Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[MrConservative]

I don't believe that NZ would have to face threats to its sovereignty on its own.
Anyone posing a major threat that country will also be posing a threat to Australia in my opinion.
NZ won't be on its own
MB

Collective defence especially in the maritime domain is more than direct territorial threats to sovereignty. SLOC, presence, intel ....

With a direct threat to NZ or Australia neither Navy could cope that is why we have had the BFG out there with us since the 1940's. For us of course some days have been better than others in the past.

 

[Rob c]

I don't believe that NZ would have to face threats to its sovereignty on its own.
Anyone posing a major threat that country will also be posing a threat to Australia in my opinion.
NZ won't be on its own
MB

The problem I see with this outlook is that it is unlikely there would be a direct threat to NZ, that did not include a significant threat to Australia and given the area that the australian military have to cover they would most likely be too busy to be able to offer much help to us. My own opinion is that we need to build our defence forces to a level that can hold or deter a threat for at least a significant period of time until help can arrive, which is unlikely to be from Australia as they will be fully committed with their own problems. As I have said before, we need the ability to know what is going on around us, in the air, surface and underwater either by surveillance or intelligence or both, and the ability to respond to threats that are detected. Due to the large moat around us this will not break the bank but does require some additional functions to be reinstated that have been lost over the years and a significant improvement in our surveillance ability.

 

[Nighthawk.NZ]

As MrC says NZ can afford a higher expenditure on defence but chooses not to. I am concerned that T26 is too much ship. A T31 sized vessel would seem more appropriate at this point IMHO.

Please define what is too much ship... ??? and how is it too much ship...??? or are you just talking cost which is a totally different subject.

We face very similar strategic issues as Australia and in some areas a little more and a little different and other areas less and different... but overall similar.

Does NZ want to keep the freedom of Navigation in the South China Sea (which is has major shipping lanes)? Yes.
Does NZ want to keep our shipping lanes open and free throughout the world? Yes.
Does NZ want to keep its resources from being stripped? (including the resources of the Southern Ocean) Yes.
Does NZ need vessels that can integrate into an international fleet and not be a liability? Yes
Is NZ entering into a cold war with China? Not yet (as such) but maybe... the signs are there, even though we trade
Can NZ afford these vessels? Yes.
(Side note I could probably keep going with this list.... but you get the point hopefully).

However here is the 24 million dollar question...
Does the New Zealand Government (of the day) have the balls to say we need to up arm our armed forces... and do they want to sell that to the voting public? that is the 24 million dollar question.

 

[OPSSG]

Please define what is too much ship... ??? and how is it too much ship...??? or are you just talking cost which is a totally different subject.

We face very similar strategic issues as Australia and in some areas a little more and a little different and other areas less and different... but overall similar.

Does NZ want to keep the freedom of Navigation in the South China Sea (which is has major shipping lanes)? Yes.
Does NZ want to keep our shipping lanes open and free throughout the world? Yes.
Does NZ want to keep its resources from being stripped? (including the resource rice Southern Ocean) Yes.
Does NZ need vessels that can integrate into an international fleet and not be a liability? Yes
Is NZ entering into a cold war with China? Not yet (as such) but maybe... the signs are there, even though we trade
Can NZ afford these vessels? Yes.
(Side note I could probably keep going with this list.... but you get the point hopefully).

However here is the 24 million dollar question...
Does the New Zealand Government (of the day) have the balls to say we need to up arm our armed forces... and do they want to sell that to the voting public? that is the 24 million dollar question.

Thanks for explaining and debunking Novascotiaboy’s Canadian line of reasoning that is without regard to NZ’s geography. I am happy to be educated on key considerations by other DT members here.

I suspect that in many future use of force scenarios for a wide spectrum of naval operations or for deterrence, deciding on buying a common and capable naval platform (using the Australian Hunter-class or T26 specifications as a base), will enable NZDF to contribute meaningfully in the security of the region and provide options to secure its own SLOCs. If you look at how Singapore is hedging it’s bets to secure our SLOCs, in terms of naval platform investments (eg. the 4 new Type 218SGs, the 8 new Independence Class vessels, the MRCVs and the JMMS) now and in the near future, the trend line for capable ships is clear.

 

[oldsig127]

I don't believe that NZ would have to face threats to its sovereignty on its own.
Anyone posing a major threat that country will also be posing a threat to Australia in my opinion.
NZ won't be on its own
MB

Ah. The "Outsource the expense" option.

This falls over the assumption that Australia will have sufficient forces to perform all the functions of defence for both nations, or that the voters of Australia will be willing to pay for it when the politicians explain the rise in Defence spending. Polkiticians being politicians, it's more likely that we'll have insufficient to do both, but will try despite the risk to our own country and the result will be Australians being just as poorly disposed to our cousins as Ng is to our sporting guts.

oldsig

 

[ngatimozart]

Ah. The "Outsource the expense" option.

This falls over the assumption that Australia will have sufficient forces to perform all the functions of defence for both nations, or that the voters of Australia will be willing to pay for it when the politicians explain the rise in Defence spending. Polkiticians being politicians, it's more likely that we'll have insufficient to do both, but will try despite the risk to our own country and the result will be Australians being just as poorly disposed to our cousins as Ng is to our sporting guts.

oldsig

Of course, makes for good clashes on the sports field and after the finl whistles blown, have beers together.

It is my belief that some members of our Canadian brethern misunderstand our location in the world and where our interests are. We don't reside in a small lake and unlike Canada who's nearest neighbour, is literally across the fence, you can even straddle the fence and not do the splits. We gotta fly 2+ hours on a Boeing or Airbus just to get to ours (Australia), and horror of horrors if we are geographically challenged and fly east instead of west, it's a bloody long way to our closest neighbour in the east (Chile). To the north are the Pacific Islands and Siberia and to the south, Antarctica.

The real thing is that we can afford 4 T-26 FFGs and 6 OPVs including AOPVs suitable armed etc., as Mr C suggests along with other acquisitions across NZDF. It's just our useless pollies can't be bothered because it doesn't suit their narratives.

 

[KiwiRob]

Of course, makes for good clashes on the sports field and after the finl whistles blown, have beers together.

It is my belief that some members of our Canadian brethern misunderstand our location in the world and where our interests are. We don't reside in a small lake and unlike Canada who's nearest neighbour, is literally across the fence, you can even straddle the fence and not do the splits. We gotta fly 2+ hours on a Boeing or Airbus just to get to ours (Australia), and horror of horrors if we are geographically challenged and fly east instead of west, it's a bloody long way to our closest neighbour in the east (Chile). To the north are the Pacific Islands and Siberia and to the south, Antarctica.

The real thing is that we can afford 4 T-26 FFGs and 6 OPVs including AOPVs suitable armed etc., as Mr C suggests along with other acquisitions across NZDF. It's just our useless pollies can't be bothered because it doesn't suit their narratives.

I'm sure we can afford them but they are not going to win votes, as you might have noticed roads win votes hence the massive pre election bribe announced yesterday.

 

[Stampede]

Please define what is too much ship... ??? and how is it too much ship...??? or are you just talking cost which is a totally different subject.

We face very similar strategic issues as Australia and in some areas a little more and a little different and other areas less and different... but overall similar.

Does NZ want to keep the freedom of Navigation in the South China Sea (which is has major shipping lanes)? Yes.
Does NZ want to keep our shipping lanes open and free throughout the world? Yes.
Does NZ want to keep its resources from being stripped? (including the resources of the Southern Ocean) Yes.
Does NZ need vessels that can integrate into an international fleet and not be a liability? Yes
Is NZ entering into a cold war with China? Not yet (as such) but maybe... the signs are there, even though we trade
Can NZ afford these vessels? Yes.
(Side note I could probably keep going with this list.... but you get the point hopefully).

However here is the 24 million dollar question...
Does the New Zealand Government (of the day) have the balls to say we need to up arm our armed forces... and do they want to sell that to the voting public? that is the 24 million dollar question.

Good question.
I'd suggest looking long term....................NO
What ever we may think NZ should have or could actually afford I cannot see the dollars coming through.
So what do you do regarding those major capital purchases like ships and Planes.
You balance the best you can with the available dollars today and into the future for the life of that capital acquisition and future proof it to fit and grow within the needs of defence with the funds available and projected into the future.
No use to aspiring to own a battleship even if its needed it, when your only going to fund a corvette both today and into the future.

I can see some comparison to what New Zealand could have by way of Denmark's Defence force
While not totally apples for apples the two countries have some what similar populations and economies.
The Danes have a a balanced Air Force with fast Air, an Army with modern Armoured vehicles in respectable numbers including MBT's and a navy with with Five large destroyers sized ships supported with a range of minor vessels...............................Most Impressive.

Soooooooo a shopping list for a future New Zealand navy should start with a budget.......This may seem arse about but you will never buy Champagne on a beer budget.
Now you just have to purchase the most appropriate beer!

Regards S

 

[Novascotiaboy]

And that’s my point. I know that NZ needs T26 capability but the Pollies won’t put out the cash. To them any Grey ship will do. Please do not under estimate my appreciation of NZs geographic isolation and it’s need for an ability to defend its interests. I get it. But the clear fact is the past 30 plus years have seen the whittling down of your armed forces to a precarious level. The people factor is phenomenal but numbers of platforms across all divisions is insufficient as most here on DT are aware.

 

[Stampede]

2000-2500 tonnes does not have the endurance/range - we are a long way away with a lot of water between us and everything. That might be reasonable solution in the Baltics or Med not where we are in the world - both geographically and increasingly strategically.

It may have a little bit of merit if it was along the lines of a Iver F370 / Absalon mix. A couple/three reasonably high end surface combatants and couple/three lower end in fit-out patrol vessels that could be tricked up if need be but have capacity and space to do a range of tasks - like play mother to MCM gear, survey remotes, assist in HADR & SASO et al.

The thing is Stampede. NZ can afford a hell of a lot more on defence than it lets on.

Looking at something much bigger than the in service Protector Class OPV.

More of a under gunned light frigate than a over ambitiously armed Corvette.
A hull form suited for the NZ Geography is a given.

As to price ...........budget

Regards S

 

[MrConservative]

And that’s my point. I know that NZ needs T26 capability but the Pollies won’t put out the cash. To them any Grey ship will do. Please do not under estimate my appreciation of NZs geographic isolation and it’s need for an ability to defend its interests. I get it. But the clear fact is the past 30 plus years have seen the whittling down of your armed forces to a precarious level. The people factor is phenomenal but numbers of platforms across all divisions is insufficient as most here on DT are aware.

What I understand is that the political thinking and the civilian MoD staff (who department hop between ministries as they claw up the civil service greasy pole so don't rock received conventional wisdom) has been to replace two Anzacs with two Type 26's because we currently have two Anzacs, when the naval planners within the NZDF know that three is the proper minimum requirement. That is the problem.

 

[John Fedup]

We share the same problem, both countries have electorates that continue to elect pollies who promise the pork at the expense of defence. Not sure how much pork the NZ electorate actually gets, Canadians mostly get BS.

 

[Rob c]

We share the same problem, both countries have electorates that continue to elect pollies who promise the pork at the expense of defence. Not sure how much pork the NZ electorate actually gets, Canadians mostly get BS.

Yep you are right and in our case there is a Gentleman's agreement between the major parties not to debate defence, which means that joe public have little or know knowledge or interest on what we really need or what the strategic situation is morphing into and that is the way the polies like it. In other words make sure joe public are kept in mushroom country. (keep in the dark and feed on S--t ).

 

[Novascotiaboy]

In an earlier post I stated that the T26 may be too much ship for NZ and I have been asked to elaborate.

T26 will likely be one of the most effective vessel designs ever to go to sea but its a world away from what NZ and others are operating now.

The current and previous frigates have never sported a surface to surfare or long range anti air missile system. Nor have they had the electronic systems needed to support these weapon systems. To my understanding these three systems make up the bulk of the cost of the T26 in comparison to other more modest frigates such as the ANZAC. The senior navy may want and desire T26 but at what cost? The T26 is in the top percentile of cost and capability. For comparison the RCN had four equivalent vessels to the T26 in our Tribal class destroyers each with Mk 41 VLS for SM2 and two Sea King ASW helicopters. Now we are getting 15 platforms all with the ability that will replace our GP Halifax class frigates at an exponential price. A case could have been made for the RCN to follow the RN and buy fewer T26 and more T31 style vessels allowing for a balanced fleet of sixteen hulls, giving us the ability to simultaneously deploy two task groups. With so few hulls (2) the RNZN would IMHO be better served by three or four T31 style vessels. This approach would allow deployment to the ME, SCS or elsewhere while still having capacity to leave a vessel in home waters while the fourth is in refit.

Its not so much the physical size that is the issue because T31 or the Iver design are 6000 ton plus but the system load out that will make the pollies cringe. Can you honestly say that the NZG will publicly support the purchase of long range SSM and SAM systems on multiple hulls when even the limited few new P8s are not being supplied with an ASM?

The question that needs to be answered is what does NZ want its surface naval force to do? Seemlessly fit into a CBG or an Australian task group or provide real support to national interests in the SP and around the islands of your nation. Like Canada you are not an expeditionary military. And as such your equipment should reflect your needs not the needs of others. NATO has proven that with its standing naval forces that not every ship need be identical. Every participating nation brings a capability to the table. The RNZN needs hulls in the water to be in multiple places at the same time showing a presence and acting as the deterrent to aggression and lawlessness.

We can debate the whole process but what isnt likely to change is the well known political factor of doing as little as possible for defence. By the time an ANZAC replacement is announced and in the water I will be swimming, floating, with the fishes as I am closer to the end than I am to the beginning of life's journey.

 

[OPSSG]

In an earlier post I stated that the T26 may be too much ship for NZ and I have been asked to elaborate.

T26 will likely be one of the most effective vessel designs ever to go to sea but its a world away from what NZ and others are operating now.

The current and previous frigates have never sported a surface to surfare or long range anti air missile system. Nor have they had the electronic systems needed to support these weapon systems. To my understanding these three systems make up the bulk of the cost of the T26 in comparison to other more modest frigates such as the ANZAC. The senior navy may want and desire T26 but at what cost? The T26 is in the top percentile of cost and capability. For comparison the RCN had four equivalent vessels to the T26 in our Tribal class destroyers each with Mk 41 VLS for SM2 and two Sea King ASW helicopters. Now we are getting 15 platforms all with the ability that will replace our GP Halifax class frigates at an exponential price. A case could have been made for the RCN to follow the RN and buy fewer T26 and more T31 style vessels allowing for a balanced fleet of sixteen hulls, giving us the ability to simultaneously deploy two task groups. With so few hulls (2) the RNZN would IMHO be better served by three or four T31 style vessels. This approach would allow deployment to the ME, SCS or elsewhere while still having capacity to leave a vessel in home waters while the fourth is in refit.

Its not so much the physical size that is the issue because T31 or the Iver design are 6000 ton plus but the system load out that will make the pollies cringe. Can you honestly say that the NZG will publicly support the purchase of long range SSM and SAM systems on multiple hulls when even the limited few new P8s are not being supplied with an ASM?

The question that needs to be answered is what does NZ want its surface naval force to do? Seemlessly fit into a CBG or an Australian task group or provide real support to national interests in the SP and around the islands of your nation. Like Canada you are not an expeditionary military. And as such your equipment should reflect your needs not the needs of others. NATO has proven that with its standing naval forces that not every ship need be identical. Every participating nation brings a capability to the table. The RNZN needs hulls in the water to be in multiple places at the same time showing a presence and acting as the deterrent to aggression and lawlessness.

We can debate the whole process but what isnt likely to change is the well known political factor of doing as little as possible for defence. By the time an ANZAC replacement is announced and in the water I will be swimming, floating, with the fishes as I am closer to the end than I am to the beginning of life's journey.

I suspect your approach is not based on any line of solid reasoning other than to push your hobby horse. I am sure others who know more than me about local conditions will add to or correct my post.

Q1: What makes you think that the NZDF will illogically recommend a T31 style vessel, down spec vessel (designed for its intended role in low-medium intensity conflict and maritime security operations) that cannot be fully inter-operational with an Australian task group (given the common threat matrix in Asia)?

• Unlike Canada, NZDF has chosen the P-8A, which demonstrates this desire.

Q2: Do you think governmental bean counters will agree to more ships (3 or 4) just because NZDF agrees to down spec the ships?

• If beancounters demand a down spec (without understanding the implications), the best defence of the NZDF for its budget, is to clearly say that defence outputs can’t match coalition demand.

• And there will be Australian demand for a capable NZ navy replacement frigate to sail with Australian task groups. Further, NZDF’s latest plans includes improved sea-lift to augment Australia’s force structure. The trick is for NZDF to demand a budget for 3 or 4 capable frigates (via defence outputs), if the government wants a certain level of defence outputs (eg. Output measured by the number of deployable sea days, per year, including the ability to self deploy in higher threat environments like the Persian Gulf and to escort the new sea-lift vessels that will have a well-dock).

 

[Novascotiaboy]

OPSSG with all due respect I do not sit upon a hobby horse and have an opinion based upon a realistic observation. With regard to your questions;

1. No where did I say down spec. The specifications for the T31 are quite capable given the RN planned use of the vessel. The specifications allow for a vessel able to function and fight but not with long range anti air weapon systems such as SM2 thru 6 or Aster. A T31 type vessel would offer a more robust seakeeping vessel due to size plus an open architecture for ease of upgrade. Overall better than the current but with a relatively similar capability weapons and sensors.

2. A T31 type vessel like the current ANZACs would be more than capable of interacting seamlessly with a RAN, USN, RN or RCN task group because of common communications and systems. It just would play a different role than long range air defence. Still able to mount a credible response to immediate threats and and serve a purpose.

The bean counters never will care about performance. Its just $$$$. IMHO the state of western hardware as a result of rampant technology upgrading has lessoned its effectiveness. A read of current French experience in north central africa over the past number of years will expand on this very issue. New gear isnt standing up as well as the less technical older gear in the roughness of the region. I wont even mention the F35 as it is a perfect example of this.

I may live in a benign area devoid of the threats that you and many others on DT face daily but I am not so naive to believe that NZ GOTD will stump up for even a bare bones T26 FFBNW the missles. h

The replacement of the ANZACs will in all likelihood be a SK built version of a vessel similar in capabilities as the current ANZACs but on a larger hull. If I am wrong so what. I have nothing but an opinion. Hell I dont even think Junior will outfit the CSC fleet when they start commissioning if he is still around.

 

[John Fedup]

The geopolitical situation at the time of ANZAC replacement could very well determine how much more frigate capability will be required. It will likely deteriorate favouring a more high end vessel whether the bean counters like it or not assuming the electorate appreciates the geopolitical situation. With the Hunter and CSC projects underway, NZ has some good choices for getting more capability. WRT to junior, hopefully he isn’t around. Even if he is, skipping on outfitting is possible but at least we will have a platform that can be properly kitted out once we get an adult PM.

 

[Rob c]

The geopolitical situation at the time of ANZAC replacement could very well determine how much more frigate capability will be required. It will likely deteriorate favouring a more high end vessel whether the bean counters like it or not assuming the electorate appreciates the geopolitical situation. With the Hunter and CSC projects underway, NZ has some good choices for getting more capability. WRT to junior, hopefully he isn’t around. Even if he is, skipping on outfitting is possible but at least we will have a platform that can be properly kitted out once we get an adult PM.

Agreed, I think that if the decision was to be made tomorrow that the T 31 would be 'a soe' in but the decision to be made for a replacement in 15 plus years time is a different storey and will as said above have to reflect the strategic situation of the time and what is available at what cost. (I say 15 plus years as NZ governments are notorious for making the decision well past the use by date of ships ) As I think that the world strategic situation will continue to deteriorate, due to climate change and population increase, we will have a decision that as per normal will be to little to late unless someone scares the hell out of our pollies.

 

[seaspear]

Presently the World bank states N.Z defence spending at 1.1614 percent of gdp ,Canada,s at 1.31 ,Australia,s will reaach 2 percent by 2021 its not the beancounters but the government
Its likely there will be some tendering process when the decision is made for replacements of the present N.Z frigates and there would be naval yards from around the world with proposals on costs capability and delivery schedules of their prospective vessels

 

[alexsa]

OPSSG with all due respect I do not sit upon a hobby horse and have an opinion based upon a realistic observation. With regard to your questions;

1. No where did I say down spec. The specifications for the T31 are quite capable given the RN planned use of the vessel. The specifications allow for a vessel able to function and fight but not with long range anti air weapon systems such as SM2 thru 6 or Aster. A T31 type vessel would offer a more robust seakeeping vessel due to size plus an open architecture for ease of upgrade. Overall better than the current but with a relatively similar capability weapons and sensors.

2. A T31 type vessel like the current ANZACs would be more than capable of interacting seamlessly with a RAN, USN, RN or RCN task group because of common communications and systems. It just would play a different role than long range air defence. Still able to mount a credible response to immediate threats and and serve a purpose.

The bean counters never will care about performance. Its just $$$$. IMHO the state of western hardware as a result of rampant technology upgrading has lessoned its effectiveness. A read of current French experience in north central africa over the past number of years will expand on this very issue. New gear isnt standing up as well as the less technical older gear in the roughness of the region. I wont even mention the F35 as it is a perfect example of this.

I may live in a benign area devoid of the threats that you and many others on DT face daily but I am not so naive to believe that NZ GOTD will stump up for even a bare bones T26 FFBNW the missles. h

The replacement of the ANZACs will in all likelihood be a SK built version of a vessel similar in capabilities as the current ANZACs but on a larger hull. If I am wrong so what. I have nothing but an opinion. Hell I dont even think Junior will outfit the CSC fleet when they start commissioning if he is still around.

Ok .... I will bite ...... Why is the replacement of the ANZACs ‘in all likelihood’ going to be an SK build. Do you have some sort of inner knowledge on the considerations of the NZ government or are you spit balling your favoured option. I suspect the latter and you should not present this as anything but your opinion. Just because the NZ AOR has been built in SK does not automatically put them in the box seat. Using the same logic would suggest the frigate will be built in Australia because the last two were ....... however, there is no certainty on that.

Simple truth is you pay for what you get. There is a lot of IP in the T26 that is not in the other cheaper options ..... including the T31. This is particularly true of the noice management of the hull. There is no way that BAE systems is going to hand this to a competing yard.

At the end of the day the NZ government and the RNZN will need to agree a replacement and the price they are willing to pay. There may be a range of options in play at that time but recent purchases (P8 as an example) suggest there is ‘some’ willingness’ to pay for capability.