selection of defence equipment.
Hopefully the lessons learnt by the RNZN will come home with those who went to review the MRV from the Irish NS.For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.
- Likes 3
Comment
-
I have sympathy for all the points you make. NZ maritime environment is at least as aggressive as here in the Atlantic and more so towards the ice shelves. You need stable deep tonnage to provide capability and some crew comfort for various taskings, which for us can be from 28 days to 90 plus days overseas and possibly longer. The civil masters tend to listen to advice involving cost reductions whereas the professional has Naval capability in mind, not least crew safety and as wide an operating envelope as possible. Hopefully we will get it as right as we are allowed!!
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by na grohmití View PostDid I hear the IPVs are all tied up at port and would probably be binned soon?
It is unfortunte when non defence agencies get to have too much influence on the selection of defence equipment.
Hopefully the lessons learnt by the RNZN will come home with those who went to review the MRV from the Irish NS.
Comment
-
Originally posted by na grohmití View PostDid I hear the IPVs are all tied up at port and would probably be binned soon?
It is unfortunte when non defence agencies get to have too much influence on the selection of defence equipment.
Hopefully the lessons learnt by the RNZN will come home with those who went to review the MRV from the Irish NS.
They Navy were deemed as purely a service provider for MAOT - Multi-agency government tasks - thus the 'clients' (other government departments) got to dictate the business case for the whole project and Treasury the budget.
The 55m IPV's lack endurance - they only can patrol 7-10 days before returning to port for fresh water and fuel where as the OPV's where last 21-28 days before requiring replenishment. They lack helicopter facilities and were bought for inshore fisheries patrol and customs interception - out to the contiguous zone, which frankly is not where the real compliance and enforcement issues are. There are now less then 600 inshore fisher quota holders and the real action is the FFFV's from Russia, China et al who are in the outer EES or southern ocean.
In terms of core crew there is only a difference of 12 per vessel between them and an OPV. They are pointless - an anachronism.
Two IPV's are still used - one essentially a sea training / response vessel and the other they found a use for by basing it up in Fiji where it actually is quite useful. The two others are tied up. Defence is perfectly happy with that because they achieve not a hell of a lot. One P-3K in a 10 hour lap of honour can achieve far more for resource protection than four IPV's all at sea for a week. There is nothing wrong with the IPV's as vessels and in the right maritime context they would be very useful. It is likely that two will end up as sold as excess defence articles and be replaced by a much larger vessel similar to the Canadian new DeWolf Class.
- Likes 3
Comment
-
Originally posted by DeV View PostIt’s in the name Inshore PV hence the short legs etc
Where they being used offshore?For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.
Comment
-
Originally posted by na grohmití View PostDid I hear the IPVs are all tied up at port and would probably be binned soon?
It is unfortunte when non defence agencies get to have too much influence on the selection of defence equipment.
Hopefully the lessons learnt by the RNZN will come home with those who went to review the MRV from the Irish NS.Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by na grohmití View PostThat was expected of them by the client users. Instead of a small OPV they got a big IPV. Armidale type would have been better suited but it was too "warry".
- Likes 2
Comment
Comment