Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[Lucasnz]

I follow what happens around the world and I think the minimalist outlook is very detrimental, maybe even deleterious, to NZ Inc. This minimalist outlook is a Bolger / Richardson concept so that needs to be ditched otherwise some pollies are going to get a rather nasty wake up call sooner rather than later and that will be to bloody late for NZ Inc. The days of mobilising at the last minute, no 8 wire she'll be right attitude and Kiwi guts and glory are long gone. It takes far to long now to build ships, acquire weapons, train sailors, train air crew etc. You cannot do it in 6 months like they did in 1939 - 1945. There's a fight a coming and we'll be dragged into whether we like it or not just because of where our SLOCs are and where we are. Our spatial i.e., geographic, isolation is no longer a boon to us defence wise; in fact it is a hindrance because it has caused a false myopic view amongst the political, academic and bureaucratic elite as well as most of the great hairy unwashed.

I agree with most of what you've said (not sure about there's a fight a coming - but given Putin it wouldn't surprise me), especially in relation to mobilise at short notice and the ability to knock on the door of our allies to pick up a ship or two. The mass mobilisation concept is still naively part of a number of political parties policy (i.e. ACT).

The critical issue facing defence as we know is fiscal. The current accounts have no give in them for large increases in defence spending (though we could take $200 million off Arts, that Aunty Helen gave away in the same year the ACF was scrapped). The looming super issue and its associated increase in health spending given an aging population along with the fact that cuts in social security spending are political suicide are a contributing factor in considering the fiscal situation. The only viable option is a Capital Gains Tax or reintroduce death / stamp duty in order to fund defence needs to some of the levels mentioned earlier in the thread. Even then based on some external courses I've been to recently it would take at least 10 years for CGT to come into full effect. Moderate increases in defence capability to meet the strategic plan and sustain outputs are more realistic politically and fiscally if defence can justify them.

I think the navy could justify a 3 x 3 configuration but not much more given the threat assessment in the last defence review.

 

[ngatimozart]

I agree with most of what you've said (not sure about there's a fight a coming - but given Putin it wouldn't surprise me), especially in relation to mobilise at short notice and the ability to knock on the door of our allies to pick up a ship or two. The mass mobilisation concept is still naively part of a number of political parties policy (i.e. ACT).

I was looking at an assertive China under Xi as well.

The critical issue facing defence as we know is fiscal. The current accounts have no give in them for large increases in defence spending (though we could take $200 million off Arts, that Aunty Helen gave away in the same year the ACF was scrapped). The looming super issue and its associated increase in health spending given an aging population along with the fact that cuts in social security spending are political suicide are a contributing factor in considering the fiscal situation. The only viable option is a Capital Gains Tax or reintroduce death / stamp duty in order to fund defence needs to some of the levels mentioned earlier in the thread. Even then based on some external courses I've been to recently it would take at least 10 years for CGT to come into full effect. Moderate increases in defence capability to meet the strategic plan and sustain outputs are more realistic politically and fiscally if defence can justify them.

A CGT is an option and also the govt actively chasing up tax avoidance which in 2010 was estimated to be around $6 billion per annum. That's people illegally hiding income.

I think the navy could justify a 3 x 3 configuration but not much more given the threat assessment in the last defence review.

I believe that the threat assessment then was somewhat soft but even so, since then the situation in Asia has changed. Certainly 3 frigates but I think if we are going to lose 2 IPVs then we should get 2 OPVs because it is a numbers game in a navy as small as the RNZN. We could build up OPV numbers over time especially if they are multi-role. The program that V suggests possibly could be sold as a Public Private Partnership which the current NZG is partial too for infrastructure and if it they accepted an argument of it being a project of strategic national importance well ............

 

[RegR]

I believe that the threat assessment then was somewhat soft but even so, since then the situation in Asia has changed. Certainly 3 frigates but I think if we are going to lose 2 IPVs then we should get 2 OPVs because it is a numbers game in a navy as small as the RNZN. We could build up OPV numbers over time especially if they are multi-role. The program that V suggests possibly could be sold as a Public Private Partnership which the current NZG is partial too for infrastructure and if it they accepted an argument of it being a project of strategic national importance well ............

If we do not solve the current issue of critical manning, recruitment and retention then there is absoloutly no way we will go above and beyond what we currently have as we are struggling to keep/operate what we have at the moment and therefore it would actually be foolish to just keep adding ships to the equation.

It's also not only the actual platform you are adding but in the case of a larger ship (however slight) the associated manpower/para-lines with say even an extra 15 sailors each (nevermind an entire crew), of which may include at least 1 officer,2 senior rates, 3 specialised/trades, 9 ORs etc all adds up in terms of support $$, training $$, pay (avg 50k each) etc etc so whilst may still be '1 for 1' there will be added costs that will need to come from somewhere else within the current budget. And then there's also another 15 extra sailors you have to keep in the service in the first place, apparently not as easy as it sounds.

As for the actual ships the current trend is to combine functions and therefore decrease hull numbers but I think we have gone as far as we can go with consolidating and combining roles as far as individual capabilities go and will just become problematic and at times unworkable. Historically come replacement time it's with a like or improved (not increased) capability in line with either status quo or downsizing or worst case written off completely (as per ACF) if not seen to be providing worthwhile and current outputs within the overall picture.

In saying that it is easier to justify replacing an OPV with a IPV (or 2) but not vice versa ie 1 IPV with 1 OPV as it's all proportionate and a similar overall capability on the books. For example to justify losing the extra 2 frigates from back in the day we got an MRV for one and 2 OPVs in lieu of the other and 4 IPVs for the 4 IPCs, like for like or similar, or in CYs case a deemed improved role altogether. Although not ideal in terms of frigate numbers (down from 4) still a fair trade I say for the added capabilities we gained in other areas, something that would not have been possible had we tried to maintain/aqquire as well as the frigate force without a large financial capital and operational injection then and now.

I think for PPPs in RNZN terms the base (old or new) and possibly the new tanker could be options for partnership but something like OPVs or frigates are alittle bit of a harder sell due to their distinct combat nature and therefore focussed uses. It's like for army a truck vs a LAV and air force a CT4 vs a P3K, both have their defined roles within the civilian and military world, sometimes overlapping sometimes not.

 

[KiwiRob]

There's a fight a coming and we'll be dragged into whether we like it or not just because of where our SLOCs are and where we are. Our spatial i.e., geographic, isolation is no longer a boon to us defence wise; in fact it is a hindrance because it has caused a false myopic view amongst the political, academic and bureaucratic elite as well as most of the great hairy unwashed.

Come on, when is this fight coming and who will we be fighting, now you're just scaremongering. A much bigger threat to our sovereignty than China or Russia is the TPP.

 

[MrConservative]

Come on, when is this fight coming and who will we be fighting, now you're just scaremongering. A much bigger threat to our sovereignty than China or Russia is the TPP.

Why? Are you under the impression that what were US Trade positioning negotiation documents of a preferred / ideal positioning outcome are actually what is going to be signed and agreed across the dozen signatories? That they the US can magically force NZ and others to sign? I have read some of this crap on nutty lefty blogs in NZ that spout Jane Kelsey and the Occupy movement like gospel. I do know where you are likely to be getting those anti TPP views from and they are simply nonsense. Every nations trade officials and trade legal teams write positioning documents to share amongst principals before deals are eventually struck. It is standard modus operandi. Grosser and Key have said they will not sign anything for NZ which is not a high value deal for NZ. That they are quite happy to leave Japan and the US out in the cold if they are unrealistic and continue with there round of bilaterals. Those are the same guys that rubbished the recent Japan-Australia FTA. I doubt the sovereignty is at risk.

Now to the first point. Scaremongering no but deepening concern yes. Yet this is not about who we will maybe fight per se but the collateral fallout from growing tensions within NE Asia that may boil over. What is it now - 258 identified transgressions into Japanese airspace in the last 12 months from hardly anything pre Beijing Olympics. More activity out of Vladtown heading south for the first time in pretty much 2 decades. NZ may or may not be engaged in direct conflict and no one wishes conflict anyway - but the significant issue for NZ is a precautionary approach with respect to Defence preparation that has strategically moved for us from a benign default position towards a position where a possible dustup or fallout cannot be disregarded or ignored and that is why the USG has begun to pivot 60% of its capability focus into the Asia-Pacific region.

 

[KiwiRob]

MrC the US doesn't do anything which doesn't further it's own interests, whilst I'm not on the loney left, I still believe that there will be plenty of negatives for NZ, the full extent we won't know until it's ratified, if it ever is, it's been underway since 2005 so I'm not holding my breath.

Japan and China, who really is a fault here, who really owns those Islands, both sides appear to have a fairly equal claim to them.

 

[ngatimozart]

MrC the US doesn't do anything which doesn't further it's own interests, whilst I'm not on the loney left, I still believe that there will be plenty of negatives for NZ, the full extent we won't know until it's ratified, if it ever is, it's been underway since 2005 so I'm not holding my breath.

Be that as it may or may not, it has no real bearing to this discussion. As an aside, IIRC the US is applying to join the TPP. We already belong to it.

Japan and China, who really is a fault here, who really owns those Islands, both sides appear to have a fairly equal claim to them.

It's not about who owns the islands per se. Normally that can be settled through negotiations or mediation or through international forums, but when one country unilaterally forces the issue through the use of force, implied or actual, or breaks accepted international rules and norms then tensions ratchet up. The PRC is really pushing the envelope when it is trying to force, or forcing other states, to accept its domestic rules and law in clearly international waters and / or airspace. Its playing a very dangerous game. Wars have started over far less.

 

[ngatimozart]

If we do not solve the current issue of critical manning, recruitment and retention then there is absoloutly no way we will go above and beyond what we currently have as we are struggling to keep/operate what we have at the moment and therefore it would actually be foolish to just keep adding ships to the equation.

It's also not only the actual platform you are adding but in the case of a larger ship (however slight) the associated manpower/para-lines with say even an extra 15 sailors each (nevermind an entire crew), of which may include at least 1 officer,2 senior rates, 3 specialised/trades, 9 ORs etc all adds up in terms of support $$, training $$, pay (avg 50k each) etc etc so whilst may still be '1 for 1' there will be added costs that will need to come from somewhere else within the current budget. And then there's also another 15 extra sailors you have to keep in the service in the first place, apparently not as easy as it sounds.

As for the actual ships the current trend is to combine functions and therefore decrease hull numbers but I think we have gone as far as we can go with consolidating and combining roles as far as individual capabilities go and will just become problematic and at times unworkable. Historically come replacement time it's with a like or improved (not increased) capability in line with either status quo or downsizing or worst case written off completely (as per ACF) if not seen to be providing worthwhile and current outputs within the overall picture.

In saying that it is easier to justify replacing an OPV with a IPV (or 2) but not vice versa ie 1 IPV with 1 OPV as it's all proportionate and a similar overall capability on the books. For example to justify losing the extra 2 frigates from back in the day we got an MRV for one and 2 OPVs in lieu of the other and 4 IPVs for the 4 IPCs, like for like or similar, or in CYs case a deemed improved role altogether. Although not ideal in terms of frigate numbers (down from 4) still a fair trade I say for the added capabilities we gained in other areas, something that would not have been possible had we tried to maintain/aqquire as well as the frigate force without a large financial capital and operational injection then and now.

I think for PPPs in RNZN terms the base (old or new) and possibly the new tanker could be options for partnership but something like OPVs or frigates are alittle bit of a harder sell due to their distinct combat nature and therefore focussed uses. It's like for army a truck vs a LAV and air force a CT4 vs a P3K, both have their defined roles within the civilian and military world, sometimes overlapping sometimes not.

It all comes back to NZG policy and funding with the critical manning issue is an actual function of the shortage of funding that has been inflicted on NZDF since Richards Mother of all Budgets in 1991 when Defence had 23% slashed from its budget between then and 1994. The recent civilianisation and demands for savings from existing budgets have exacerbated the situation. There is a significant lack of long term planning and foresight in NZ defence policy by the pollies and IMO they see the security worldview through rose tinted glasses rather than is the harsh reality that it is and can be. That's the significant handicap we have to deal with.

 

[MrConservative]

MrC the US doesn't do anything which doesn't further it's own interests, whilst I'm not on the loney left, I still believe that there will be plenty of negatives for NZ, the full extent we won't know until it's ratified, if it ever is, it's been underway since 2005 so I'm not holding my breath.

Japan and China, who really is a fault here, who really owns those Islands, both sides appear to have a fairly equal claim to them.

As for interests nor do we Rob around trade and diplomacy.

There maybe some dead rats that we might have to swallow but the positive side of the ledger for us is at a huge advantage.

As for the Senkaku's the current occupier has the stronger claim with respect to international law.

One of the key issues with China is that its internationally recognised maritime EEZ is comparitively small compared to its economic and military weight. Lets say it is an issue that they are keen to redress.

 

[Gracie1234]

I agree with the sentiments of the current posts to a great extent. Extra capability is desired and the root cause of the issues are a lack of funding.
I do disagree with the opinion that NZ has no money to allocated to defense. The government is about to get back into surplus and defense can soak up the extra funding without driving inflation unlike other areas of govt expenditure.
With the books back in the black and a majority in govt it might be the perfect storm to increase defenses allocation of the pie.
The strategic environment has change with Asia heading into a less stable future at least out to the medium horizon. I am not saying this is a direct threat to NZ but it will impact our trade and relations.

 

[MrConservative]

It all comes back to NZG policy and funding with the critical manning issue is an actual function of the shortage of funding that has been inflicted on NZDF since Richards Mother of all Budgets in 1991 when Defence had 23% slashed from its budget between then and 1994. The recent civilianisation and demands for savings from existing budgets have exacerbated the situation. There is a significant lack of long term planning and foresight in NZ defence policy by the pollies and IMO they see the security worldview through rose tinted glasses rather than is the harsh reality that it is and can be. That's the significant handicap we have to deal with.

The manning issue is significant, and as I have said before demographics and sociographics are a part of it. Funding is also a biggy as always and it is obvious that it needs to increase. I think it will. Saturday night was a psychological barrier for NZ that was busted wide open. In many ways the old left of the past which dominated the defence and security discourse has been buried, deemed as dated and of another time and place. A discussion about a more robust defence posture is now more plausible and its many advocates can speak from a stronger more confident more pragmatic footing. We wont get back to 2.0% + of GDP per capita - just as we will not be able to put to sea an 18 hull + Navy like the 1980s. Pragmatism beats idealism and fantasy on both sides of the defence spectrum.

I consider building up again to a 12 hull Navy (albeit more automated due to crewing challenges) is sustainable over the medium term (2025) and possibly a 14 hull Navy by the end of current DWP range of 2035. But in the 21st century we are captured by sociographic factors which we cannot ignore. Defence spending needs a lift, which I believe is politically do-able as the nations finances transform. On that front we need to benchmark ourselves with similar sized liberal democratic countries like Denmark and Norway who spend around 1.4% of GDP. A measured build up to 1.4% of GDP over the remainder of this decade is a can do without over-reaching. Key will get another term after this one, and though he may not govern alone next time his support partners will likely be the Conservatives and a Ron Mark lead NZ First. That would at least put a line under any instability of defence spend.

 

[StevoJH]

One of the key issues with China is that its internationally recognised maritime EEZ is comparitively small compared to its economic and military weight. Lets say it is an issue that they are keen to redress.

And issue with Geography unfortunately, and not much can be achieved to change it without open conflict between it and some of its (much smaller) neighbours.

 

[ngatimozart]

The manning issue is significant, and as I have said before demographics and sociographics are a part of it. Funding is also a biggy as always and it is obvious that it needs to increase. I think it will. Saturday night was a psychological barrier for NZ that was busted wide open. In many ways the old left of the past which dominated the defence and security discourse has been buried, deemed as dated and of another time and place. A discussion about a more robust defence posture is now more plausible and its many advocates can speak from a stronger more confident more pragmatic footing. We wont get back to 2.0% + of GDP per capita - just as we will not be able to put to sea an 18 hull + Navy like the 1980s. Pragmatism beats idealism and fantasy on both sides of the defence spectrum.

I consider building up again to a 12 hull Navy (albeit more automated due to crewing challenges) is sustainable over the medium term (2025) and possibly a 14 hull Navy by the end of current DWP range of 2035. But in the 21st century we are captured by sociographic factors which we cannot ignore. Defence spending needs a lift, which I believe is politically do-able as the nations finances transform. On that front we need to benchmark ourselves with similar sized liberal democratic countries like Denmark and Norway who spend around 1.4% of GDP. A measured build up to 1.4% of GDP over the remainder of this decade is a can do without over-reaching. Key will get another term after this one, and though he may not govern alone next time his support partners will likely be the Conservatives and a Ron Mark lead NZ First. That would at least put a line under any instability of defence spend.

Yes a Ron Mark led NZ First would probably a good thing for NZDF. He certainly would be more affable than Winston in that he has more experience of it than Winston. The Conservatives might be supportive as well but we'll have to wait and see. The NATO nations have agreed to increase their defence spends so we'll have to see what Denmark and Norway increase theirs too. They are in a different place to NZDF in that they aren't dealing with block obsolescence, they didn't axe their equivalent of an ACF and they have a population who understands defence.

 

[KiwiRob]

I would be really surprised to see Norway or Denmark bring defense spending back up to 2% of GDP, even with the current political situation in Europe that's a big ask.

 

[ngatimozart]

I would be really surprised to see Norway or Denmark bring defense spending back up to 2% of GDP, even with the current political situation in Europe that's a big ask.

Well all the NATO members agreed to it at the last leaders summit in Wales. Mind you the German Govt was grumbling quite a bit. It's the situation in der Ost that ist der problem with Russian aggression against Ukraine.

 

[KiwiRob]

Don't get me started about that, those stupid sanctions implemented by the EU and US are systematically driving Russian shipyards into the hands of Chinese and Korean suppliers, there they can get product of equal quality for significantly less dosh, they won't be back, another smart move by the EU.

I have no idea how Norway would use an increased budget, at lot of the kit they have including a couple of frigates aren't used because they don't have the manpower to use them, spending more money only benefits the suppliers.

 

[MrConservative]

I have no idea how Norway would use an increased budget, at lot of the kit they have including a couple of frigates aren't used because they don't have the manpower to use them, spending more money only benefits the suppliers.

I can understand the manpower issue. It is those sociographics in play again. Small affluent liberal countries with a low population base like Norway and New Zealand will continue to struggle to put to sea numerically larger fleets like we used to. The world of an 18-20 year old is vastly in 2014 than what it was in 1974 or 1984. That 18 to 20 year old they are trying to recruit is vastly different in many ways also. Like his 25 year old bigger brother whom they want to hold on to. Money is not going to entirely solve that. The if they built it (more vesels etc) they will come addage will not work either. No wonder Frigates are alonside in Norway.

Turning it back toward NZ in this regard - I think we will have to take on board the fact that we are going to have to do all we can require from just a dozen vessels tops. Innovative, highly automated and multi-role vessels are the only way forward plus getting the right vessels in the first place. For the purist and naval traditionalist that might not appeal, but that is the deck of cards places like NZ and Norway, however ever wealthy they may be will have to deal with as we move into the 3rd decade of the 21st century.

 

[alexsa]

Don't get me started about that, those stupid sanctions implemented by the EU and US are systematically driving Russian shipyards into the hands of Chinese and Korean suppliers, there they can get product of equal quality for significantly less dosh, they won't be back, another smart move by the EU.

I have no idea how Norway would use an increased budget, at lot of the kit they have including a couple of frigates aren't used because they don't have the manpower to use them, spending more money only benefits the suppliers.

Sorry OT..... but

From the commercial perspective Korea can supply good kit with some of it built under licence from EU and US companies (in fact this gear is used in European shipyards as well).

My experiance with Chinese commercial kit is not the same and there is quite a bit of counterfeit gear about or plain poor quality.

 

[Todjaeger]

I have no idea how Norway would use an increased budget, at lot of the kit they have including a couple of frigates aren't used because they don't have the manpower to use them, spending more money only benefits the suppliers.

Somewhat OT, but the potential applies to NZ as well. Budgetary increases can be used not just for more and/or better kit, but also to provide better pay, bonuses and other incentives to recruit and retain personnel.

The best kit in the world is useless if there are no trained operators to use said kit.

From an outsider's POV, the NZDF does seem to have been consistently under resourced for nearly a generation. Increased funding for the NZDF (even just getting to 1% GDP in real terms...) would allow more funding to recruit and retain personnel, as well as potentially allowing proper replacement of a number of high cost, aging defence assets.

 

[Volkodav]

The way I see it is the crewing differences between an IPV, OPV and Frigate are shrinking, i.e there is a minimum functional crew that an IPV will require that no amount of automation can reduce when you factor in minimum watches, maintenance, ship husbandry and boarding party size etc.

The crewing requirements of IPVs have remained basically the same if not increased slightly, i.e. extra bodies for a second RIHB, while those of a frigate have dramatically reduced. The Fifty Man Frigate speculated in the 80s is now a reality (not including air detachment) so when you are talking 25-30 crew on an IPV, the same or very slightly more on an OPV and only 20 or 30 more on a full blown frigate with superior capability and survivability to an ANZAC the frigate option looks far more attractive.

Long gone are the days when you had 250 crew on a frigate, meaning that instead of a frigate literally requiring ten times the crew of a patrol boat it is now only two to three times that of a PB. If you had the money common sense would dictate you put your very limited manpower resource into frigates rather than IPVs, or even OPVs. At the same time, nations that used to crew DDGs requiring over 300 and FFGs with about 200 crew can probably seriously look at through deck helicopter carriers to supplement their new generation destroyers and frigates.