Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[recce.k1]

Just bringing things back to RNZN matters and the future fleet in particular the replacement manned patrol capability, as a potential option the latest rendering of the Future Danish Arctic Patrol Vessel has been released and featured on Naval News 6 September.

Of a similar design to the Baltic Patrol Vessel this new design is optimised for North Atlantic patrolling, could the RNZN be interested in assessing this vessel for both Southern Ocean patrol and Pacific patrol functions (assuming it is also configured to operate in warmer/ocean climates)? Perhaps as another option alongside the Canadian Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ship (AOPS)?

Info gleaned from the video (doesn't seem to be much else on the internet as yet):

It's the replacement for the Thetis class (3,500 tonnes).
Designed with a "heavy" sensor suite.
Carries an organic helicopter/includes a hanger (the Danish navy operate MH-60R's so assume the hanger will fit this type).
Ice breaking capacity - up to 1m of old ice / 1.5m of new ice.
High speed - increased power engines (details weren't clarified).
Long duration (operate for several months supporting up to 80 people).
Mission deck, modular, support surveillance equipment, SF embarkment.
Length up to 120m (10-12m longer than Baltic patrol vessel).
Timeline delivery for the Danes - 2029 3rd quarter/1 vessel per year.

Some screenshots from the Naval News video. Note the high sides and enclosed mission bays (both sides and rear) protecting the vessel in high sea states.


The following two diagrams are renderings of the Baltic patrol vessel but apparently the same configuration is used in the Arctic Patrol Vessel.





Some shots of the modular mission deck.

 

[koxinga]

A question from a non Australian/New Zealander, why does consideration of platform is centered around what Australia does or have, when budgets are tight? Why not, say South Korea?

The Philippines Navy are getting a good deal on their Korean frigates (Miguel Malvar class, USD250mil), plus a number of other assets like OPVs. Comparatively, defense budgets between the Philippines and NZ are somewhat in the same ballpark as well. Anything else could probably be accomdated by the Koreans.

 

[spoz]

Because the Kiwis would like to be interoperable with Australia wherever possible. There are training and other logistics benefits as well as being able to share tactical doctrine. We have a long history of operating together and, given the realities of geography, that will continue. Commonality makes it easier. Although it’s not an absolute requirement as is evidenced by, for example, the differing ANZAC class upgrade paths.

 

[Volkodav]

The RNs Multi Role Strike Ship (MRSS) program could be an interesting option for NZ, especially the more warlike ones with a frigate level combat capability.

The Netherlands are apparently also interested, looking at it as a replacement for the Rotterdam class LPDs and Holland class OPVs.

Such a ship could replace frigates, OPVs, and Canterbury, not just in their existing roles, but also serve as a drone mothership and unscrewed capabilities evolve.

 

[Todjaeger]

A question from a non Australian/New Zealander, why does consideration of platform is centered around what Australia does or have, when budgets are tight? Why not, say South Korea?

The Philippines Navy are getting a good deal on their Korean frigates (Miguel Malvar class, USD250mil), plus a number of other assets like OPVs. Comparatively, defense budgets between the Philippines and NZ are somewhat in the same ballpark as well. Anything else could probably be accomdated by the Koreans.

I agree that the purchase by the Philippine Navy does appear to be a good deal for them, particularly given how long Philippine Navy and their armed forces generally, have struggled to get modern kit.

Having said that, what looks like a good deal for the Philippines does not mean that it would be a good deal for New Zealand. Looking at what specs are available for the Miguel Malvar-class frigate, it appears to be a frigate that is slightly smaller than the RNZN's current ANZAC-class frigates and with a bit less displacement. Further, excepting the inclusion of AShM, the combat capabilities appear to be a bit less. A 76 mm/62 gun vs. the current Mk 45 5"/127 mm, and 16 VL MICA instead of the current 20 Sea Ceptor, so a smaller main gun and fewer short-ranged air defence missiles, which themselves are slightly shorter-ranged at ~20 km vs. ~25 km. Given that I feel the RNZN's frigates are currently under equipped should hostilities break out, going with new vessels that are possibly roughly comparable in capability would only make sense to me if NZ found itself without other options available in terms of getting replacement frigates delivered prior to the current frigates needing to be decommissioned.

Lastly, we have a contract price of some USD$250 mil. (2021 dollars) per vessel. That makes me wonder how overall capable and compatible the weapons, sensors, datalink and CMS fitout is. IIRC the general guideline is that the shipboard electronics, sensors and CMS will usually comprise a third or more of the initial cost of a vessel, and between that and the weapons fitout that can easily equal half the initial purchase price for a vessel. If these ratios hold true for the Miguel Malvar-class frigate as well, then the sensor and CMS fitout likely cost ~USD$80 mil. in 2021 dollars give or take a little. Now IIRC when Australia purchased pieces of Aegis kit from the US for the Hobart-class DDG's around 2007, they were paying something like USD$200 to 250 mil. per vessel, and what was being purchased was not even the full sensor, CMS and shipboard electronics suite.

That large a difference in price, especially given how much time has passed, makes me wonder how well the Philippine frigate's sensors and CMS would perform compared to what NZ or Australia use in their ANZAC-class frigates.

 

[StevoJH]

The RNs Multi Role Strike Ship (MRSS) program could be an interesting option for NZ, especially the more warlike ones with a frigate level combat capability.

The Netherlands are apparently also interested, looking at it as a replacement for the Rotterdam class LPDs and Holland class OPVs.

Such a ship could replace frigates, OPVs, and Canterbury, not just in their existing roles, but also serve as a drone mothership and unscrewed capabilities evolve.

I thought the Netherlands pulled out? Originally they were considering a joint procurement program, but I thought the Dutch pulled out due to the RN wanting a much more robust self defence capability (and hence more expensive platform).

Depending on cost, such a ship would probably be quite ideal for smaller navies as long as the compromises inherent can be minimised.

 

[Volkodav]

I thought the Netherlands pulled out? Originally they were considering a joint procurement program, but I thought the Dutch pulled out due to the RN wanting a much more robust self defence capability (and hence more expensive platform).

Depending on cost, such a ship would probably be quite ideal for smaller navies as long as the compromises inherent can be minimised.

Smaller navies can benefit from optioning up and procuring bespoke, improved versions of designs developed for major navies.

The existing design and its core architecture and systems, with extra capability inserted to fulfil roles the larger navy has specific platforms for.

 

[koxinga]

I agree that the purchase by the Philippine Navy does appear to be a good deal for them, particularly given how long Philippine Navy and their armed forces generally, have struggled to get modern kit.

Having said that, what looks like a good deal for the Philippines does not mean that it would be a good deal for New Zealand. Looking at what specs are available for the Miguel Malvar-class frigate, it appears to be a frigate that is slightly smaller than the RNZN's current ANZAC-class frigates and with a bit less displacement. Further, excepting the inclusion of AShM, the combat capabilities appear to be a bit less. A 76 mm/62 gun vs. the current Mk 45 5"/127 mm, and 16 VL MICA instead of the current 20 Sea Ceptor, so a smaller main gun and fewer short-ranged air defence missiles, which themselves are slightly shorter-ranged at ~20 km vs. ~25 km. Given that I feel the RNZN's frigates are currently under equipped should hostilities break out, going with new vessels that are possibly roughly comparable in capability would only make sense to me if NZ found itself without other options available in terms of getting replacement frigates delivered prior to the current frigates needing to be decommissioned.

Lastly, we have a contract price of some USD$250 mil. (2021 dollars) per vessel. That makes me wonder how overall capable and compatible the weapons, sensors, datalink and CMS fitout is. IIRC the general guideline is that the shipboard electronics, sensors and CMS will usually comprise a third or more of the initial cost of a vessel, and between that and the weapons fitout that can easily equal half the initial purchase price for a vessel. If these ratios hold true for the Miguel Malvar-class frigate as well, then the sensor and CMS fitout likely cost ~USD$80 mil. in 2021 dollars give or take a little. Now IIRC when Australia purchased pieces of Aegis kit from the US for the Hobart-class DDG's around 2007, they were paying something like USD$200 to 250 mil. per vessel, and what was being purchased was not even the full sensor, CMS and shipboard electronics suite.

That large a difference in price, especially given how much time has passed, makes me wonder how well the Philippine frigate's sensors and CMS would perform compared to what NZ or Australia use in their ANZAC-class frigates.

If RNZN wants to wear the big boys pants, then it must come with the sort of money to buy them. If the money is there, the options are there, whether Mogamis or Type 26s/Hunters. Even the Koreans will be well placed to offer their AEGIS capable or ANZAC compatible frigates .

As for a capability or lack of with the strategic situation / threat landscape that NZ facrs using a Miguel-Malvar class, I would imagine the Philippines have it much worse, since they have an active dispute on SCS and Chinese forces stationed directly at their door steps

 

[Aerojoe]

A sizeable chunk of change to get Otago back out on the water 'Obsolete systems' part of $35m reboot to fill in for sunk navy ship | RNZ News. Interesting that it will take 18 months (if not more) to get a replacement (not a true replacement but rather another patrol resource) activated. Otago was obviously in very very cold storage.

 

[recce.k1]

A sizeable chunk of change to get Otago back out on the water 'Obsolete systems' part of $35m reboot to fill in for sunk navy ship | RNZ News. Interesting that it will take 18 months (if not more) to get a replacement (not a true replacement but rather another patrol resource) activated. Otago was obviously in very very cold storage.

Appears to be due to timing of the availability of the dry dock at Devonport (and from that, the workforce required).

FFH Te Mana came out of dry dock mid-July after being laid-up for a year long maintenance period.

The ship has undergone some major work, including a refurbished propulsion system, communication upgrades and extensive work on the ship’s hull. Commander Bone says the ship has had 350 days in drydock. In that time, more than 60 hull sections – more than 130 tonnes of steel – have been replaced. There have been several “firsts” for this particular frigate refurbishment, including the full removal and inspection of the tail shaft, and installation of the latest communications upgrade

OPV Otago then took her place in dry dock about a week later (late July) and looks like she will also be laid-up for up a year. From your RNZ article that appears about right for the work being undertaken:

"The reactivation involves significant engineering work to replace obsolete systems and restore operational readiness," it told RNZ on Tuesday. That included overhauling the engines and putting in a new water ballast treatment system. It must achieve what is called "Operational Class Certification" through the Lloyd's Register before it can sail again.

Pretty sure I read years ago the OPV's would be due for a mid-life upgrade in the early 2020's, so looks like this is now being addressed, somewhat.

All we could hope for next is some prudent joined-up thinking with Govt and Defence so that once OPV Otago's maintenance period is completed next year then funding is released for OPV Wellington to take her place in dry-dock to also be regenerated and brought back into service.

 

[Aerojoe]

Pretty sure I read years ago the OPV's would be due for a mid-life upgrade in the early 2020's, so looks like this is now being addressed, somewhat.

What would a mid-life upgrade involve? Anything that would result in a lift in capability or is it instead a simple modernisation of current capability?

 

[Todjaeger]

What would a mid-life upgrade involve? Anything that would result in a lift in capability or is it instead a simple modernisation of current capability?

Not sure how much space or displacement is really available for any significant increase in capability. One needs to remember that due to some early issues with the design and the ice strengthening of the hull, that put limitations on how much more could be added to the vessel in the future before the ice belt would end up getting submerged and no longer providing any real protection.

There is also the reality that the OPV's were designed and built to be OPV's, which meant that they were neither designed nor built to include comprehensive combat systems or advanced sensors and CMS. To try and shoehorn such systems at this point would likely require portions of the hull and/or superstructure to get redesigned and rebuilt in order to accommodate more advanced systems as well as the necessary power generation and cooling required to operate such systems.

 

[Catalina]

in reality I beleve it was to cut the expenditure and that will be the theme from now on, lots of good words and as little action as possible.
Most NZ polliticans are hard wired to firstly look at what will get them re-elected ahead of what is happening in the world outside of NZ.

Rob's assessment is spot on.

When our nation lost The Honourable Ron Mark as Minister of Defence we lost a valued and experienced Defence advocate.

.

I always found Ron very approachable and easy to talk with. His ongoing work and advocacy of the defence of Ukraine is also most commendable.

 

[Xthenaki]

Appears to be due to timing of the availability of the dry dock at Devonport (and from that, the workforce required).

FFH Te Mana came out of dry dock mid-July after being laid-up for a year long maintenance period.


OPV Otago then took her place in dry dock about a week later (late July) and looks like she will also be laid-up for up a year. From your RNZ article that appears about right for the work being undertaken:


Pretty sure I read years ago the OPV's would be due for a mid-life upgrade in the early 2020's, so looks like this is now being addressed, somewhat.

All we could hope for next is some prudent joined-up thinking with Govt and Defence so that once OPV Otago's maintenance period is completed next year then funding is released for OPV Wellington to take her place in dry-dock to also be regenerated and brought back into service.

Yes I would also like to see both OPV,s back in service and over the time frame needed to complete their mid life refits. Hopefully recruitment of crews keeps up with that pace. We all realise they are not front line combat vessels but there as a deterrent in the right roles. Very capable for roles within our EEZ, NZ and outer Islands. I would think very useful to work with and introducing our new autonomous assets.

 

[Catalina]

if the RNZN continues to follow the RAN then surely it makes sense training wise and logistically to also acquire the same undersea capability as the RAN?

Not withstanding Tod's very pertinent points that RNZN would need to either grow its personnel and skillsets, or take these from somewhere else (diminishing another existing capability).

Not a dollar for the army, until the Navy has two.
Not a solider on a base, until two sailors upon the sea.

Reprioritizing funding and personal to our Navy gives our island nation not only the aforementioned Ghost Sharks but four combat frigates as well.

Until the WW1 army first mentality in NZ is overcome our Navy will continue to languish as the third rate sibling.

Where are the New Zealand Navalists advocating in the public and political arenas for the prioritizing of our Navy over the army?

 

[recce.k1]

Not a dollar for the army, until the Navy has two.
Not a solider on a base, until two sailors upon the sea.

Reprioritizing funding and personal to our Navy gives our island nation not only the aforementioned Ghost Sharks but four combat frigates as well.

Until the WW1 army first mentality in NZ is overcome our Navy will continue to languish as the third rate sibling.

Where are the New Zealand Navalists advocating in the public and political arenas for the prioritizing of our Navy over the army?

Yes fully agree on restoring Naval capability and lethality. And for the sake of credibility (both interoperability and effectiveness) we will need to do better than simply "like-for-like" for the replacements. Even former DefMin Wayne Mapp is publicly stating these points.

However I'm weary (if I'm not mistaking your intent - if I am then my apologies) of having the spectre raised again of inter-service rivalry.

All services, including the Navy, simply need greater funding and this is happening with the recent boost to defence funding of 60% (I'll use this figure until someone corrects that) and is on a higher trajectory (yes I agree with say, RobC, it needs to be higher to restore what has been lost in the past)!

In the meantime the Army will play a vital role in securing the Pacific. They will need to be more maritime focused with replacement capabilities suited to support "island hopping" - light, agile and lethal. The NZ Army (as well as Navy/Air Force) are already too small to support these new doctrines AND to fulfil their other "global" roles. So let's not cut to reprioritise, lets grow and go forward.

Unsure if you read Ben Morgan's substack? Ben Morgan is ex-NZDF and writes succinctly on regional geo-political and defence issues.

Please have a read of these two articles, which discusses the force structures (especially land forces) to have the capability to capture islands; and the capability to hold islands. I'd like to know your thoughts. In these articles we see the need to develop specialist littoral units including special forces, but backed up reinforcement and security forces to sustain holding important grounds.

The first article talks about what our allies are doing in this regard and reading between the lines we can see where NZ and even some of our Pacific Island nation contemporaries (such as PNG, Fiji and Tonga) can play a part in sustaining Aust/US "island hopping" initiatives (eg NZ and PI nations assisting with the reinforcing or securing of ground, whilst allied forces (with presumably NZ SF's and perhaps some NZ Army ready reaction force elements assisting) leading the charge so to speak. Also if we think about the PI nations (and elements of the NZ Army) having cultural affiliations or connections with these other "islands" then their ability to connect with the local populations will be invaluable when it comes to locating enemy locations and their sensor networks etc.

Pacific Brief - 31 August 2025

Discussing geo-political and military activity in the Pacific.

benmorganmil.substack.com

Ben's second article talks about joint littoral task groups and the value of missile strike capabilities.

Pacific Brief - 25 September 2025

Discussing geo-political and military activity in the Pacific.

benmorganmil.substack.com

Which seems to clarify Australian Govt/Defence thinking in acquiring stand-off missile capabilities. In order to support and sustain US efforts to lead "island hopping" campaigns.

From this we can see where RNZN and RNZAF can play a part with the NZ Govt announcing plans to acquire stand-off missiles for the P-8's and will no doubt drive the requirements for the Frigate replacements. For the Army it gives us options for the replacement of the towed/light artillery. Personally I'm not sure if heavy tracked SPH path is the way for a small Army like ours should go in this region - so perhaps it could be towed 155mm and/or truck mounted rocket systems - but I'll leave that for the experts to consider.

 

[recce.k1]

Update on Babcock (press release) supporting NZ industry engagement to advance the Arrowhead AH140 as the RNZN Frigate replacement (as an option).

Now if based on the Polish variant with increased sensor fit-out and hull-mounted sonar, and fitted with both CAMM for local area defence and Mk41 VLS to enable carrying a wider range of munition types) plus of course able to carry and launch unmanned surface/sub-surface/air complementary capabilities then we have another good option (if chosen) to support operations in our wider region.

Babcock supports small and medium enterprises launch into Defence at supplier day in New Zealand - Babcock Australasia

Babcock Australasia (Babcock) is partnering with the New Zealand Defence Industry Association (NZDIA) to showcase new opportunities for local businesses

www.babcock.com.au

 

[swerve]

....Personally I'm not sure if heavy tracked SPH path is the way for a small Army like ours should go in this region - so perhaps it could be towed 155mm and/or truck mounted rocket systems - but I'll leave that for the experts to consider.

Doesn't have to be a "heavy tracked SPH". There are wheeled SPH galore, e.g. CAESAR, RCH-155, ATMOS, Archer, an HX3-based one from Rheinmetall, the Patria ARVE, Zuzana 2, the Japanese Type 19 . . . . there are more, & that's without the Chinese, Turks, etc.