Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[Stuart M]

No I would say the "sources" would be on the mark. Trouble is it's likely the Aus side "leaking" to the media, if so, I would expect (unfortunately, for us etc) that there will be no official comment from the NZ side of things for quite a while.

Anyway the Albanese government’s surface fleet review's recommendations will be key (eg in terms of a "Tier 2" capability). Which may then provide an opportunity for NZ to join if it's in both nations interests. And also for that to happen it also depends on what vessel type is chosen.

In terms of Babcock, it will be interesting to eventually find out if they are promoting the Arrowhead 140 (T31) or their stretched A140MNP concept.

If the later that variant may very well suit NZ's needs for an ANZAC Frigate replacement (personally I would prefer a T26 variant, for ASW specialisation, with AH140/T31 for OPV replacements, but hey), but would that be overkill for a RAN "Tier 2", or not?

Here's the thing, I don't think that NZ will go for a tier 2 ship, but the A140 can be specced out to tier 1 level if you want, at least as far as weaponry goes, it's a very flexible design, I like it a lot.
So it comes down to what is Australia to do? If it's a corvette NZ won't bite, if it's A140 then there might be room for NZ if kitting it out properly is cost effective. Whilst one might quibble over numbers, I suspect that NZ will want a tier 1 frigate (and where did that tier thing come from?) And that 140mnp might be too utility oriented tbh.

My own preference is T26, but I think that would be a UK build Aus and Canada seem to get way to expensive.

 

[Gooey]

recce.k1 and Stuart M

Thank you for some very interesting assessments that are aligned with last weeks release of the new National Security Strategy (NSS), the Defence Policy Strategic Statement (DPSS) and the NZDF Future Force Design Principles (FFDP).

I remain amazed that despite escalation of NZ officialdom worry since 2019, when it became policy that the 'benign strategic environment' was no more, we as a nation have not addressed what capabilities we should have; and allocating resourcing to. As a maritime nation, dependent on our open sea lanes, it may seem obvious that this should include a navy that can fight in a meaningful way, allied with Australia. To state this mildly, the current ORBAT of 2 RNZN tier 3 GP Patrol frigates launched in 1995/97, and some auxiliaries, seems inadequate.

There was a RNZN ORBAT from the 1950's of 2 light cruisers and 6 ASW frigates, to meet requirements. It seems entirely appropriate to translate this today into 2 amphibious platforms and 6 ASW/GP frigates. Most importantly, that this should be actioned now and not kicked down the road for the next mob in 2024.

The current chatter of RAN tier 1 and tier 2 MFU capabilities could help NZ. I submit that this translates to 3 RNZN tier 1 ASW frigates (HUNTERS) and 3 RNZN tier 2 GP frigates (if the A140 is selected). This is a lot of coin but we do have a lot of caching up to do. With no army and no ACF to maintain, our national defence aim should be on a combat capable maritime force and this is supported by last weeks policy releases.

Furthermore, I note that just as modern acft such as P-8A are largely the same identical systems for Australia and NZ, with different access privileges, any new NZ combat ships should attempt to adhere to the same principle. A huge advantage in this is that NZ does not have to develop its own line of unique MFUs that require our own system integration, testing, and certification. Equally, we would be more compatible with RAN in both logistics, operations, and training. Yes, we have some unique environmental requirements but this has not been sufficient for RNZAF to order its own unique P-3K replacement. The efficiency that common frigates brings should steer NZ toward acquiring the same systems as Australia, whenever possible. We could even become part of the production line!

 

[Rob c]

There was a RNZN ORBAT from the 1950's of 2 light cruisers and 6 ASW frigates, to meet requirements. It seems entirely appropriate to translate this today into 2 amphibious platforms and 6 ASW/GP frigates. Most importantly, that this should be actioned now and not kicked down the road for the next mob in 2024.

The problem with the numbers is that one of the cruisers was in reserve and had not been modernized and was obsolete and 2 of the frigates were also in reserve, from which they never left. The cruisers were on loan from the RN and did not belong to us and the frigates had been acquired from the post WW2 British fire sale of surplus RN ships. The Capital involved was very low. Nice thought though.

 

[Stuart M]

recce.k1 and Stuart M

Thank you for some very interesting assessments that are aligned with last weeks release of the new National Security Strategy (NSS), the Defence Policy Strategic Statement (DPSS) and the NZDF Future Force Design Principles (FFDP).

I remain amazed that despite escalation of NZ officialdom worry since 2019, when it became policy that the 'benign strategic environment' was no more, we as a nation have not addressed what capabilities we should have; and allocating resourcing to. As a maritime nation, dependent on our open sea lanes, it may seem obvious that this should include a navy that can fight in a meaningful way, allied with Australia. To state this mildly, the current ORBAT of 2 RNZN tier 3 GP Patrol frigates launched in 1995/97, and some auxiliaries, seems inadequate.

Politicians will get around to the future shape of the RNZN sometime after the election, it wont be dealt with now. I think that it must be remembered that despite what is said here there are other priorities they must deal with and, to be blunt, they only have so much political capital to use, its not just a money thing.

 

[Gooey]

Stuart M

That is an interesting point, chicken-or-egg like, which comes first: political-capital v funding? Without political leadership is funding likely; and, without public concern is political capital to be realistically expected? Considering that NZ 1980s anti-nuclear policy is held up as some sort of national religion in public and simultaneously is the biggest geopolitical disaster since Singapore, isn't encouraging.

That possibly opens another interesting discussion about who are the kiwi political classes ... a shift from farming conservative and unions to businessmen and the left ... but that as they say, is another story.

 

[Gooey]

Rob c

Thank you for the background. I was not aware of this although I do now recall some poor press about the state of the kiwi Dido Class. I grew up devouring The Battle of the River Platt and our HMNZS Achilles and Leander. Recently I read some US history on their participation in the 1943 Solomon campaigns, where Achilles lost her X turret and men. Leander was lucky to survive a night torpedoing, which seemed to be the norm for Allied cruisers then, and a lot of men. It'd be nice to think that these famous names could be given to future RNZN ships espicially with the current escalations and relevance of the SW Pacific. Perhaps the planned new amphibious class?

I wasn't comparing the relatively settled 1950s and its ORBAT to our current strategic instability. At the time we had a punchy army and RNZAF with experienced peronnel. Today, we of course need to grow a combat capable NZDF, which is indicated by Little as being prioritised towards the navy. Given the rule of three's, that straight away realistically means 6 frigates to support a 2 ship detachment.

Perhaps a UK or South Korean dockyard can slap a couple of boats together for us (A140's again?) toot-sweet, to take us back to a 4 frigate navy by 2030? Then our political masters can formulate the eventual RNZN 6 frigate ANZAC master plan with Australia?

 

[Stuart M]

Stuart M

That is an interesting point, chicken-or-egg like, which comes first: political-capital v funding? Without political leadership is funding likely; and, without public concern is political capital to be realistically expected? Considering that NZ 1980s anti-nuclear policy is held up as some sort of national religion in public and simultaneously is the biggest geopolitical disaster since Singapore, isn't encouraging.
.

I can't remember where I saw it, but defence is not at the top of the priority list, that's education, law n order and health iirc, what is interesting is that defence is an issue and it looks like its not going anywhere. Because of time lines and the international situation it's an issue that will need to be solved lest it become a festering sore. So I think that what will happen is a reordering of priorities; defence, while not top of the pile, won't be an afterthought, if its thought of at all, and may rise as other issues are sorted out.

 

[Todjaeger]

I can't remember where I saw it, but defence is not at the top of the priority list, that's education, law n order and health iirc, what is interesting is that defence is an issue and it looks like its not going anywhere. Because of time lines and the international situation it's an issue that will need to be solved lest it become a festering sore. So I think that what will happen is a reordering of priorities; defence, while not top of the pile, won't be an afterthought, if its thought of at all, and may rise as other issues are sorted out.

Not sure that I agree with everything here, specifically portion I bolded.

Perhaps it is just me, but I have kind of felt that Defence was already a bit of a festering sore, but one that most Kiwis were ignorant of. Unfortunately this is a situation which can actually occur in real life if one has neuropathy.

I do not feel that Defence needs to move to the absolute top of the priority list, but certainly more resources as well as pre-planning and inputs from friendly nations are needed to overcome the decades of neglect as well repair the structural and organizational damage which was inflicted upon Defence.

 

[Stuart M]

Not sure that I agree with everything here, specifically portion I bolded.

Perhaps it is just me, but I have kind of felt that Defence was already a bit of a festering sore, but one that most Kiwis were ignorant of. Unfortunately this is a situation which can actually occur in real life if one has neuropathy.

I do not feel that Defence needs to move to the absolute top of the priority list, but certainly more resources as well as pre-planning and inputs from friendly nations are needed to overcome the decades of neglect as well repair the structural and organizational damage which was inflicted upon Defence.

It has been a festering sore to people who post on defence forums, the armed forces personnel surviving on crap wages and assorted interest groups, but that's not the general public.
Most people simply were not that interested, compared to those items like heath etc that have a direct impact on their lives or simply felt that things were about 'right' and even ex forces types I've met were relatively sanguine about it.
Now one might say that most are ignorant of defence issues, but so what? Defence is only a problem when people or politicians say it is, thus making it a political/electoral matter.
And this is the significant thing; politicians say it's a problem, so unless they do something, it's going to do some festering and that's not tenable position for a government or opposition to allow to continue.

 

[CJohn]

HMNZ Ships Aotearoa and Te Mana are currently in transit from NZ to participate in the FPDA Exercise Bersama Lima in Malaysia.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1693408835426570631

 

[ngatimozart]

Having read the AFR article multiple times, I get the impression that it is an Australian opinion piece written with no idea of NZG and RNZN requirements, much like some Aussie commentators.

Some have claimed that SK yards can't build the AH140 for us and that's absolute crap. They are both commercial and naval yards and the Poles and Indonesians are building it in their own yards. It actually would be a good piece of defence diplomacy having SK building them and fitting them out to our requirements.

Of course if we went back to a cruiser force then the SK KDXIII Sejong the Great Class DDG would be ideal. At a cited cost of US$923 million each that would definitely give us VfM and bang for buck. All we would have to do is swap out the KVLS for the Mk-41 VLS.

Sejong the Great-class destroyer - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Sejong the Great Class Guided Missile Destroyer | MilitaryToday.com

The Sejong the Great class destroyers are among the most advanced warships afloat today. They were developed under the KDX-III program, which sought to provide the South Korean Navy with a world-class destroyer.

www.militarytoday.com

 

[swerve]

Dammit, Babcock is marketing AH140 as "build it yourself"!

In addition to the Poles & Indonesians building their own, the Iver Huitfeldt class AH140's based on was built in blocks in Estonia & Lithuania & finished in Denmark, & that's carrying over to RN Type 31s: the first one's being built entirely in the UK, but some later hull blocks will be built in Poland. Procedures are in place, & the Danish team that designed Iver Huitfeldt & supervised construction is also working on Type 31/AH140.

 

[Stuart M]

Having read the AFR article multiple times, I get the impression that it is an Australian opinion piece written with no idea of NZG and RNZN requirements, much like some Aussie commentators.

Some have claimed that SK yards can't build the AH140 for us and that's absolute crap. They are both commercial and naval yards and the Poles and Indonesians are building it in their own yards. It actually would be a good piece of defence diplomacy having SK building them and fitting them out to our requirements.

Of course if we went back to a cruiser force then the SK KDXIII Sejong the Great Class DDG would be ideal. At a cited cost of US$923 million each that would definitely give us VfM and bang for buck. All we would have to do is swap out the KVLS for the Mk-41 VLS.

Sejong the Great-class destroyer - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Sejong the Great Class Guided Missile Destroyer | MilitaryToday.com

The Sejong the Great class destroyers are among the most advanced warships afloat today. They were developed under the KDX-III program, which sought to provide the South Korean Navy with a world-class destroyer.

www.militarytoday.com

uggghhhhh, Sejong the Great *drool*

If it wasn't for what I am quite convinced will be a UK build.. I would totally be on board with four of these.
Leander, Achillies, Neptune and Bellona has a nice ring ..

 

[hauritz]

In some ways NZ has it easy. No local shipbuilding industry to appease means NZ can just focus on value for money.

In the case of Australia off shore construction is always going to be contentious. Not sure I would bother too much with a joint project with Australia. I don’t see much benefit for either country. For NZ it would just be expensive and in Australia’s case I am not sure we have the spare building capacity.

 

[Shanesworld]

In some ways NZ has it easy. No local shipbuilding industry to appease means NZ can just focus on value for money.

In the case of Australia off shore construction is always going to be contentious. Not sure I would bother too much with a joint project with Australia. I don’t see much benefit for either country. For NZ it would just be expensive and in Australia’s case I am not sure we have the spare building capacity.

Perhaps but apart from railways we have little large industry with which to train actual people with real skills like welders or tool makers or auto electricians.

My employer can have 50 business consultants at $130k but not a single welder thats worth the name or auto sparky.

In my fantasies i dream we had a big naval project so we have a training pipeline that would be able to supply the trades people we need pretty much now to replace all the guys that will soon retire. I can't put into words how much of what i do depends on the knowledge of guys in their 60's that i dont think has been sufficiently implemented in modern apprenticeships. Let alone work ethic.

I think in NZ had better leadership in govt and industry a sizeable ship building program would be just as doable as a space program. My bitter cynical 78 cents on the matter.

 

[ngatimozart]

If it wasn't for what I am quite convinced will be a UK build.. I would totally be on board with four of these.
Leander, Achillies, Neptune and Bellona has a nice ring ..

I am not convinced that it will be a UK build, purely because of cost and industrial delays if the unions get uppity. It is my view that we have to get away from our fixation on Pommy and Aussie builds because they are not VfM.

 

[vonnoobie]

In some ways NZ has it easy. No local shipbuilding industry to appease means NZ can just focus on value for money.

In the case of Australia off shore construction is always going to be contentious. Not sure I would bother too much with a joint project with Australia. I don’t see much benefit for either country. For NZ it would just be expensive and in Australia’s case I am not sure we have the spare building capacity.

Australia actually has a fleet large enough to make ship building sustainable, the problem has always been planning, following sound advice and following through with plans. There is actually a big benefit to local production/maintenance capabilities especially in our region. We build them here we can maintain them here, We build abroad and like with the Oberon's have to send them abroad for most work which costs just as much money and even more time then doing it locally.

I am not convinced that it will be a UK build, purely because of cost and industrial delays if the unions get uppity. It is my view that we have to get away from our fixation on Pommy and Aussie builds because they are not VfM.

For the NZ context it depends, Got a bit of VfM out of the Anzac's that being said both nations have gone separate ways in how the Anzac's are outfitted and it is likely to continue going forward so would likely be more beneficial for NZ to look at something out of S. Korea or Japan maybe.

 

[Stuart M]

I am not convinced that it will be a UK build, purely because of cost and industrial delays if the unions get uppity. It is my view that we have to get away from our fixation on Pommy and Aussie builds because they are not VfM.

I dont disagree with getting away from UK or AU builds, as you say, not vfm, and I've got no doubt the SKs can do what we need, but politically I just don't see it. After that UK fta they will want their quid pro quo, because that's how these things work and the UK government has to show something for it as NZ aint the biggest market on the planet.

Perhaps someone in government can work out offsets that keep everyone happy, but damned if I can see how someone wont be screwed financially.

 

[Gooey]

As food for thought, if the ANZAC Class replacements for RNZN are not going to be fighting ships then absolutely NZ could look at the dollar figure alone and go for a cheaper build somewhere without having to worry about interoperability with RAN and USN. Alternatively, for best VfM of an operational fit-for-purpose new war-canoe that gives our youngsters a fighting chance against the PLAN then I offer that we should be selecting from an existing Five Eyes FFG class and the associated production line. Cheapest does not make a modern balanced capability; in many ways, going for the dollar figure only is doing Treasuries job instead and makes the same mistake as Project Protector, the figurative Clayton warships.

With current and future communications, C2, weapons, sonar, radars, etc, the real trick is both getting these things to work together, including with the relevant allies, and then to keep these updated over their 30-40 year live span. For the RNZAF reconnaissance aircraft, the rational for spending more dollars and selecting P-8 was primarily due to its ability to integrate, train, and fight with close Allies over the next decades. The days of no.8 fencing wire being used to lash together a FVEY compatible comms system, that is capable of passing classified data from USN to us, and firing jointly targeted missiles are over. The FSU disaster proved that. As with the initial ANZAC build, if we had a long term plan then NZ industry (if still capable) could be included in steel cutting and a work share etc.

Having said that, the KDX-III is both very cool looking and certainly would give us bragging rights in the SW Pacific. I second bring back the proud RNZN names of Achilles and Leander; it'd also be nice to bring Canterbury, Taranaki, and Otago back into the fighting ship fold.

 

[alexsa]

I dont disagree with getting away from UK or AU builds, as you say, not vfm, and I've got no doubt the SKs can do what we need, but politically I just don't see it. After that UK fta they will want their quid pro quo, because that's how these things work and the UK government has to show something for it as NZ aint the biggest market on the planet.

Perhaps someone in government can work out offsets that keep everyone happy, but damned if I can see how someone wont be screwed financially.

It is important to remember that if you go to SK then you will have to buy a SK product. Yards do not simply hand over designs for which they own the IP. This may mean the NZ would rely on a logistics train based overseas which may complicate issues, however, NZ are in that position now so it is really not a change fromt the current position.

Noting the critique of Osborne and VFM. The modernised yard is full digitial yard in respect of design, build and support. A digital verson of each individual ship will be produced to allow traking of equipment, maintenance and alterations which greatly assists in the operation and maintenance of each vessel. The quality of the work coming of this yard is reported as being very good.

Delays such as those with the Arafura appear to be due to a decision of the customer (Defence), and not the yard, which appears to have delayed handover and certification. I would also note that we have not seen any industrial issue at Osbourne to date which appears to be a concern with comments in this thread.

Once Osborne gets into its stride (and provided the GOTD does not harpoon the continous build phyliosphy) then there will be significant economies of scale with ongoing builds as well as an established logistics support arrangement in the immediate region (and eventually a domestic facility for producing the weapons to arm these vessels .... again provided the GOTD does not change their mind on this) . This is also important from an operation and cost perspective.

All of this may not be sufficient for NZ to see this a value for money, however, I suggest all factors should consider before writing off potential solutions. Personnally, I do not see NZ going with the Hunter as it appears to be seen as too much. I am at a loss as to what NZ may select noting the RNZN have many of the same geographical issues to address necessitating reasonable endurance (something at, or in excess of 6000nm). The Arrowhead 140 appears to be, potentially, a good fit but you will not get that built in SK.

As an aside, the Sejong the Great (noting this appears attractive to many posters) has a range of 5500 nm and a crew of 300 both of which may be a challenge in the current climate. It will be expensive to operate and arm. Just filling the VLS will cost a great deal.