New Zealand's Navy woes

NickNZ
1st April 2010, 10:49
We seem to be having on-going probllems with the ships that are built, and then commissioned. Who's at fault for this, the government seems to be keeping very quiet, and the new ships were all ordered under Project Protector.
Our woes started with the Charles Upham, which was a disaster from day one, now HMNZS Canterbury seems to have been a bugger up (at least we got $87 million back form BAE Systems for that), now the Protector Offshore, and Inshore Patrol Vessels seem to be faulty.
Will the Aussies hold their hands up? Or is it the RNZN to blame?

Jan Hendrik
1st April 2010, 11:07
You got 4 patrol boats in Whangarai, sitting there since years.
Photo taken mid 2009 (these are 2 of them)

And those wonderful 2 OPV's built at Tenix Melbourne which were already launched nearly 4 years ago and which are still sitting at the outfitting pier.
Photo taken 1 month ago.

Just hope that NZ never gets invaded from the sea....
Jan

NickNZ
1st April 2010, 11:33
You got 4 patrol boats in Whangarai, sitting there since years.
Photo taken mid 2009 (these are 2 of them)

And those wonderful 2 OPV's built at Tenix Melbourne which were already launched nearly 4 years ago and which are still sitting at the outfitting pier.
Photo taken 1 month ago.

Just hope that NZ never gets invaded from the sea....
Jan

They weren't designed to protect NZ from invasion, but to patrol territorial waters. But I understood that like HMNZS Canterbury there are issues with the build quality. One broke down on it's delivery voyage from Oz. Is that correct?

SeaShipDev
1st April 2010, 11:43
The Aussies build quality naval ships! Just look at the Collins Class Subs!! (Jester)

Mike S
2nd April 2010, 02:03
I have to wonder with the woes here described if the system is at fault rather than the people.
I am still trying to understand how the Navies of both countries work out who and how to run their engine rooms.
From the outside looking in it seems that the well tried Merchant manning system would work a whole lot better.
Happy to be proven wrong...............

NZSCOTTY
2nd April 2010, 03:47
A couple of months ago I observed from my ship at Picton a crew member of an inshore patrol boat exposing himself and urinating over the side. Obviously under the influence as he shouted up at some of my passengers that they were perverts!
A few minutes later another sailor apeared with what definately looked like a beer in his hand and then spitting over the side! The next one to appear had a smoke hanging out of his mouth.

Still awaiting an outcome of my official complaint.

Perhaps they deserve these broken down "new" vessels

Brian Twyman
27th April 2010, 02:58
A couple of months ago I observed from my ship at Picton a crew member of an inshore patrol boat exposing himself and urinating over the side. Obviously under the influence as he shouted up at some of my passengers that they were perverts!
A few minutes later another sailor apeared with what definately looked like a beer in his hand and then spitting over the side! The next one to appear had a smoke hanging out of his mouth.

Still awaiting an outcome of my official complaint.

Perhaps they deserve these broken down "new" vessels

I hope that your last comment was 'tongue in cheek'.

Of course this behaviour is exactly the opposite which anybody would wish to see and is entirely opposite to the image the RNZN wishes tp present.
I wish you every success with your complaint and I am confident that there will be a serious outcome for those responsible.

kauvaka
27th April 2010, 05:30
Australia supplied "Pacific" class patrol boats to a number of Pacific Island nations Weren't the vessels far from ideal for Pacific Ocean sailing? Something about the length of the vessel being wrong for the length of wave troughs in the region. Perhaps someone could explain or rebut this.

Brian Twyman
27th April 2010, 06:38
As I understand the 'Project Protector' ships saga in the simplest terms ......

The NZ government allocated a certain sum with which the RNZN was to be provided with 1 Logistics ship (HMNZS Canterbury), 2 Offshore Patrol vessels (HMNZS Otago and Wellington), and 4 Inshore patrol vessels (HMNZS Rotoiti, Hawea, Pukaki and Taupo).

Bids were sought for the contracts and that of Tenix was accepted.
The contract specifications for each vessel were part of that contract.

Canterbury had problems with the positioning of the boat stowage, having lost one overboard. Also the boat releasing gear revealed in an accident which cost a sailor his life. And one of keeping the props underwater in rough sea. There may have been others of course. Either these did not meet specs. or were under the warrantee for a new vessel ?

The OFVs main problem was a final weight issue which resulted in the ice protection strake being below the waterline.

I an unaware of big problems with the IPVs

Most items could not be forseen and were revealed when the ships were completed.

These were contractural issues which needed to be resolved between the parties. Like anything legal, it turned out to be a long drawn out affair. It seems the agreement was for NZ to receive some $85 million rebate.

No doubt there will be lessons learned, but any finger pointing is pointless.
If you bought a new car and it did not perform as it should, them you would seek some recompense. You may need a lawyer, time and patience.

No doubt all parties are pleased the saga is now over, the ships are all operating and the RNZN can get on with the job of protecting the nation's interests.

Brian Twyman
27th April 2010, 06:39
The Aussies build quality naval ships! Just look at the Collins Class Subs!! (Jester)

.... and they had their teething problems also ! But that is another story ...

Billyly
27th April 2010, 11:15
A bad workman blames his tools. The "Chuck" Upham operated OK as a merchant vessel for years but was not suited for its role in the navy. (neither were the sailors suited for their role on the vessel). I can remember many times over the years naval vessels leaving Devonport Naval Base to go and play war games after being alongside for months only to return with mechanical failures within days or sometimes hours of leaving. It seems the teething problems for naval vessels last for the whole life of the vessel. The problems described above sound like they could have been easily foreseen such as the final draft of the vessel!!

NickNZ
27th April 2010, 14:00
I'm not trying to apportion any blame. But somewhere, on a number of occassions, things have gone awry with the vessels built.
Charles Upham was a favourite with the press, and the larger vessels of the Project Protector Class have had problems, which I feel should have been foreseen.
Especially building OPV's, which end up being over 100 tons over esign weight, and therefore not fit for purpose.
Tenix/BAe seem to have done the 'mea culpa' by repaying $87 million. I just hope this money is spent wisely, within the RNZN defence budget.Having recently involved in the building of a bew Training facility for the Navy at Whangaparaoa, hopefully the quality of sailors, and standards are improved. So that the RNZN becomes a respected force again,. And a good career choice for youngsters.
When they have sorted all this out, hopefully the government will reinstate the RNZAF jet fighters, so that the matelots & grunts have all round protection abvailable as an option. There are plenty of good, low mileage F-16s around. And I'msure the Yanks would love NZ to get back onside with them.

Brian Twyman
27th April 2010, 14:35
A bad workman blames his tools. The "Chuck" Upham operated OK as a merchant vessel for years but was not suited for its role in the navy. (neither were the sailors suited for their role on the vessel). I can remember many times over the years naval vessels leaving Devonport Naval Base to go and play war games after being alongside for months only to return with mechanical failures within days or sometimes hours of leaving. It seems the teething problems for naval vessels last for the whole life of the vessel. The problems described above sound like they could have been easily foreseen such as the final draft of the vessel!!

Billyly (Cloud)

You seem to have a real 'down' on the RNZN, poor fellow. Unfortunately you do seem to be an armchair critic without much knowledge of the real facts.

The decision to have a logistics ship was made by the government after a defence review. It was a government decision to purchase 'Upham' and another not to proceed with the required modifications and another to dispose of her. There was absolutely nothing wrong with her fine crew !

Warships are complicated vessels with sophisticated systems requiring a lot more upkeep than a simple merchant ship. Refits etc. enable the ships to be run for 30 years or more at a high operational level..

You will find that the NZ goverment expressed their concerns during construction about the final weight of the OPVs .. it was forseen ! .. and for the builder to correct.

You simply cannot forsee most items failing until you use them

Anyway, the Navy have the ships now and you can sleep soundly knowing that they are protecting your coastline .

Cheers aye
Brian

John Cassels
27th April 2010, 19:43
I hope that your last comment was 'tongue in cheek'.

Of course this behaviour is exactly the opposite which anybody would wish to see and is entirely opposite to the image the RNZN wishes tp present.
I wish you every success with your complaint and I am confident that there will be a serious outcome for those responsible.

Knowing NZSCOTTY as I do , I doubt very much his comments were
abything like " tongue in cheek " .
More like " deadly serious " .

Donald McGhee
28th April 2010, 00:56
The RNZN, in common with the rest of the NZDF is a victim of the politically correct mania that is unfortunately still strong here in Godzone.
The effects of not shouting at recruits, being polite to those on the drill square and treating all as fragile beings is all too apparent in the standards seen.
My son served in the RNZN and is a Leading Electronic Technician in the reserve and also notices that the standards have dropped. Once upon a time a Killick was a man to be reckoned with, as was a PO, but now?
The RNZN is top heavy with senior rates and senior officers, to the extent that some Captains, having no chance of achieving a higher rank are being told to retire and the RNZN "contract" for ratings is now, I believe only for 8 years!
Still, having said that I believe the RNZN is as good as it can be, given the restrictions put upon it. At least there are some new ships (teething problems and all) and we no longer have to ask for second hand ones and convert ferries!
(Thumb)

Brian Twyman
28th April 2010, 06:48
The RNZN, in common with the rest of the NZDF is a victim of the politically correct mania that is unfortunately still strong here in Godzone.
The effects of not shouting at recruits, being polite to those on the drill square and treating all as fragile beings is all too apparent in the standards seen.
My son served in the RNZN and is a Leading Electronic Technician in the reserve and also notices that the standards have dropped. Once upon a time a Killick was a man to be reckoned with, as was a PO, but now?
The RNZN is top heavy with senior rates and senior officers, to the extent that some Captains, having no chance of achieving a higher rank are being told to retire and the RNZN "contract" for ratings is now, I believe only for 8 years!
Still, having said that I believe the RNZN is as good as it can be, given the restrictions put upon it. At least there are some new ships (teething problems and all) and we no longer have to ask for second hand ones and convert ferries!
(Thumb)

Donald, you are both a scholar and a gentleman and I applaud your post (Applause) You are quite correct in what you say that things have changed.
We may not like the change, nor think it is a good change. The challenge has been and always will be to accept changes forced upon you and still produce the results. In this respect I know that the RNZN have done just that and Kiwi pride will ensure that it will always remain that way.

Brian Twyman
28th April 2010, 06:52
Knowing NZSCOTTY as I do , I doubt very much his comments were
abything like " tongue in cheek " .
More like " deadly serious " .

What a deadly serious poor attitude in that case

NickNZ
28th April 2010, 07:02
Having been involved in Stage 1 of the renovated Naval traininig Facility at Whangaparoa, I can confidently say, that whilst there (& the base was still being used) whilst the new spartan, but nice dormitories were being built. Not only were the recruits worked hard, "encouraged", and generally given the sort of treatment a new recruit would expect at such a stage in their career. But the staff were excellent, and doing their best to ensure standards were ahieved.
If there is any fault with attitudes, I would suggest it probably is no different thamn most any other Navy, and not the fault of the base training staff.

Billyly
28th April 2010, 08:19
Brian
You still have'nt explained why the navy ends up with ships (launches now) that are not fit for purpose, badly designed and built. No good blaming it on Government decisions I am sure the navy have some input into the vessels they aquire.
Patriotism isnt going to solve the problem!
NZScotty witnessed some "fine crew" behaviour and your calling his attitude poor?
As far as arm chair critics are concerned take a look at your own profile!!

John Cassels
28th April 2010, 09:18
Brian
You still have'nt explained why the navy ends up with ships (launches now) that are not fit for purpose, badly designed and built. No good blaming it on Government decisions I am sure the navy have some input into the vessels they aquire.
Patriotism isnt going to solve the problem!
NZScotty witnessed some "fine crew" behaviour and your calling his attitude poor?
As far as arm chair critics are concerned take a look at your own profile!!

Couldn't have said it better myself.

NZSCOTTY's attitude is most certainly not poor. As Master on board his
ship he had the misfortune in having his passengers being subject to the
behaviour of these persons. He must have felt ashamed .

I hope he decides to release the photographs , then lets see whose attitude
is poor.

Brian Twyman
28th April 2010, 12:38
Brian
You still have'nt explained why the navy ends up with ships (launches now) that are not fit for purpose, badly designed and built. No good blaming it on Government decisions I am sure the navy have some input into the vessels they aquire.
Patriotism isnt going to solve the problem!
NZScotty witnessed some "fine crew" behaviour and your calling his attitude poor?
As far as arm chair critics are concerned take a look at your own profile!!

The government decides what it requires the Defence Forces to do and how much money it can have. Read up the purposes for which the ships are required and they do fit those specifics. No doubt the Navy would have liked more and bigger and better ships ... but government sets the budget. They have got the best they could get within the budget. Of course the Navy had input, but not the final decisions, Cabinet makes them.
I agree that patriotism is not going to solve any problem, but it sure beats defeatism and our guys will make the very best job of them.
They are proud of the Kiwi traditions and will live up to them.

I have totally agreed with NZ Scotty about the appalling behaviour ... I am as disgusted and disappointed as anyone else. But I find that to say the whole Navy deserves bad ships because of that a rather dissappointing comment. Albeit from an eminent Master Mariner to whom I offer my sincere apologies if he is as disappointed with mine

My own profile outlines some 26 years of maritime service , another 20 years as a coastguard tutor, and some 50 years of following naval matters. I rest my case !

Surely we do not all have to agree in this PC world, do we ? Have a tot on me and cheer up ! (==D)

Brian Twyman
28th April 2010, 12:47
Couldn't have said it better myself.

NZSCOTTY's attitude is most certainly not poor. As Master on board his
ship he had the misfortune in having his passengers being subject to the
behaviour of these persons. He must have felt ashamed .

I hope he decides to release the photographs , then lets see whose attitude
is poor.

John

No offence intended ! (EEK)

I have answered in another post : I am as disgusted as anyone else !!
I hope the men involved get what they deserve .. I am sure they will.
I still do not agree with his final comment or yours ...... I find neither helpful.

So have a tot on me and let's agree to differ .

Brian

Brian Twyman
28th April 2010, 12:50
Having been involved in Stage 1 of the renovated Naval traininig Facility at Whangaparoa, I can confidently say, that whilst there (& the base was still being used) whilst the new spartan, but nice dormitories were being built. Not only were the recruits worked hard, "encouraged", and generally given the sort of treatment a new recruit would expect at such a stage in their career. But the staff were excellent, and doing their best to ensure standards were ahieved.
If there is any fault with attitudes, I would suggest it probably is no different thamn most any other Navy, and not the fault of the base training staff.

Well said Nick, I applaud your post . (Applause)

Brian

lagerstedt
29th April 2010, 08:53
Donald #15
I was in the RNZN Hydrograhic Branch during the 1960's and the term was 8 years then and had been for a while. That was 40 plus years ago.

Regards
Blair
CHB
NZ

Donald McGhee
29th April 2010, 23:25
Donald #15
I was in the RNZN Hydrograhic Branch during the 1960's and the term was 8 years then and had been for a while. That was 40 plus years ago.

Regards
Blair
CHB
NZ

I have a chart given to me by an old RSA pal, Jim Pilkington. It commemorates the 25th Anniversary of HMNZS Lachlan, with all the crew members names at the bottom.

spongebob
29th April 2010, 23:46
Now there was a ship that earned her keep. While I was at the Dockyard 1952-1957 as an apprentice I worked on this Loch class type survey vessel several times including a full overhaul on the reciprocating steam engines.
She was responsible for re charting much of the NZ coastal waters and I believe some of this work was updating charts originally plotted by James Cook himself.
Blair, you might be able to confirm this.

Bob

NZSCOTTY
30th April 2010, 00:22
What a deadly serious poor attitude in that case

If you think that is a poor attitude I would have thought the disgusting behaviour by the crew would be seen as a worse attitude. How would you like your passengers be abused by a apparent drunken sailor whilst exposing himself!
And the attitude of those in charge not much better with no final reply to my complaint

John Cassels
30th April 2010, 10:50
If you think that is a poor attitude I would have thought the disgusting behaviour by the crew would be seen as a worse attitude. How would you like your passengers be abused by a apparent drunken sailor whilst exposing himself!
And the attitude of those in charge not much better with no final reply to my complaint


With people like him to defend them , what more can you expect.

Pity they did away with keel hauling long ago !.

Brian Twyman
30th April 2010, 14:11
If you think that is a poor attitude I would have thought the disgusting behaviour by the crew would be seen as a worse attitude. How would you like your passengers be abused by a apparent drunken sailor whilst exposing himself!
And the attitude of those in charge not much better with no final reply to my complaint

NZ SCOTTY I have replied by PM
Brian

Brian Twyman
30th April 2010, 14:17
With people like him to defend them , what more can you expect.

Pity they did away with keel hauling long ago !.

John

Please read the posts again. I have never defended the sailors at Picton !!
I hope they do get keel hauled.(MAD)

How are things in Holland ??

Brian

John Cassels
30th April 2010, 19:54
John

Please read the posts again. I have never defended the sailors at Picton !!
I hope they do get keel hauled.(MAD)

How are things in Holland ??

Brian

No Brian , you did not but with all due respect , you did refer to NZSCOTTY"s
attitude as ( and I quote - poor).

Now , I fail to understand how , in this respect you can continue to defend
this comment - or rather , not retract it.

Imagine the effect on the passengers on NZSCOTTY"s ship. The tourists
will wonder if this indicitive of the NZ navy in general , or the locals will
be wondering if this is how their tax dollars are really spent.

I can well imagine that NZSCOTTY has made an official complaint. The fact
that he has recieved no response should also cause you some measure of
concern.

NZSCOTTY
1st May 2010, 00:11
NZ SCOTTY I have replied by PM
Brian

Brian thank you for your e-mail. I will wait with patience to see if I ever get a reply from the navy. Would not think it would be hard to investigate with number of crew on board. Wonder where the commanding or duty officer were?

Brian Twyman
1st May 2010, 00:40
No Brian , you did not but with all due respect , you did refer to NZSCOTTY"s
attitude as ( and I quote - poor).

Now , I fail to understand how , in this respect you can continue to defend
this comment - or rather , not retract it.

Imagine the effect on the passengers on NZSCOTTY"s ship. The tourists
will wonder if this indicitive of the NZ navy in general , or the locals will
be wondering if this is how their tax dollars are really spent.

I can well imagine that NZSCOTTY has made an official complaint. The fact
that he has recieved no response should also cause you some measure of
concern.

That is a matter between NZ SCOTTY and myself ... dealt with by PM
Case closed
Brian

John Cassels
1st May 2010, 00:46
That is a matter between NZ SCOTTY and myself ... dealt with by PM
Case closed
Brian

No , it is not a matter between the two of you.

You made a statement on OPEN forum , now be prepared to defend it.

I await you.

Brian Twyman
1st May 2010, 00:55
No , it is not a matter between the two of you.

You made a statement on OPEN forum , now be prepared to defend it.

I await you.

Case closed.

NickNZ
1st May 2010, 01:19
Well said Brian.
Glad to see the vessels have finally been commissioned, and look very smart, I hope crews look after them, and the RNZN's reputation.
I'm sure they will.

NZSCOTTY
1st May 2010, 01:20
As long as the navy do not think it is case closed!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Brian Twyman
1st May 2010, 02:01
As long as the navy do not think it is case closed!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I will join you to ensure it is not !! Unfortunately my contacts have all now retired or I would have been in touch by now.

spongebob
1st May 2010, 03:05
Nick NZ started this thread with a question about the RNZN's selection of ships and quoting the ship "Charles Upham" as one of the first ill considered choices.
I ask "what about the Lake class inshore patrol boats delivered ex Brook Marine Lowestoft in the mid seventies".
If there was ever an ill considered decision made ,no doubt due to political interference,that was it as the boats turned out so inadequate for the seas and the intended duties

Bob

NZSCOTTY
1st May 2010, 05:16
What about the 2 frigates Wellinton and Southland that they delighted the RN by purchasing and spending a fortune on

lagerstedt
1st May 2010, 05:40
Hi Donald.
I would if it possible, like to see the photo of the crew at that time as I may remember them.
Spongebob.
The RNZN's area of responsiblity, as I remember it, for survey work was, as you say the NZ coast and throughout the Pacific up as far as the equator and from Fiji across to Tahiti and south to the ice shelf.
Yes we did update during my time there charts produced by Cook. One such survey was a major survey of the West Coast South of Greymouth and around towards Bluff. From memory the difference between the charts Cook produced and the updated charts was minor. The basics were correct, such a long time ago for me to remember much detail. One thing I do remember is that the sandflies were as a large as fighter planes and just loved my white legs, the cray fish were very large and there was lots of them and you could catch wild deer by placing a rope around there necks as they swam from island to island.
As they say "them were the days"

Regards
Blair
CHB
NZ

Dickyboy
1st May 2010, 05:44
Nice to see that Jolly Jack is still alive and kicking.
Sailors getting drunk, urinating over the side, shouting abuse, and SMOKING!
Sailors have been doing that for hundreds of years. I'm quite pleased to hear that in this politically correct world, there are still a few people with enough guts/stupidity to carry on the old traditions.
They will quite rightly get a rocket from someone and deserve it, I expect they will regret their actions, accept their punishment, then get on with their job, which is to defend their country in times of war as well as times of peace.
Perhaps the modern navies should be manned with Cub Scouts.
In days of yore, such actions would have raised a cheerful cheer from passengers, and not offended them....Too much.

NZSCOTTY
1st May 2010, 21:45
Nice to see that Jolly Jack is still alive and kicking.
Sailors getting drunk, urinating over the side, shouting abuse, and SMOKING!
Sailors have been doing that for hundreds of years. I'm quite pleased to hear that in this politically correct world, there are still a few people with enough guts/stupidity to carry on the old traditions.
They will quite rightly get a rocket from someone and deserve it, I expect they will regret their actions, accept their punishment, then get on with their job, which is to defend their country in times of war as well as times of peace.
Perhaps the modern navies should be manned with Cub Scouts.
In days of yore, such actions would have raised a cheerful cheer from passengers, and not offended them....Too much.

Trust the above is tongue in cheek. I will defend myself thank you!!

Donald McGhee
1st May 2010, 22:55
A word or two in defence of the RNZN. I was talking to my son last night and he has just completed a weapons training week at Whangaparoa, where he was the senior rate among all the trainees. He was very complimentary regarding the quality of the guys and although a reservist (ex Regular Force) was most excited regarding the way the RNZN has responded in a very positive way to it's training regime and the way it does business.
Sure there will always be a few who bring discredit on any organisation (I well remember some of my exploits as a Bank Line apprentice) and should be punished or disciplined accordingly.
There are always a few rotten apples in the barrel, but hopefully they are removed before they affect the rest.
Let's look back in a few years and see how the RNZN is doing after all the "teething" problems with the Protector ships are sorted out.

Donald McGhee
1st May 2010, 23:40
Hi Donald.
I would if it possible, like to see the photo of the crew at that time as I may remember them.
Spongebob.
The RNZN's area of responsiblity, as I remember it, for survey work was, as you say the NZ coast and throughout the Pacific up as far as the equator and from Fiji across to Tahiti and south to the ice shelf.
Yes we did update during my time there charts produced by Cook. One such survey was a major survey of the West Coast South of Greymouth and around towards Bluff. From memory the difference between the charts Cook produced and the updated charts was minor. The basics were correct, such a long time ago for me to remember much detail. One thing I do remember is that the sandflies were as a large as fighter planes and just loved my white legs, the cray fish were very large and there was lots of them and you could catch wild deer by placing a rope around there necks as they swam from island to island.
As they say "them were the days"

Regards
Blair
CHB
NZ

Blair,
I will send you the crew names, but don't have the photos unfortunately. The chart commemorates the 25th Anniversary of the Lachlan's first two commissions, 1949-1953 and was a crew reunion. I will send the names to you if you email me, I'll send you details.
Regards

Don

Donald McGhee
1st May 2010, 23:45
Nick NZ started this thread with a question about the RNZN's selection of ships and quoting the ship "Charles Upham" as one of the first ill considered choices.
I ask "what about the Lake class inshore patrol boats delivered ex Brook Marine Lowestoft in the mid seventies".
If there was ever an ill considered decision made ,no doubt due to political interference,that was it as the boats turned out so inadequate for the seas and the intended duties

Bob

The Lake class patrol boats were thorough sods in any kind of a sea. I did a trip on HMNZS Taupo in 1987 from Paremata to Auckland, as a NZCF Sub Lt and have never in all my sea going days been so knocked about as on that trip. Shockers they were.
The WEO broke his nose on the bridge console when the ship "fell off" a big wave and all the bridge overhead lights and deckhead panels fell down. Shambles.

Dickyboy
2nd May 2010, 06:53
Trust the above is tongue in cheek. I will defend myself thank you!!
This wasn't said tongue in cheek. And there is no need to defend yourself, I'm merely stating my own oppinion, and have on wish to cause controversy or start an arguement.(@)

NZSCOTTY
2nd May 2010, 06:58
I would clarify I would rather defend myself than these navy guys I am talking about do it for me!!

A little disapointed that you see no major problem at a navy man in uniform flash his dick at a load of passengers and call them perverts!

I would not call that PC!

NickNZ
2nd May 2010, 08:01
Anyway.....back to the original topic. I had forgotten the earlier Lake Class. And I would also add that the Army seeems to get a lot of stick for some of the kit it buys. The air force, wellthey haven't got ant toys top go wrong hardly, poor sods.
But RNZN did buy Te Mana & Te Kaha, so seem to have got taht right. But the thought occurs, am I pointing the finger in the worng direction? Should the government be directly held responsible? Even if those that would have been responsible have probably retired on their 'expenses'.

spongebob
2nd May 2010, 08:15
The Lake class patrol boats were thorough sods in any kind of a sea. I did a trip on HMNZS Taupo in 1987 from Paremata to Auckland, as a NZCF Sub Lt and have never in all my sea going days been so knocked about as on that trip. Shockers they were.
The WEO broke his nose on the bridge console when the ship "fell off" a big wave and all the bridge overhead lights and deckhead panels fell down. Shambles.

Donald, perhaps I should enlarge on my understanding of these vessel's short comings,


The woes did not start with the Charles Upham; they were there in some form ever since the end of WW2.
I served my time at the Devonport dockyard 1951 to 1957 where I took a junior but keen interest with the goings on then and later in the late 60’s and early 70’s when the Whitby/Leander class frigates had Babcock boilers.
A further association with the Navy was in 1976 when matters came to a head over the non performance of the UK built Brook Marine on-shore Lake Class patrol craft and finally in the mid nineties as a provider of spares for the aging Leander class frigates
Going back to the late 40’s/early 50’s the fleet consisted of Dido class light cruisers HMNZS Bellona, in commission, and its sister ship Black Prince which was undergoing a long, much needed and substantial refit. The Navy was also blessed with the supply of six ex Loch class Frigates from the RN which were re-named after NZ inland waters. The ill fated cruiser Royalist was to join the fleet a little later
All these ships had seen extensive war service so the Dockyard staff of over 1200, from memory, were in full employment refitting what were really near obsolete cast off craft by post war standards and to rub salt into the wounds the RAN gifted NZ four Bathurst Class Australian built mine sweepers also from their war surplus stock.

Perhaps the most well preserved and maintained vessels at that time were the two little Bird Class sweepers Kiwi and Tui.

Add to this armada the naval tugs, fishery protection launches, harbour craft and the hard working survey ship HMNZS Lachlan and we had a large navy for the size of the country but most ships were past use by dates and requiring constant refits to cope with anything near modern warfare
The benefits for me were marvelous in as much we apprentices were offered a wide scope of real marine engineering training.

As it is with many defense groups in most countries the Navy hierarchy knew what it wanted but the politicians had their way in most cases and this ‘second hand rose’ scenario was so often the norm.
Sure they got the British built Leander class frigates, Canterbury, Otago, Wellington and Waikato during the 1980’s but other fleet replacements were second hand by way of the Government Pacific Island supply ship Moana Roa renamed HMNZS Monowai, the ex US Navy Conrad class research vessel re-named Tui and the fleet Oiler ex USN.
And of course the fruit carrier renamed Charles Upham after our WW2 VC and bar hero.

Perhaps the biggest miss application was the replacements for the 72 foot wooden motor launches that had valiantly but vainly patrolled our waters at a maximum of 12 knots to apprehend or ward off the multitude of Asian fishing fleets that made a meal of our fish stocks in those days.
There was intense lobbying by the likes of Whangarei Engineering (Weco) to build the boats locally but British Shipbuilder Brook Marine of Lowestoft had built a wide range of patrol craft that closely fitted the bill so instead of having the hulls designed to suit the NZ applications, plus inshore and off shore wave and swell characteristics the purse string powers economized by opting for a design already in satisfactory service with the Nigerian Navy and the smart looking craft soon arrived via heavy lift ships in 1975
I received an insight into the problems with the ships in 1976 when I was briefly Auckland Manager for the Company that represented Brook Marine in NZ and I accompanied the Brook Chief draughtsman to a series of meetings at the dockyard to iron out various performance problems that had come to light.
Others in attendance were GEC/Paxman engine representatives and ZF gearbox Co from Germany and the crux of the matter was that the gearbox bearings were fretting and failing, the prop shafts were vibrating and the engines were stressed to the extent that valve seat inserts were popping out when they attempted to steam at full speed and power.
There was lots of general talk on the first day, lunch in the Philomel wardroom, Cooks Chasseur red wine, (now the leading NZ red cask variety), more talk pm but as I had nothing to contribute it was back to my real job.
I re attended the final discussions about ten days later when it was agreed to carry out some testing and remedial work and to re-convene in six months time with ZF acting as hosts at their Friedrichshafen offices on the shores Lake Constantine.
Nice work if you can get it I thought at the time.

Now this is not official but just a possibility passed on to me and my own gleaned opinion, but the Nigerian craft were an ‘economy version’ of more powerful boats built for other navies and a major saving, among others, was that they were fitted with smaller engines and the couple of metres of spare space in the engine room forward of the engines indicated that the engine room space was obviously designed for greater things. This economy plus the differences between the NZ and Nigerian Navies modus operandi really identified the possible faults in my mind.
Firstly the Nigerians operated with a lesser crew number, then that crew would have had lesser standards of on-board living than the NZ crewmen in as much as the Nigerians probably went on patrol for a few days with a cut lunch, a little fresh water and a change of clothes so to speak whereas the Kiwis needed a big refrigerator/freezer full of a healthy diet items plus a quantity of cold beer, a few extra tons of fresh water for the best of hygiene, a biggish RIB with a big outboard, scuba gear and dive bottles and all the other trimmings of a well equipped ship that brought about a laden weight that was too much to allow the craft to fully plane in its design position. The resultant wallow at full power made the prop shafts whirl and vibrate between the A-brackets and the stern gland affecting the gear box bearings while the overload on the engines caused the overheat and shed the occasional valve insert.
This short coming combined with the lack of Naval architectural input to design the hull for the typical local seas saw ongoing press reports about the un-seaworthiness of the vessels until they were scrapped in the 1990’s.
I am sure that the Navy had better plans in hand but Cabinet ruled


Foot note
Perhaps the only time the NZ Navy has thumbed their noses at the Government is recorded in former Prime Minister David Lange’s memoirs where he mentions the Fijian uprising and Military coup led by Colonel Rambuka in 1987.
The PM asked the Navy to immediately dispatch frigate Otago to Suva to protect the interests of New Zealanders there but received a reply some thing like
“Sorry but our only fully operational ship is about to leave for the Southern ocean to cast on the water the ashes of the recently demised Chief of Naval Staff, and former ship commander, Rear Admiral Lyn Tempero.”
And so they went south before heading for Fiji.

Bob

Dickyboy
2nd May 2010, 08:29
I would clarify I would rather defend myself than these navy guys I am talking about do it for me!!

A little disapointed that you see no major problem at a navy man in uniform flash his dick at a load of passengers and call them perverts!

I would not call that PC!
I'm not trying to to defend that the sailor was doing, he was stupid, I don't suppose he was deliberately ''Flashing'' his dick at the public. The word Flashing immediately brings forth thoughts of perverts, all that seems to have happened is that he got caught out having a pee over the side, not the first sailor to have done that. It was the passengers that looked on, they could have looked away, so perhaps they were the perverts?
And Horray! for someone who ISN'T PC
I'm really really sorry that you are a ''Little Disapointed'' in me.
All I'm saying is that a sailor was spotted having a slash over the side, naughty yes, but no big deal in the great scheme of things.

NZSCOTTY
2nd May 2010, 10:00
Why cant you leave this alone and stop trying to defend these sailors. They were in full uniform having had an open day earlier that day.

You were not there to witness the disgusting language of this guy as he Flashed his dick at passengers and then called them perverts. No officer seemed to be on duty either.

Or is it your non de plume which causes this defence!!!!!!!!!

John Cassels
2nd May 2010, 10:19
I'm not trying to to defend that the sailor was doing, he was stupid, I don't suppose he was deliberately ''Flashing'' his dick at the public. The word Flashing immediately brings forth thoughts of perverts, all that seems to have happened is that he got caught out having a pee over the side, not the first sailor to have done that. It was the passengers that looked on, they could have looked away, so perhaps they were the perverts?
And Horray! for someone who ISN'T PC
I'm really really sorry that you are a ''Little Disapointed'' in me.
All I'm saying is that a sailor was spotted having a slash over the side, naughty yes, but no big deal in the great scheme of things.

What a load of cobblers.

None but idiotic would go for a slash over the side knowing that a large
passenger ferry had you in full view.

Dickyboy
2nd May 2010, 16:44
Why cant you leave this alone and stop trying to defend these sailors. They were in full uniform having had an open day earlier that day.

You were not there to witness the disgusting language of this guy as he Flashed his dick at passengers and then called them perverts. No officer seemed to be on duty either.

Or is it your non de plume which causes this defence!!!!!!!!!
I will say again, I am not trying to defend these sailors, what they did was stupid. All I'm trying to do is bring some sort pf proportion to what happened.
Why should I ''Leave it alone''? So that you can say that what was done was disgusting, bought shame on your navy, non PC etc? and you can be proved right?
All I can say is that NZ must have changed a lot since I was down there last if all anyone has to worry about is a couple of sailors making fools of themselves.
As for my non de plume....My first name is Richard, so you can call me Dickhead if you like, mind you that wouldn't be PC would it?

John Cassels
2nd May 2010, 20:01
I will say again, I am not trying to defend these sailors, what they did was stupid. All I'm trying to do is bring some sort pf proportion to what happened.
Why should I ''Leave it alone''? So that you can say that what was done was disgusting, bought shame on your navy, non PC etc? and you can be proved right?
All I can say is that NZ must have changed a lot since I was down there last if all anyone has to worry about is a couple of sailors making fools of themselves.
As for my non de plume....My first name is Richard, so you can call me Dickhead if you like, mind you that wouldn't be PC would it?

You miss the point once again.

This was not just stupidity. who in their right mind takes a piss over the
wall when they know they are in full view of a large passenger ferry ?.

NZSCOTTY has every right to press for a full and complete answer .

If he does not get one , then I trust he will take it to the highest.

A couple of sailors making a fool of themselves ?. no way , this was done
in the full knowlege of daring the passengers to react.
A shame on them and their kind.

muldonaich
2nd May 2010, 21:45
You miss the point once again.

This was not just stupidity. who in their right mind takes a piss over the
wall when they know they are in full view of a large passenger ferry ?.

NZSCOTTY has every right to press for a full and complete answer .

If he does not get one , then I trust he will take it to the highest.

A couple of sailors making a fool of themselves ?. no way , this was done
in the full knowlege of daring the passengers to react.
A shame on them and their kind.fully agree with you john .

spongebob
2nd May 2010, 23:58
A stupid act by a drunken sailor without a doubt but we have all seen it happen before and it will happen again.
I have seen far worse examples of this sort of behaviour by inebriated seamen but I would certainly question the inaction of the ship's commander or the officer of the watch in not quickly cutting off his water.
Let us hope that Scotty's complaint reaches fertile soil but there is no point in continually 'tooing and froing' over a PC matter between ourselves much more

Bob

NZSCOTTY
3rd May 2010, 00:27
A stupid act by a drunken sailor without a doubt but we have all seen it happen before and it will happen again.
I have seen far worse examples of this sort of behaviour by inebriated seamen but I would certainly question the inaction of the ship's commander or the officer of the watch in not quickly cutting off his water.
Let us hope that Scotty's complaint reaches fertile soil but there is no point in continually 'tooing and froing' over a PC matter between ourselves much more

Bob

I agree that this has been well aired and should reach conclusion. Some of us obviously have different views on male exposure and abuse of innocent parties by uniformed personell and we better leave it at that.

John Cassels
3rd May 2010, 07:24
I agree that this has been well aired and should reach conclusion. Some of us obviously have different views on male exposure and abuse of innocent parties by uniformed personell and we better leave it at that.

OK , well said Capt.

Just off to go to work on a bottom.

Brian Twyman
3rd May 2010, 21:19
Bob

Thanks for your post about the Lake Class patrol craft, very informative.

In my RNZN time I served in HMNZS Inverell (twice), Kiama, Blackpool, Mako amd Tui. All either WW2 vintage, or second hand. In all cases we accepted what ships we had and got on with the job. In Blackpool we achieved about 96% in our workup at Pearl Harbour. Some USN ships were given a pass of 50% and were then sent off to the Vietnam war.

The future of getting Lake class patrol craft, two clapped out RN frigates and an ex island trader was one of the reasons for which I decided to leave. I can assure you that nobody in the RNZN wanted these ships ..... but had to accept them and get the job done.

Brian

Donald McGhee
3rd May 2010, 22:14
I was told by a Commander RNZN, whilst I was rabbiting on about HMNZS Charles Upham one night in the wardroom at Philomel that "only a fool and a manager comments on a half finished job"!
At the time I accepted this rebuke, as he outranked me and as a lowly NZCF Lt.Cdr was not expected to have an opinion. The fact I had been an MN deck officer was not known to him and I kept my peace on that at the time.

Charles Upham was always doomed to be a failure, as second hand ships sometimes are. The stability problems were bordering on the ridiculous and shipping containers full of ballast had to be shipped to give her enough draft when empty and stop her rolling to the extreme.

My son, when in the RNZN as a regular served as the LRF on board and actually went to sea on her, which was not a good experience. Much time was spent sticking on english equivalents of the signage to enable understanding, as I believe she was Danish?

All in all a great pity as she had the capacity and was in all other ways a good ship, but designed to be a cargo carrier, not light ship, which I guess was one of her flaws. The other thing that those who end up purchasing ex Merchant ships for Naval use is that they require huge amounts of modification in comms, radars, general machinery etc to make them able to operate as part of a fleet, not only their own navy ships, but also with allied warships.

Brian Twyman
4th May 2010, 05:37
I was told by a Commander RNZN, whilst I was rabbiting on about HMNZS Charles Upham one night in the wardroom at Philomel that "only a fool and a manager comments on a half finished job"!
At the time I accepted this rebuke, as he outranked me and as a lowly NZCF Lt.Cdr was not expected to have an opinion. The fact I had been an MN deck officer was not known to him and I kept my peace on that at the time.

Charles Upham was always doomed to be a failure, as second hand ships sometimes are. The stability problems were bordering on the ridiculous and shipping containers full of ballast had to be shipped to give her enough draft when empty and stop her rolling to the extreme.

My son, when in the RNZN as a regular served as the LRF on board and actually went to sea on her, which was not a good experience. Much time was spent sticking on english equivalents of the signage to enable understanding, as I believe she was Danish?

All in all a great pity as she had the capacity and was in all other ways a good ship, but designed to be a cargo carrier, not light ship, which I guess was one of her flaws. The other thing that those who end up purchasing ex Merchant ships for Naval use is that they require huge amounts of modification in comms, radars, general machinery etc to make them able to operate as part of a fleet, not only their own navy ships, but also with allied warships.

Thanks for that Donald. Once again I disagree with a Commander ! Only a foolish manager does not comment on a half finished job. His mind should be on what is still to be achieved, not what has been already completed .

Brian

spongebob
5th May 2010, 00:36
Looking up this 'Kye' navy issue chocolate I stumbled on to rum rations and the fact that the Royal Navy stopped them in 1970 while the RNZN carried on with an issue until 1990

Was this the cause of the NZ Navy woes or because they never had any sophisticated equipment that needed sober operators?!!

Bob

Billyly
5th May 2010, 06:17
I think thats the problem Bob

Merchant Navy : wine, women and song
Royal Navy : rum, bum and records

Brian Twyman
5th May 2010, 13:06
I think thats the problem Bob

Merchant Navy : wine, women and song
Royal Navy : rum, bum and records

Royal NZ Navy : we handle the lot !

Brian

John Cassels
5th May 2010, 20:08
Royal NZ Navy : we handle the lot !

Brian

Now , that's interesting .

Is that what that NZ navy guy said with his thing in his hand , waving it at the passengers on NZSCOTTY's ship ?.

Brian Twyman
5th May 2010, 21:51
Now , that's interesting .

Is that what that NZ navy guy said with his thing in his hand , waving it at the passengers on NZSCOTTY's ship ?.

Case closed !

Donald McGhee
6th May 2010, 00:18
Case closed !

I agree, the thread is now exhausted beyond further intelligent comment. Well done the RNZN for having such a response. I raise a glass or two to the RNZN and those who contributed.

Slainte
(Pint)

NZSCOTTY
6th May 2010, 00:29
Case closed !

Fully agree - but official case only closed when I get a response from the Admiral or whoever!!

spongebob
6th May 2010, 01:06
I agree, the thread is now exhausted beyond further intelligent comment. Well done the RNZN for having such a response. I raise a glass or two to the RNZN and those who contributed.

Slainte
(Pint)

NickNZ started this thread relating to the performance or otherwise of RNZN ships but the majority of the posts morphed into a 'discussion' about a drunken matelot peeing over the side of a naval vessel while in the view of a passenger ferry.
I agree that this sideline event should be sidelined forthwith but others may still have comment to add re the original subject matter
and further intelligent comment may well be forthcoming

Bob

Donald McGhee
6th May 2010, 02:44
NickNZ started this thread relating to the performance or otherwise of RNZN ships but the majority of the posts morphed into a 'discussion' about a drunken matelot peeing over the side of a naval vessel while in the view of a passenger ferry.
I agree that this sideline event should be sidelined forthwith but others may still have comment to add re the original subject matter
and further intelligent comment may well be forthcoming

Bob

Fair enough, the original thread has merit, as opposed to the Matelot's indiscretions, which I guess all Navies have to bear at times. Hope the Admiral takes appropriate action.

John Cassels
6th May 2010, 08:18
Case closed - a matelot's indiscretion - Hmmm - we'll see .

Brian Twyman
6th May 2010, 12:26
Fully agree - but official case only closed when I get a response from the Admiral or whoever!!

I have sent you a PM
Brian

Brian Twyman
6th May 2010, 12:30
Case closed - a matelot's indiscretion - Hmmm - we'll see .

It is closed to this forum. I am ensuring it is being being dealt with via the proper channels

Brian Twyman
6th May 2010, 12:34
I agree, the thread is now exhausted beyond further intelligent comment. Well done the RNZN for having such a response. I raise a glass or two to the RNZN and those who contributed.

Slainte
(Pint)

Thanks Donald. enjoy your pint !
Brian

John Cassels
6th May 2010, 22:48
You saw what the Captain wrote " official case closed until he gets a response from the
admiral ".
This case will be closed on forum when the Captain gives the word , not before and
certainly not from you.

NZSCOTTY
6th May 2010, 23:42
Brian - please give me that e-mail address again. Finger problem in deleting message!

Brian Twyman
8th May 2010, 01:49
Brian - please give me that e-mail address again. Finger problem in deleting message!

I think you want : sarah.campbell@nzdf.mil.nz


Brian

Brian Twyman
8th May 2010, 02:13
It should be recorded in this forum :

The RNZN dealt with the complaint the same day it happened.

The complainant was contacted by the RNZN on three occasions.

There seems to have been some misunderstanding about a formal written apology.

I have opened the door for the complainant to contact the Navy again if he so wishes.

Brian

NZSCOTTY
8th May 2010, 02:24
It should be recorded in this forum :

The RNZN dealt with the complaint the same day it happened.

The complainant was contacted by the RNZN on three occasions.

There seems to have been some misunderstanding about a formal written apology.

I have opened the door for the complainaqnt to contact the Navy again if he so wishes.

Brian

Thanks for the address Brian.

I think it should be noted for my credibility that the contact made from the Navy was acknowledgement of e-mail from "head office" and similar from commanding officer and then information that complaint would be investigated. I had no further contact after that.

spongebob
8th May 2010, 04:31
This Matelot must have an enormous bladder capacity, he is still peeing!

Brian Twyman
8th May 2010, 05:33
RNZN Media Release 6 May 2010

The Navy’s capability to patrol New Zealand’s coast was boosted today with the formal acceptance of HMNZS WELLINGTON into the Royal New Zealand Navy.

Chief of Navy, Rear-Admiral Tony Parr and Ministry of Defence Project Director Gary Collier formally accepted the Offshore Patrol Vessel, the seventh and last ship in the $500 million Project Protector, at a ceremony in Melbourne.

“WELLINGTON and her sister ship OTAGO are modern ships designed and built to undertake Exclusive Economic Zone patrols, surveillance and military operations around New Zealand, the southern ocean and the Pacific,” said Admiral Parr.

“WELLINGTON and OTAGO have the capability to operate further offshore than our existing patrol vessels, stay at sea longer, and conduct more challenging operations – using their helicopter capability, sea-boats and embarked forces.”

HMNZS WELLINGTON is the seventh and last ship in the Project Protector fleet, and with her delivery the Navy will be operating a fleet of 12 modern and highly capable ships.

“With the completion of Project Protector the Navy can deliver the full range of operations from combat and security missions to peacekeeping, border patrol and humanitarian and disaster relief,” said Admiral Parr.

The delivery crew of HMNZS WELLINGTON will now undertake safety and operational preparations for her delivery voyage to New Zealand.

ENDS

spongebob
9th May 2010, 03:23
Be it a good move or a bad move, the new Lange Labour Government of 1984 might have contributed to the NZ Navy’s woes by introducing their ban on Nuclear powered or armed ships from all NZ ports.
While this was widely acclaimed by the general electorate it upset the United States who vowed to nether confirm or deny any ship’s nuclear capability with the end result being NZ’s exclusion from the ANZUS Pact.
Prior to this breakup the three navies of USA, Aust. and NZ frequently met and exercised in the Pacific region which at least led to a relative state of readiness and cooperation but later programmes were restricted to Australia/USA exercises and NZ was out in the cold. Even the Australians cut back their ‘playtime’ with NZ as they could not afford the time or money to exercise separately with both countries
This was along time ago and I imagine that the NZ armada has lost a lot of realistic exercise training as a result of this embargo.

Bob

NickNZ
9th May 2010, 06:33
There have been a few 'veiled' hints recently that American warships may be made welcome in NZ again, though no timeline has been mentioned.
The RNZN does exercise with other Navys and has visited Pearl Harbor I believe in recent years, so hopefully the NZ Government will change the legislation. Though how the Kiwi public would react is another question.
Interesting that nuclear armed warships are banned from New York.

DJR
10th May 2010, 01:01
Thanks for the address Brian.

I think it should be noted for my credibility that the contact made from the Navy was acknowledgement of e-mail from "head office" and similar from commanding officer and then information that complaint would be investigated. I had no further contact after that.
If you give me your contact details I will call you to close off this issue.

Dean McDougall
Captain, RNZN

NZSCOTTY
12th May 2010, 07:20
For the interest of members who have been following the Picton incident part of this thread I confirm I have now received information from the Navy regarding the incident. Obviously the information received will remain confidential between parties and whilst the final outcome does not completely satisfy me I consider this part of the thread closed off now. Thanks to all who took an interest in the matter.

John Cassels
12th May 2010, 09:13
Your wish is my command young Sir.

I now accept matter closed.

Billyly
3rd November 2010, 01:13
Glad to see the NZ Navy are upholding their high standards as usual:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10685003

They should be charged with home invasion in a civil court not protected by the navies inhouse slap on the wrist.

What use is a letter of apology??

NZSCOTTY
3rd November 2010, 01:56
Yes they are giving the RNZ a red face. Wonder if this one will be covered up. I doubt it.
The report I read said 9 were rounded up. That should be quite a few crew for a small ship like the Taupo. They should have been taken strait to the clink instead of back to the ship!

Billyly
3rd November 2010, 06:46
If it had been merchant seaman they would have been locked up for sure. Mind you they dont go around terrorising women and kids after a few beers!

John Cassels
3rd November 2010, 10:45
Notice it's the same McDougall the you were talking to John.

That most likely will mean pushing under the carpet again.

NZSCOTTY
3rd November 2010, 16:54
Notice it's the same McDougall the you were talking to John.

That most likely will mean pushing under the carpet again.

Well he has access to this forum - So we will see - Maybe!!

Billyly
8th November 2010, 12:33
Further update:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/royal-nz-navy/news/article.cfm?o_id=439&objectid=10685219

Looks like they will get away with a slap on the wrist and under the carpet it goes - until the next time.

exsailor
8th November 2010, 13:25
More troubles for one of the Navy's "new" vessels - www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10686181

Billyly
9th November 2010, 04:00
I like the way the it is described as "one of those little setbacks" !!