Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

spoz said:
An interesting photo in this article, not sure their ship recognition is all that crash hot:
www.tvnz.co.nz

NZ Navy-led operation seizes over $7.4m in drugs from boat outside Arabian Gulf

More than 1525kg of hash and 166kg of methamphetamine were seized earlier this week.
www.tvnz.co.nz www.tvnz.co.nz
Click to expand...

The caption for me read: "A Navy ship." Which does appear accurate for the image, since it does look like a naval vessel. It just does not mention whether or not the image has any relevance to the story and TBH I suspect the answer to that question would be, "No," as it appears to be a vessel with at least a pair of triple gun turrets. AFAIK ships with that size and configuration for main gun turrets have not been built in decades.
 
MrConservative said:
It is a capable vessel but I don't think they are looking for an OPV with only 4000nm range or without a hangar. There has been a view that the Protectors were even on the small side and should have been closer to 100m than 85m.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your reply, that certainly makes sense. On paper at least, the Arrowhead 140 platform would certainly fit those requirements. Especially when considering it only requires a "core crew of less than 100 in all states and conditions". I've got to say it seems like it would fit NZ's high and low needs like a glove.
 
Todjaeger said:
The caption for me read: "A Navy ship." Which does appear accurate for the image, since it does look like a naval vessel. It just does not mention whether or not the image has any relevance to the story and TBH I suspect the answer to that question would be, "No," as it appears to be a vessel with at least a pair of triple gun turrets. AFAIK ships with that size and configuration for main gun turrets have not been built in decades.
Click to expand...
It’s hard to take that report seriously although even though it does report a drug bust by the French and credits the Command.
What a terrible piece of sub editing/editing when they come up with crap like that.
 
ASSAIL said:
It’s hard to take that report seriously although even though it does report a drug bust by the French and credits the Command.
What a terrible piece of sub editing/editing when they come up with crap like that.
Click to expand...

It did remind me of some of the reporting shortly after the Christchurch quake. NZDF personnel had been deployed to patrol the downtown areas and there was an image of a NZLAV which was captioned as a "tank". IIRC this was either in the NZ Herald or Stuff. Since then I have most often found it rather difficult to take much NZ "defence" reporting too seriously.
 
ASSAIL said:
It’s hard to take that report seriously although even though it does report a drug bust by the French and credits the Command.
What a terrible piece of sub editing/editing when they come up with crap like that.
Click to expand...
Yep par for the course. They didn't call it a battleship, which if they did, it would for once be right.
 
ddxx said:
Thanks for your reply, that certainly makes sense. On paper at least, the Arrowhead 140 platform would certainly fit those requirements. Especially when considering it only requires a "core crew of less than 100 in all states and conditions". I've got to say it seems like it would fit NZ's high and low needs like a glove.
Click to expand...

The DCP outlines the following projects, which may have relevance to a potential lower end Arrowhead 140 derivative:

Offshore Patrol Vessels Replacement
2032
>$1 Billion

The Offshore Patrol Vessels, HMNZS Otago and HMNZS Wellington, are expected to reach the end of their service lives in the early 2030s. The vessels offer patrol capabilities in New Zealand and the South Pacific. The replacement vessels will enhance the Royal New Zealand Navy’s offshore patrol capabilities as the South Pacific maritime domain faces greater challenges in the decades ahead.

In the released Cabinet Documents Option 4 and 5 discussed that the Offshore Patrol Vessels will be replaced with more capable vessels that also have some sealift and advance force capabilities.

Littoral Warfare Operations Vessel
2035
$300-$600 million

HMNZS Manawanui entered service in 2020, providing a substantial uplift in littoral capability. HMNZS Manawanui supports underwater search and recovery, hydrographic survey, explosive ordnance disposal, mine counter-measures capability, training and maritime presence, rapid environmental assessment and route survey. Purchased second hand, HMNZS Manawanui has an expected service life of 15 years. The vessel will be replaced with a similar vessel in the mid-2030s, in order to retain the Royal New Zealand Navy’s dive and hydrographic capabilities.

With the understanding that the RNZN littoral warfare unit could be platform agnostic and that the future SOPV and the two vessels earmarked for Enhanced Amphibious Sealift Vessel capability then the potential arises for a lower - end Arrowhead 140 derivative to add littoral warfare capabilities as well as those three other vessels. The envisaged Type 32 has been spoken of in this light.

The Wellington, Otago and Manawanui could therefore be replaced by the low end Arrowhead 'maritime security'variant that shares baseline attributes for commonality (up to a point as the one size fits all concept can quickly turn to the master of none) and the Te Kaka and Te Mana replacements (along with a necessary 3rd surface combatant) could be replaced with a high-end Arrowhead 140 variant that would be the 'multi-role' Frigate more focused on ASuW, AAW, ASW, EW ect. The fundamental differences between the high-end variant and the low-end variant would be in weapons fit-out and sensors.
 
DDG38 said:
Nope back to ship recognition class for you. ;) It doesn't have a 5 in turret aft of the forward heavy gun mounts. It's actually USS Alabama (USS Alabama wiki) so definitely a BB.
Click to expand...

When I see warships these days I am starting to see other things. Like of the ship highlighted above with the sunset silhouette - I see a couple of huge frying pans on it. On the upgraded Anzacs I see a bloody great Dalek on top. Who else needs a Rorschach test? ;)
 
DDG38 said:
Nope back to ship recognition class for you. ;) It doesn't have a 5 in turret aft of the forward heavy gun mounts. It's actually USS Alabama (USS Alabama wiki) so definitely a BB.
Click to expand...
I think I can see that 5in on top of the forward 8in turret i stand by what i said its a Des Moines class heavy cruiser, but lets not argue about it , its a bloody ship with big guns.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
At lakes said:
DDG38 said:
Nope back to ship recognition class for you. ;) It doesn't have a 5 in turret aft of the forward heavy gun mounts. It's actually USS Alabama (USS Alabama wiki) so definitely a BB.
Click to expand...
I think I can see that 5in on top of the forward 8in turret i stand by what i said its a Des Moines class heavy cruiser, but lets not argue about it , its a bloody ship with big guns.
Click to expand...
I'm not arguing just stating fact lol (I did ship recognition for many years it's a pet subject of mine), what you're looking at is a 40mm bofors AA mount on the 2nd turret which are 16 in guns. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Todjaeger said:
How or why would the RNZN be involved in a NATO conflict? NZ is not a NATO member, and is pretty much on the opposite side of the planet from the North Atlantic...
Click to expand...
For Nato i mean also global partners, thus Kor/Jap/Aus/NZ.

Or if you want me to be ultra precise with wording. In case of a conflict.

Do you expect to fight it alone?
If not you are in alliance, what you think will be asked to you, will be your role?

Will be NZ assets be on the Frontline?
Will you be doing escorting?
ASW patrols?

Etc.. etc...

To understand what are your needs because until now into the discussion I've seen all types of classes of ships thrown in.
 
Meriv said:
For Nato i mean also global partners, thus Kor/Jap/Aus/NZ.

Or if you want me to be ultra precise with wording. In case of a conflict.

Do you expect to fight it alone?
If not you are in alliance, what you think will be asked to you, will be your role?

Will be NZ assets be on the Frontline?
Will you be doing escorting?
ASW patrols?

Etc.. etc...

To understand what are your needs because until now into the discussion I've seen all types of classes of ships thrown in.
Click to expand...
NZ is a NATO partner as is Australia, but both of us are not signatories to the NATO Treaty because we don't qualify, nor would we be involved in any NATO hostilities in the European theatre. We have only worked with NATO in areas of mutual interest.

We work closely with our FVEY partners and in the South Pacific France. We are part of the FPDA. We also work reasonably closely with Singapore and are building ties with Japan. We are part of the ADMM+ group which is a subgroup of ASEAN. We need to build much closer defence ties to Singapore, South Korea, Japan and Indonesia.

WRT to our naval strength, our navy like the rest of NZDF is under equipped, under resourced, and under staffed. All because of idiot politicians. The optimal RNZN fleet would be:
  • 4 frigates
  • 6 patrol vessels
  • 2 LHD / LPD
  • 2 LOSC
  • 1 MSC
  • 1 JSS
  • 1 SOPV
  • 2 LAW
But that's not really going to happen unless our pollies receive a humongous fright. Something that causes them to fill their pants more than once in five minutes.
 
Meriv said:
For Nato i mean also global partners, thus Kor/Jap/Aus/NZ.

Or if you want me to be ultra precise with wording. In case of a conflict.

Do you expect to fight it alone?
If not you are in alliance, what you think will be asked to you, will be your role?

Will be NZ assets be on the Frontline?
Will you be doing escorting?
ASW patrols?

Etc.. etc...

To understand what are your needs because until now into the discussion I've seen all types of classes of ships thrown in.
Click to expand...
NZ's defence policy is defined in the Strategic Defence Policy Statement 2018. Here is the link if you want to read it:

Chapter 5
177.6 Make a credible contribution in support of peace and security in the Asia-Pacific region, including in support of regional security arrangements
Click to expand...

What role NZ plays in any future conflict depends on what that conflict is, what alliance capabilities are required/lacking and what the government of the day is willing to commit to. You can't pre-define what that will be.

What's the scenario? North Korea attacks South Korea? China invades Taiwan? China stops foreign vessels from transiting the SCS?
 
Last edited:
ngatimozart said:
The optimal RNZN fleet would be:
  • 4 frigates
  • 6 patrol vessels
  • 2 LHD / LPD
  • 2 LOSC
  • 1 MSC
  • 1 JSS
  • 1 SOPV
  • 2 LAW
But that's not really going to happen unless our pollies receive a humongous fright.
Click to expand...

Of course it is not going to happen. 19 vessels across 8 different classes for a start is a sustainment, training and crewing nightmare. I don't think optimal is the word I would use.

With two LHD's and a Joint Support ship, a large AOR/Strategic Protection ship in Aotearoa, not to mention support capabilities which a much larger multi-role SOPV is likely to get - adding two more 4000 tonne 120m landing ships is really pushing it beyond realism. When it is also likely that the OPV and Anzac replacements will have further utility. The NZ Army the biggest customer of that, which when it grows to 6000 by 2035, will only ever generate the capacity to deploy and rotate concurrently a battalion sized Task Group, a company sized task group for HADR/SASO, a squadron sized special forces task unit, and a number of troop/platoon further specialist task elements when required. Wish lists have to be anchored in the tangible.

How many crews are going to be optimal for the four Anzacs, how many crews are going to be optimal for the six patrol vessels, will there be Zero-Ships for onshore training for frigates and the patrol vessel crews. Like wise for the LHD and LOSV crews. A cast of thousands would be required when one considers Sea/Shore centricity flows.
 
MrConservative said:
19 vessels across 8 different classes for a start is a sustainment, training and crewing nightmare. I don't think optimal is the word I would use.
Click to expand...

It's exactly the same with airlines - fleet simplification is a massive driver of cost efficiencies across the board. It seems extremely counterproductive to have so many different types in a relatively small fleet with finite resources. Moving to a single type for combatants and patrol would logically bring both upfront and ongoing savings, alongside enhanced capability.
 
The current 9 vessel fleet provides very limited options to the government for response, as we saw with the Kaikoura earthquake, but the cost of developing maintaining a quality fleet means some limitations on fleet size. More capable vessels balance the quantity vs quality issue. I've come to the view that 12 vessels would be the max: 3FFG (this addresses the current deficit in hull numbers), 6 Enhanced Multi Role OPV (provides the flexibility to changing strategic / HDAR requirements), 1 SOPV, 1 LPHD, 1 AOR. The are other reasons for limiting the fleet size
  • Personnel issues the RNZN has traditionally had at various time over the years. Under the current fleet sea going personnel are around 667. The above 12 vessel fleet bumps that upto 1,350 - this is higher than the sea going personnel numbers in the min 80's if you take into account a frigate in refit had a crew of around 100 (Stores, Writers, maintainers and a few people on deck).
  • The cost associated with an increase in aviation capability (You're effectively acquiring 11 aviation capable ships, with an enhanced aviation capability in the LPHD the additional airframe costs are starting to get up there)
  • Costs associated with acquiring more than a basic OPV. For the enhanced OPV I see something like the Damen Fast Security as been closer to ideal, but at the expense of the some of the current capabilities inherent in Manawanui (i..e crane capability etc.). We could debate this point forever. The fast security would also just fit into the current drydock.
  • The development of UAV / UUV and other modules should be something the RNZN embraces, but not on front line ships (let the Mk41 VLS do that). If some of the larger proposed UUV designs are adopted they won't be cheap (nor popular with the left).
At a practical level NZ can meet its wider international obligations with 3 frigates if they are designed for operations away from NZ for more than 2 years like the F125. Six enhanced OPV would allow for sustained and continuous deployment of at least 1 ship into the South Pacific, 3 operating around NZ permanently on EEZ patrol (effectively one OPV and and two IPV), one in refit and the two remainder supporting wider NZDF / whole of Government needs. It also would allow for a surge capability into the South Pacific of 2 or three ships to meet medium intensity threats / HDAR. In many ways the are similar in some respects to the original patrol ship specifications before the ANZAC's appeared as the Leander replacement (but with an Ampib capability).
 
ngatimozart said:
WRT to our naval strength, our navy like the rest of NZDF is under equipped, under resourced, and under staffed. All because of idiot politicians. The optimal RNZN fleet would be:
  • 4 frigates
  • 6 patrol vessels
  • 2 LHD / LPD
  • 2 LOSC
  • 1 MSC
  • 1 JSS
  • 1 SOPV
  • 2 LAW
But that's not really going to happen unless our pollies receive a humongous fright. Something that causes them to fill their pants more than once in five minutes.
Click to expand...
Some of those capabilities could be delivered by the same class of ship.

The Spanish BAM. Has a oceanographic and Underwater rescue as well as a very capable OPV with near corvette capabilities.
JSS/LHD/LPD could be rolled together for example. There would be multiple examples.

For a small navy, I don't think NZ should be afraid to multi-role or sub role some variants. It would make things more achievable as a target.
 
Last edited:
ddxx said:
The only issue with a ship like the Damen Fast Security is that it's built to commercial rather than naval shipbuilding standards (as per Damen's website).
Click to expand...
That's not an issue. In some ways it's a good thing. The RDN Absalon and Iver Huitfeld Classes were built to commercial specs using commercial methods. The only difference was that they have been armoured in certain areas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top