Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[Gibbo]

I'm not sure I read Navy Today like that. From my perspective the budget was a steady as we go budget consistent with implementation of DWP19. In terms of defence there a still a significant number of real estate issues outstanding (from the state of defence housing vs the government's health homes policy, the replacement of some long term building assets (i.e. the main accommodation blocks at DNB (assuming DNB stays) not to mention considerations around a drydock etc.

Realistically the Governments in a bit of a position with regards to the Navy. With most of the fleet due for replacement next decade, there is only so much wriggle room in deferring the acquisition of new ships, and a reduction in fleet size isn't an option, given some of the background reasons for Project Protector (i.e. the navy had become to small). For me decisions on the future fleet would be (given the snail pace of defence acquisitions) need to be made by about 2025 /2027 (at the lastest), with the first ships online 2031. Assuming all the ministers are talking to each other and are on the same page in regards to the changing strategic situation I suspect we'll see a more of a more capable OPV replacement (i.e. 4 would allow for one permanently deployed into the South Pacific, mil spec for design, larger flight deck - so longer overall length, 57mm as possible examples). The navy will always require 1 IPV for training in the gulf - anyone want a night in a life raft. Changes in MCM / Hydrographic technology are likely to change the requirements to replace Manawanui with a like for like. As to the frigates and Canterbury mmm....

Yes put it out there to see if others interpret it same way... so thanks Lucasnz, feeling less apprehensive now! At least the Defence vote didn't get a 'hard' cut.... stagnant funding is of course a 'soft' cut as inflation quickly eats into Opex. I'm hoping it is just my pessimistic take on the subject... hard not to be when discussing the NZDF

Yes the RNZN can't really get any smaller although someone (RNZN?, NZDF? Govt?) always sounds damn keen on dropping the IPV yet I agree with you, they are needed.... I'd suggest both remaining ones are retained. What Navy doesn't operate smaller vessels... and how would not doing so work for a Navy as small as the RNZN? The IPV are perfectly fit for their primary purpose (Inshore patrol) as well as cheap & importantly quick to put to sea for training; SAR; presence (mainly PR)... all relatively short duration 'bread-and-butter' taskings for Navy fleets worldwide. Whilst RNZN may have a bunch of simulators, you cannot sim train everyone for every role and nor can every large vessel offer the range of at sea training required... plus the latter have distinct Op tasks so not nearly so available for training. If they do get rid of the IPV the RNZN will quickly find to their cost in years to come that they need the flexibility & lower Opex a vessel in the IPV class offers for the roles it performs.

As regards to the changing Defence outlook, there is now clear evidence the Govt has 'clicked' that the security outlook is worsening and with both Aus & USA Govt level meetings (recent or due) that suggests what the 'pillow-talk' is at least partly about. Given no NZ Govt in the last 40 odd years has mentioned anything other than benign security environment then recent comments from Mahuta in the MSM tell us that the true picture is now clearly understood. The next Defence assessment will be eagerly anticipated and is bound to paint a picture of that worsening security outlook... and that will then back this & future Govts into a corner on Defence spending. Mind you NZ started backing itself into that corner after the 1991 budget!

 

[RegR]

More proof the media, not just NZ media, literally has no clue...

Lebanese Navy to receive 7 offshore patrol vessels

The frigates provided with the help of two countries will effectively double Lebanon's ships that patrol shorelines and maritime routes.

www.defensenews.com

 

[Lucasnz]

This Maritime Security Strategy popped up on Stuff by way on link. Just started reading it - it focuses more on general security issues and at page 4 refers to 2018 Strategic Defence Policy Statement as being the main point of reference for military matters. Anyway back to reading.

Page 21 - Key enabling capabilities include Five Eyes, France, Pacific Countries, South America etc.
Page 32 - Cabinet has agreed to bring forward the investment in the complementary air surveillance capability to ensure delivery that coincides with the arrival of the P8 in 2023. That narrows options to an off the shelf solution imho.

 

[chis73]

Great find there, LucasNZ!

The document looks primarily to me to be an update to the now ancient 2001 Maritime Patrol Review. Much of the same argument was put forward then, and involved mostly the same agencies. Under the Clark government in the 2000s I believe there was an effort to produce a unified Oceans Policy (as Australia had done) - but then the seabed & foreshore issue upset the Maori electorate and the whole policy was shelved; no government has had the gumption to revisit it since to my understanding.

Personally, I think that the authors have drunk a little too much from the Kool-Aid of the satellite/UAV & 'private sector provider' bottles (see page 11 under 'New Approaches'). I am not convinced that satellites are the best maritime surveillance solution (particularly in the Southern Ocean - due to the kind of orbits needed below 60deg S). UAVs hold some promise, but without robust/replaceable & secure satellite links to operate them over the vast ranges in the Pacific - I would prefer to see them remain at an 'experimental' stage for the present. For me, UAVs are not yet something that you can count on to be there when the chips are down.

If the EMAC project is to provide a solution and have it operating by 2023, then perhaps Mr Henare needs to get a move on. Or perhaps, does this mean Defence is not involved?

The other major area I feel the report missed completely was maritime sector resilience. Adequate strategic fuel stocks, a reliable local shipping industry (both ships and repair services), and perhaps importantly a supply of mariners to crew them when trouble comes, are simply not addressed. NZ remains very overexposed to a disruption in foreign-provided shipping services (as we are currently seeing). That is an important part of maritime security. I would like to see some form of NZ equivalent to the US Jones Act, and investment in facilities (at least a larger drydock - floating presumably - and an ocean-going tug to go with it).

 

[ngatimozart]

Great find there, LucasNZ!

The document looks primarily to me to be an update to the now ancient 2001 Maritime Patrol Review. Much of the same argument was put forward then, and involved mostly the same agencies. Under the Clark government in the 2000s I believe there was an effort to produce a unified Oceans Policy (as Australia had done) - but then the seabed & foreshore issue upset the Maori electorate and the whole policy was shelved; no government has had the gumption to revisit it since to my understanding.

Personally, I think that the authors have drunk a little too much from the Kool-Aid of the satellite/UAV & 'private sector provider' bottles (see page 11 under 'New Approaches'). I am not convinced that satellites are the best maritime surveillance solution (particularly in the Southern Ocean - due to the kind of orbits needed below 60deg S). UAVs hold some promise, but without robust/replaceable & secure satellite links to operate them over the vast ranges in the Pacific - I would prefer to see them remain at an 'experimental' stage for the present. For me, UAVs are not yet something that you can count on to be there when the chips are down.

If the EMAC project is to provide a solution and have it operating by 2023, then perhaps Mr Henare needs to get a move on. Or perhaps, does this mean Defence is not involved?

The other major area I feel the report missed completely was maritime sector resilience. Adequate strategic fuel stocks, a reliable local shipping industry (both ships and repair services), and perhaps importantly a supply of mariners to crew them when trouble comes, are simply not addressed. NZ remains very overexposed to a disruption in foreign-provided shipping services (as we are currently seeing). That is an important part of maritime security. I would like to see some form of NZ equivalent to the US Jones Act, and investment in facilities (at least a larger drydock - floating presumably - and an ocean-going tug to go with it).

Yes, I to think that it's an update of the 2001 Maritime Patrol Review. I have just went and had a quick reread of it. This is the same Review that was responsible for the removal of the P-3K Orion's ASW capability. You will note that in the Maritime Security Strategy all mention of combat capability is avoided, although it does state that the document should be read in conjunction with the 2018 Defence Policy Statement.

I think that it is a continuation of the avoidance of investment in expensive defence capabilities, especially warlike ones. If this government had its way it would probably have the Army out in kayaks singing Kumbayah as the Maritime Surveillance, Patrol and Combat Capability. Treasury would love it because it would be nice and cheap. They could then use the money to hire more economists and managers to screw Defence.

 

[Gibbo]

Yes, I to think that it's an update of the 2001 Maritime Patrol Review. I have just went and had a quick reread of it. This is the same Review that was responsible for the removal of the P-3K Orion's ASW capability. You will note that in the Maritime Security Strategy all mention of combat capability is avoided, although it does state that the document should be read in conjunction with the 2018 Defence Policy Statement.

I think that it is a continuation of the avoidance of investment in expensive defence capabilities, especially warlike ones. If this government had its way it would probably have the Army out in kayaks singing Kumbayah as the Maritime Surveillance, Patrol and Combat Capability. Treasury would love it because it would be nice and cheap. They could then use the money to hire more economists and managers to screw Defence.

Fortunately in this case the P8A will not be without ASW capability (although weapons systems at this point do seem to be rather limited - but with better scope, it seems, for future growth than the P3K2 has proved). The doc reads well and makes some very salient points plus it sets up a framework to identify & invest in complimentary capabilities that will take pressure off the P8A fleet. The multi-layered approach is realistically the only truly effective option...but without effective investment it becomes, yet again, all weasel words...so fingers crossed!

I strongly agree with chris73's comments on maritime sector resilience being an omission (fuel stocks; larger dry-dock & workforce resources; ocean-going tug/rescue vessel capability etc)...all good things I wouldn't have thought about hadn't you raised them chris73.

It's never been a state-secret that the EMAC capability would be unarmed and may not even be a NZDF operated capability but the policy clearly states the NZDF will clearly retain a significant input into the strategy outcomes. Whatever final form the complementary capability takes it seems very clear in the doc that operation of such it is most likely to fall to an operator that has experience in operation of maritime patrol rather than reinventing the wheel, and that realistically points to either the RNZAF or a 3rd party contractor. It would have to be one of these 2 options if the intention to procure a capability by 2023 is to be met. There are a number of suitable options that should make that date achievable although I'm sure a little slippage wouldn't exactly be a ball-breaker!

My only concern though is the doc is dated 2020 and suggests it may have been developed largely under the influence of a Govt including NZ First (with Ron Mark as DefMin)... so will the change to Labour only since affect the likely outcomes? I'm actually of the opinion the core of this will continue and for the first time in decades NZ will finally take a more robust approach to maritime security.

 

[ngatimozart]

Fortunately in this case the P8A will not be without ASW capability (although weapons systems at this point do seem to be rather limited - but with better scope, it seems, for future growth than the P3K2 has proved). The doc reads well and makes some very salient points plus it sets up a framework to identify & invest in complimentary capabilities that will take pressure off the P8A fleet. The multi-layered approach is realistically the only truly effective option...but without effective investment it becomes, yet again, all weasel words...so fingers crossed!

I strongly agree with chris73's comments on maritime sector resilience being an omission (fuel stocks; larger dry-dock & workforce resources; ocean-going tug/rescue vessel capability etc)...all good things I wouldn't have thought about hadn't you raised them chris73.

It's never been a state-secret that the EMAC capability would be unarmed and may not even be a NZDF operated capability but the policy clearly states the NZDF will clearly retain a significant input into the strategy outcomes. Whatever final form the complementary capability takes it seems very clear in the doc that operation of such it is most likely to fall to an operator that has experience in operation of maritime patrol rather than reinventing the wheel, and that realistically points to either the RNZAF or a 3rd party contractor. It would have to be one of these 2 options if the intention to procure a capability by 2023 is to be met. There are a number of suitable options that should make that date achievable although I'm sure a little slippage wouldn't exactly be a ball-breaker!

My only concern though is the doc is dated 2020 and suggests it may have been developed largely under the influence of a Govt including NZ First (with Ron Mark as DefMin)... so will the change to Labour only since affect the likely outcomes? I'm actually of the opinion the core of this will continue and for the first time in decades NZ will finally take a more robust approach to maritime security.

There is a podcast which I posted on the NZDF thread late last night that discusses the maritime context. Apparently in a few weeks there will be a working group in Wellington to formulate a National Security Strategy. In the podcast Paul Buchanan talks about NZ's sea blindness and its Army centric defence focus, which for a maritime nation is somewhat disturbing. The Army is the same size as the Navy and Air Force combined, whereas in Buchanan's thinking the Navy should be the premier service. He said that the Air Force was just a logistics service, but he forgot about the P-3K2 / P-8A, and he also said that we don't need fast jets. However I would say that both the Navy and the Air Force should be treated equally as premier services with the Air Force maritime surveillance and strike capability significantly increased.

He used the Chilean Navy as an example, saying that they take their maritime area of interest seriously. It currently has* 8 frigates of various types, 4 SSK, 4 OPV, 3 missile boats, 90 PV, 5 amphib ships, 2 P-3A Orions, and 3 C295MPA. All of their frigates were acquired second hand and upgraded. The Orions had a LOTE until past 2020. There are extenuating and historical circumstances to why the Chilean military are well funded, but it still is a good example. Don't forget that they also have to extend quite a distance eastward into the Pacific to Rapa Nui - Easter Island which is a Chilean possession.

* Yes I know Wikipedia.

 

[Gibbo]

There is a podcast which I posted on the NZDF thread late last night that discusses the maritime context. Apparently in a few weeks there will be a working group in Wellington to formulate a National Security Strategy. In the podcast Paul Buchanan talks about NZ's sea blindness and its Army centric defence focus, which for a maritime nation is somewhat disturbing. The Army is the same size as the Navy and Air Force combined, whereas in Buchanan's thinking the Navy should be the premier service. He said that the Air Force was just a logistics service, but he forgot about the P-3K2 / P-8A, and he also said that we don't need fast jets. However I would say that both the Navy and the Air Force should be treated equally as premier services with the Air Force maritime surveillance and strike capability significantly increased.

He used the Chilean Navy as an example, saying that they take their maritime area of interest seriously. It currently has* 8 frigates of various types, 4 SSK, 4 OPV, 3 missile boats, 90 PV, 5 amphib ships, 2 P-3A Orions, and 3 C295MPA. All of their frigates were acquired second hand and upgraded. The Orions had a LOTE until past 2020. There are extenuating and historical circumstances to why the Chilean military are well funded, but it still is a good example. Don't forget that they also have to extend quite a distance eastward into the Pacific to Rapa Nui - Easter Island which is a Chilean possession.

* Yes I know Wikipedia.

Yes thx NgatiM, just watched the podcast. Very interesting... I assume the working group in Wgtn will be a direct input into the supposedly upcoming Defence Assesment which clearly can only paint a picture of a worsening security situation. Maybe this will be the point at which NZ pivots to start looking to the RNZN & RNZAF as the core components of the future NZDF.

Totally agree with yours & Dr P.G.B's assessment that it is ludicrous that a maritime nation with a vast EEZ & high dependence on SLOC, has an Army-centric defence force. I'm not sure I support a reduction in Army capability or size as they do have a valuable regional utility in their own right (thinking East Timor & other possibly similar deployments NZ may be req'd to undertake), but what I would suggest is the DCP commitment to increase Army to 6000 personnel may not be the best plan... nor even achievable with low unemployment rates.

The RNZN & RNZAF clearly need increased fleets but can't say I'm expecting a new Defence assessment to suddenly lead to expansion of either fleet... I hope the RNZAF get to operate EMAC satellite & fixed-wing capabilities but even that's not certain at this juncture.

 

[swerve]

... In the podcast Paul Buchanan talks about NZ's sea blindness and its Army centric defence focus, which for a maritime nation is somewhat disturbing. The Army is the same size as the Navy and Air Force combined, ...

He used the Chilean Navy as an example, saying that they take their maritime area of interest seriously. It currently has* 8 frigates of various types, 4 SSK, 4 OPV, 3 missile boats, 90 PV, 5 amphib ships, 2 P-3A Orions, and 3 C295MPA. All of their frigates were acquired second hand and upgraded. The Orions had a LOTE until past 2020. There are extenuating and historical circumstances to why the Chilean military are well funded, but it still is a good example. Don't forget that they also have to extend quite a distance eastward into the Pacific to Rapa Nui - Easter Island which is a Chilean possession.

* Yes I know Wikipedia.

Chile's a bigger country in every way: almost four times the population, almost three times the area, & well over twice the GDP at purchasing power parity. New Zealand can't realistically aspire to matching its armed forces, or even its navy.

BTW, Chile's army has quite a lot more manpower than its navy & air force combined. Including the marines (20% of navy strength) in ground forces would give them almost twice combined air & naval numbers.

 

[Gibbo]

Chile's a bigger country in every way: almost four times the population, almost three times the area, & well over twice the GDP at purchasing power parity. New Zealand can't realistically aspire to matching its armed forces, or even its navy.

BTW, Chile's army has quite a lot more manpower than its navy & air force combined. Including the marines (20% of navy strength) in ground forces would give them almost twice combined air & naval numbers.

Yes agreed with respect to population, area, resources & GDP... and no NZ will never get to a Naval force of that size. In this case tho, as I think you'll agree, Chile having an Army almost twice the size of air & naval numbers combined isn't a relevant comparison with NZ as Chile has substantial land borders and any perceived threat is most likely to be land-based.

 

[spoz]

A better comparison might be Denmark; and they seem to do quite well in the way they manage their armed forces. Slightly bigger in population and GDP, so NZ couldn’t exactly match them but with considerable forces and an innovative way of doing things which attracts the attention of others.

 

[Massive]

A better comparison might be Denmark

An excellent example of a well-balanced small defence force.

While more of a comment for the General thread, the Danish Navy balances high end warfighting & patrol while having sufficient weight to be effective in each, the Airforce combat and transport in the same way, and the Army manages to balance armour, mech and light mech forces, in asll branches this happens while avoiding penny packet capability.

Unfortunately the NZDF is in the uncomfortable position of doing none of this right now and for the foreseeable future.

Regards,

Massive

 

[ngatimozart]

This is the Newsroom article that a couple of us have been waiting to come out from behind the paywall.

The strategy to protect NZ seas you haven't heard of

The governance of maritime domains more critical than at any point since WWII, a Cabinet minister says.

www.newsroom.co.nz

It's also about the maritime context of the National Security Strategy and has a comment from Prof Robert Ayson who says that they are looking at doing it on the cheap, which is pretty well on the money. Another point made is that it's all about soft power and no mention of hard power. A final point made is that it is over optimistic in the cooperation between Ministries and Departments working through the strategy when history and experience shows that friction between them has always existed. The machinery of government is not up to the task required of it. The article specifically notes how the strategy was released - four days before Christmas without any fanfare. Any quieter, the bod who dropped it would've been on life support.

 

[ngatimozart]

Yes thx NgatiM, just watched the podcast. Very interesting... I assume the working group in Wgtn will be a direct input into the supposedly upcoming Defence Assesment which clearly can only paint a picture of a worsening security situation. Maybe this will be the point at which NZ pivots to start looking to the RNZN & RNZAF as the core components of the future NZDF.

Totally agree with yours & Dr P.G.B's assessment that it is ludicrous that a maritime nation with a vast EEZ & high dependence on SLOC, has an Army-centric defence force. I'm not sure I support a reduction in Army capability or size as they do have a valuable regional utility in their own right (thinking East Timor & other possibly similar deployments NZ may be req'd to undertake), but what I would suggest is the DCP commitment to increase Army to 6000 personnel may not be the best plan... nor even achievable with low unemployment rates.

The RNZN & RNZAF clearly need increased fleets but can't say I'm expecting a new Defence assessment to suddenly lead to expansion of either fleet... I hope the RNZAF get to operate EMAC satellite & fixed-wing capabilities but even that's not certain at this juncture.

Thanks. I don't have a lot of faith in the DWP happening soon. We have a Defence Minister MIA, who appears to have little interest in it even though he requested the portfolio. Ron Mark was really good but he has apparently parted ways with NZ First. WRT EMAC we will have to wait and see. Actions speak louder than words. We know that NZMOD are very capable at procurement now, so any stuff ups will come from their political masters.

 

[Redlands18]

A better comparison might be Denmark; and they seem to do quite well in the way they manage their armed forces. Slightly bigger in population and GDP, so NZ couldn’t exactly match them but with considerable forces and an innovative way of doing things which attracts the attention of others.

In some ways Denmark is putting Australia to shame, they are capable of designing there own Warships have sold one design to the RN and maybe the Indonesian Navy. They have developed the Stanflex Modular Payload System all for a Navy half the size of the RAN.

 

[Exkiwiforces]

Thanks. I don't have a lot of faith in the DWP happening soon. We have a Defence Minister MIA, who appears to have little interest in it even though he requested the portfolio. Ron Mark was really good but he has apparently parted ways with NZ First. WRT EMAC we will have to wait and see. Actions speak louder than words. We know that NZMOD are very capable at procurement now, so any stuff ups will come from their political masters.

I can confirm, that Ron Mark like Tracey Martin & couple others have parted ways with NZF. My understanding it’s do with the direction of the way NZF since Jonesy appeared on the NZF ticket, unfortunately Jonesy means good ie his heart is right place but his delivery & his boorishness has put a lot of people offside within NZF including the NZ voters.

 

[swerve]

An excellent example of a well-balanced small defence force.

While more of a comment for the General thread, the Danish Navy balances high end warfighting & patrol while having sufficient weight to be effective in each, the Airforce combat and transport in the same way, and the Army manages to balance armour, mech and light mech forces, in asll branches this happens while avoiding penny packet capability.

As shown by the decision not to replace the submarine fleet. A token sub fleet was not thought worthwhile. Instead, its share of the budget was diverted to making sure that what the navy did have was decent. Three destroyers, two 'support ships' on the same hull with frigate armament & limited amphibious capability, seven Arctic patrol vessels of 1700 to 3500 tons . . . and backed up by a Naval Home Guard with 29 patrol boats, part of a 45,000 strong volunteer force with land, air & naval arms - Marinehjemmeværnet. There's also a contract with DFDS, IIRC the biggest Danish ferry company, for the provision of sealift for Denmark, Germany, & sometimes other NATO countries, in the form of up to seven ro-ro ships, six named plus one other if needed. I spotted in a DFDS press release that some of its ships are built to meet the requirements of the Danish & German armed forces, as well as commercial needs.

Denmark & New Zealand spend about the same as a share of GDP on their armed forces.

 

[KiwiRob]

Denmark & New Zealand spend about the same as a share of GDP on their armed forces.

Danish GDP is 150b higher than NZ GDP.

Country comparison Denmark vs New Zealand 2024

Country comparison, you can compare any two countries and see the data side by side. Here you have the comparison of Denmark vs New Zealand

countryeconomy.com

 

[Massive]

Denmark & New Zealand spend about the same as a share of GDP on their armed forces.

The Danish regular force is about 4x the size of the NZDF, GDP 1.75x

I'm not sure that it is that unclear what the NZDF needs if there is an intent to be a defence force. Currently it is much more aligned to what is required for contributing to peacekeeping/constabulary operations.

Regards,

Massive

 

[ngatimozart]

The first edition of the RNZN Maritime Doctrine was released earlier this year. I haven't read it yet and only was made aware of it earlier tonight.

https://www.nzdf.mil.nz/assets/publication/RNZN-MARITIME-DOCTRINE_first_ed.pdf