Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

A

anzac3

Member
ngatimozart said:
Yep and I am one of those who does. I've written some of my thoughts on this in a blog and to quote part of it:

"The English language title of the national anthem of New Zealand is "God Defend New Zealand", and the during the recent history of New Zealand from 1991 until today, one could be forgiven thinking God is basically the only one defending New Zealand. Kiwi politicians (pollies) are great on talking the big talk about defence, however when it comes to walking the walk, they are noticeable by their absence and lack of action. Regardless of their party affiliation, when it comes to defence, the vast majority of them have deep pockets and very short arms, combined with myopic vision that only sees votes and no farther than the next election ...

There are four parts to what I call the defence conundrum:
  • Politicians.
    • Politicians don't care because there is no backlash at the ballot box. They appear to think that defence is a luxury, not a necessity. However the pollies don't think long term and don't look at long term consequences. Their focus is always the ballot box - the next election, and any political debate about defence at election time has been smothered, because both Labour and National have a backroom agreement not to discuss it.
  • Public apathy.
    • The general public don't really care about defence until something bad happens such as a natural disaster or a war, or every ANZAC Day when they gather in their thousands to honour those who have died in foreign wars and those who have served. However for the other 364 days defence is forgotten, unless a natural disaster occurs and NZDF is at the forefront of relief efforts, or is involved in a SAR (Search & Rescue)."
The other two are Bureaucrats and Treasury which I go into more detail in the blog. I haven't linked it here because I will have to enquire with other Mods about the protocols and if I am allowed to do so.

There is also a recent article about the loss of strategic control of the South China Sea by the west. The SCS is a strategic SLOC and the first time that the west lost control of it was in 1940 / 41 to Imperial Japan after the fall of France in Europe and Siam becoming a Japanese ally, and now with the PRC fortifying it. Whilst the article talks about the implications for Australia, those same implications are for NZ as well, considering that a significant component of our SLOC transit the SCS.

Whilst there is talk about the US taking the lead in defending the Pacific, compared to the past it appears to be somewhat less robust and as this article suggests, feeble in its response to Chinas aggression. This means that we have to look more to ourselves and take responsibility for our defence.
Click to expand...


Nice thoughts there sir.

History tells us that conflict or a "event" is inevitable. New Zealanders will wait until this time, and then the Gov of the day will step up, possibly too late to satisfy its voters.
I believe this is pending with the possibility of the Pacific Ocean ownership being challenged.
 
Nighthawk.NZ

Nighthawk.NZ

Well-Known Member
tongan_yam

tongan_yam

New Member
There has been a bit of back and forth about what the RNZN and the NZGOVT willingness to "afford" high ticket items such as the T26.

I found this visual of the worlds wealth distribution informative, for the very fact that similar-sized nations carry higher % GDP defence spend than we do. As has been noted prior, it isn't New Zealand's inability to afford, but the Government of the day inability to understand the geopolitical risks associated with the current risk environment.

Also of interest is the aggregate wealth of our 5EYES pact is 37.78%.

https://howmuch.net/articles/distribution-worlds-wealth-2019
 
MrConservative

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
anzac3 said:
Nice thoughts there sir.

History tells us that conflict or a "event" is inevitable. New Zealanders will wait until this time, and then the Gov of the day will step up, possibly too late to satisfy its voters.
I believe this is pending with the possibility of the Pacific Ocean ownership being challenged.
Click to expand...
God help the poor sod who is PM when the proverbial eventually hits - they and their government will be politically destroyed and will have most of the blame rained down on them by the public and duplicitous media. However, there will be a few 60, 70 and 80 year old former politicians whose political legacies will be totally trashed when it happens who will essentially be social outcasts. Especially the ones who cancelled or reduced critical capabilities. :p
 
MrConservative

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
tongan_yam said:
There has been a bit of back and forth about what the RNZN and the NZGOVT willingness to "afford" high ticket items such as the T26.

I found this visual of the worlds wealth distribution informative, for the very fact that similar-sized nations carry higher % GDP defence spend than we do. As has been noted prior, it isn't New Zealand's inability to afford, but the Government of the day inability to understand the geopolitical risks associated with the current risk environment.

Also of interest is the aggregate wealth of our 5EYES pact is 37.78%.

https://howmuch.net/articles/distribution-worlds-wealth-2019
Click to expand...
Interesting stuff but what is even more interesting is the sheer reserve value and size of New Zealand's capital raw resources as well as that of Canada, Australia and the United States. That is where the FEYES group collectively really pump up the volume.
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
MrConservative said:
Interesting stuff but what is even more interesting is the sheer reserve value and size of New Zealand's capital raw resources as well as that of Canada, Australia and the United States. That is where the FEYES group collectively really pump up the volume.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately in Canada’s case, the utilization of raw resources is becoming next to impossible due to political infighting and First Nations land claims. Therefore Canada’s wealth, IMHO, is somewhat inflated beyond reality.
 
MrConservative

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
John Fedup said:
Unfortunately in Canada’s case, the utilization of raw resources is becoming next to impossible due to political infighting and First Nations land claims. Therefore Canada’s wealth, IMHO, is somewhat inflated beyond reality.
Click to expand...
Indigenous Canadians want natural resources development — why aren’t we being heard?

There is a message in there.

In NZ we as a society decided to work with our 1st nations communities (called Iwi) around 25 years ago rather than put up barriers, who have since then developed a multi-billion dollar economic powerhouse within Fishing, Forestry, Geothermal Energy, Agriculture, Horticulture and Eco-Tourism sectors. Iwi do take a conservative environmental approach viz a conservation worldview called Kaitiakitanga, which has kept them from the Oil & Gas sector so far and some Iwi like Nga Tahu and Tuwharetoa have been more successful than others, which usually comes down to leadership and of course in most enterprises ... ego's. And everyone recognises that it is still early days and more opportunities are out there.
 
OPSSG

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
CJohn said:
An interesting piece in Defsec by former Def Min Wayne Mapp on past and upcoming major naval capability questions from 2020 to 2023.

Capability questions for the next government - Defsec
Click to expand...
Why would NZ even consider the Canadian Harry DeWolf ships? The Harry DeWolf is the first in a series of Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships (AOPS) for Canada that IMHO is under armed. NZDF is a 2 frigate navy — it can’t possibly protect its own OPVs — Q: Is it wise to follow Canadian specs? Unlike other OPVs of comparable size and function, Canada’s AOPS will be armed with a single, remote controlled MK38 25mm gun — a common supplementary weapon on naval and coast guard ships.
  • Denmark launched its Knud Rasmussen OPVs in 2008, and these ships operate off the coast of Greenland. Interestingly, they are armed with a 76 mm main gun as well as supplementary weapons. The Danish vessels are designed for but not fitted with the RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile or Anti-Submarine Torpedoes.

  • Netherlands launched its Holland Class OPVs in 2010, with a fancy sensor and weapons package that includes a 76 mm main gun, a secondary 30 mm cannon, and two 12.7 mm Hitroles.
Further, Canadian ship building is expensive, right? I really can’t understand due to my lack of knowledge.

Can NZ accept a more heavily armed OPV design that is built to spec (as a Polar Class vessel)? Korea or some other country can certainly do it at a much lower price. Someone please explain — there must be some features in the Harry DeWolf class that I have not understood.
 
Last edited:
C

chis73

Active Member
OPSSG said:
Why would NZ even consider the Canadian Harry DeWolf ships? The Harry DeWolf is the first in a series of Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships (AOPS) for Canada that IMHO is under armed. NZDF is a 2 frigate navy — it can’t possibly protect its own OPVs — Q: Is it wise to follow Canadian specs? Unlike other OPVs of comparable size and function, Canada’s AOPS will be armed with a single, remote controlled MK38 25mm gun — a common supplementary weapon on naval and coast guard ships.
  • Denmark launched its Knud Rasmussen OPVs in 2008, and these ships operate off the coast of Greenland. Interestingly, they are armed with a 76 mm main gun as well as supplementary weapons. The Danish vessels are designed for but not fitted with the RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile or Anti-Submarine Torpedoes.

  • Netherlands launched its Holland Class OPVs in 2010, with a fancy sensor and weapons package that includes a 76 mm main gun, a secondary 30 mm cannon, and two 12.7 mm Hitroles.
Further, Canadian ship building is expensive, right? I really can’t understand due to my lack of knowledge.

Can NZ accept a more heavily armed OPV design that is built to spec (as a Polar Class vessel)? Korea or some other country can certainly do it at a much lower price. Someone please explain — there must be some features in the Harry DeWolf class that I have not understood.
Click to expand...
Firstly, a key point I think you are missing is that the Antarctic is supposedly a demilitarised zone (until 2048 or thereabouts). NZ is a signatory to that treaty. So a 25mm cannon as main armament is plenty until then (the French used the Albatross - a large trawler with a 20mm for many years to patrol their Antarctic territories, the UK has a River class OPV and has used various research vessels like HMS Endurance & HMS Scott). Secondly, the Harry DeWolf (AOPS) is just about the only polar-class OPV around with a hot production line at present. That could be very attractive to NZ (and may make Canadian shipbuilding marginally competitive, provided we order in time before the production line closes - could be an issue if the 2027 timeframe doesn't change). If you noted Nighthawk's post on the Aotearoa above, you might have seen that the delivery date looks to have slipped by several months (now saying mid-year). I am not surprised about that, in fact I was expecting it. It is what happens when you order a one-off first-of-class vessel. Thirdly, there is a need for a larger OPV for the Southern Ocean (due to the sea conditions).

I tend to disagree with Wayne Mapp's assessment. I think the current OPVs do the job of EEZ patrol well enough, and should probably remain in service at least 40 years (with minor upgrades to comms, and electronics). The problem has been using them in the Southern Ocean (they have always been too small for that). So I would see no urgent need to replace them in the 2020s. That said, I'm not privy to how badly they have been beaten up already.

We probably only need a single Southern Ocean OPV - the patrol work is seasonal (summer only).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
MrConservative

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
OPSSG said:
Why would NZ even consider the Canadian Harry DeWolf ships? The Harry DeWolf is the first in a series of Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships (AOPS) for Canada that IMHO is under armed. NZDF is a 2 frigate navy — it can’t possibly protect its own OPVs — is it wise to follow Canadian specs? Unlike other OPVs of comparable size and function, Canada’s AOPS will be armed with a single, remote controlled MK38 25mm gun — a common supplementary weapon on naval and coast guard ships.
  • Denmark launched its Knud Rasmussen OPVs in 2008, and these ships operate off the coast of Greenland. Interestingly, they are armed with a 76 mm main gun as well as supplementary weapons. The Danish vessels are designed for but not fitted with the RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile or Anti-Submarine Torpedoes.

  • Netherlands launched its Holland Class OPVs in 2010, with a fancy sensor and weapons package that includes a 76 mm main gun, a secondary 30 mm cannon, and two 12.7 mm Hitroles.
Further, Canadian ship building is expensive, right? I really can’t understand due to my lack of knowledge.

Can NZ accept a more heavily armed OPV design that is built to spec (as a Polar Class vessel)? Korea or some other country can certainly do it at a much lower price. Someone please explain — there must be some features in the Harry DeWolf class that I have not understood.
Click to expand...
This is a vessel which has to operate in the Southern Ocean and a MK38 25mm gun is about as "constabulary" and non "militarised" as the Antarctic Treaty will allow without contravening the treaty articles. The 330CMS in the upgraded Anzacs is in the AOPS and I guess likely the Anzac replacement from what the campfire mischiefs have inferred.
 
MrConservative

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
chis73 said:
I tend to disagree with Wayne Mapp's assessment.
Click to expand...
You are not the only Chis73. Mapp is still strategically stuck in 2008.

Speech by Hon Dr Wayne Mapp | New Zealand Contemporary China Research Centre | Victoria University of Wellington

Put is this way. Anne Marie Brady is not impressed.

Any so called "Strategy Expert" who considers that replacing two low-end Post Cold War frigates with two more low-end frigates in a highly contested post 2030 Indo-Pacific world of Cold War 2.0 is either a strategic moron or simply as I am beginning to form the view so one to be wary of.

chis73 said:
I think the current OPVs do the job of EEZ patrol well enough, and should probably remain in service at least 40 years (with minor upgrades to comms, and electronics). The problem has been using them in the Southern Ocean (they have always been too small for that). So I would see no urgent need to replace them in the 2020s. That said, I'm not privy to how badly they have been beaten up already.
Click to expand...
They were built to last 20 years and would get 25-27 with a MLU refit and rectification. They are fine for South Pacific work but badly compromised for tasking south of Stewart Island.

chis73 said:
We probably only need a single Southern Ocean OPV - the patrol work is seasonal (summer only).
Click to expand...
The capability plan is just to get one SOPV. The window for patrolling down south there is widening so a vessel like the AOPS with its greater endurance, ice capability and seakeeping as well as additional support capacity makes sense.
 
ngatimozart

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
OPSSG said:
Why would NZ even consider the Canadian Harry DeWolf ships? The Harry DeWolf is the first in a series of Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships (AOPS) for Canada that IMHO is under armed. NZDF is a 2 frigate navy — it can’t possibly protect its own OPVs — Q: Is it wise to follow Canadian specs? Unlike other OPVs of comparable size and function, Canada’s AOPS will be armed with a single, remote controlled MK38 25mm gun — a common supplementary weapon on naval and coast guard ships.
  • Denmark launched its Knud Rasmussen OPVs in 2008, and these ships operate off the coast of Greenland. Interestingly, they are armed with a 76 mm main gun as well as supplementary weapons. The Danish vessels are designed for but not fitted with the RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile or Anti-Submarine Torpedoes.

  • Netherlands launched its Holland Class OPVs in 2010, with a fancy sensor and weapons package that includes a 76 mm main gun, a secondary 30 mm cannon, and two 12.7 mm Hitroles.
Further, Canadian ship building is expensive, right? I really can’t understand due to my lack of knowledge.

Can NZ accept a more heavily armed OPV design that is built to spec (as a Polar Class vessel)? Korea or some other country can certainly do it at a much lower price. Someone please explain — there must be some features in the Harry DeWolf class that I have not understood.
Click to expand...
The Harry DeWolf is a VARD-7-100-ICE which is a variant of the VARD-7-100-OPV. There are also the VARD-7-110 or the VARD-7-125 which like the 7-100 can be modified to the clients needs. There are no reasons why a 40 mm or 57 mm gun couldn't be mounted on the foc'sle, a 25 mm Typhoon above the hangar, along with SeaCeptor SAM in ExLS VLS and NSM box launchers on deck. We could install the CMS330 CMS and have the appropriate sensors fitted. During the build, appropriate areas of the ships would need to be armoured. The ExLS VLS and NSM box launchers could be bolt on with plug and play fittings for electronics, power and cooling. Finally there is no reason why we couldn't have them built in South Korea, possibly by buying a licence for the design.

The current Protector class OPVs are VARD-7-85 OPVs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top