Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

Gibbo said:
Really escapes me why she was built for CIWS but has never 'worn' it!?!
Click to expand...

Guess because it would then have to come off one of the frigates when they should be going through a period of getting them both upto standard, with all systems integrated, tested and signed off competent post refit. AO is away for the next half a year essentially so along time for half the combat fleet to be without its CIWS so perceived priorities perhaps? I would also assume it would involve added training, maintenance and perhaps even a couple of extra pers as I wouldn't think it's the kind of system you just throw on and push go? Not entirely sure though as like you say, its FFBNW and never has.

TBH I was surprised it embarked a seasprite flight as well as I thought they were becoming rare as hens teeth atm but good to see, guess 6 sqn needs to deploy longterm as well in this quieter period to keep their guys in the mix and keep current.
 
kiwi in exile said:
The article also states the OPVs are mothballed. Is this the case?
Click to expand...
As in Care and Custody. From the Annual Review of Vote Defence Force Feb 2024 (quotes below), the OPV's are under C&C by Babcock and are in capable hands (company wise and personnel wise - some are ex-RNZN).

*********
194. What are the causes of fleet being in care and custody?

Response:
When necessary, ships are reduced in readiness and crew members are reallocated to higher priority areas or ships. Although at reduced readiness, these ships still require a level of maintenance and presence in order to ensure their material state does not fall below a level where the cost and effort to bring them out of care and custody becomes extensive. The cost of putting a ship into care and custody, taking it back out again, and the maintenance and presence during care and custody, can often be similar to the maintenance cost of an operational ship.

197. What is the timeframe to reintroduction of fleet in care and custody?

Response:
The time to regenerate a ship from care and custody will depend on a number factors such as the material state of the ship and the degree of training and assessment required of the crew. Before a ship is placed in care and custody an agreed maximum time for regeneration is agreed (12 months for example) and this then informs the level of ship maintenance required for that period.

198. Why are care and custody tasks undertaken by a Defence contractor and not in-house within NZDF?

Response:
The maintenance conducted by Babcock is at the “depot” and “intermediate” levels and represents those activities needed to sustain future operations and requiring shore side infrastructure and support. The maintenance undertaken by naval personnel is focused on operational activities required to sustain current operations. These levels of maintenance levels differ in capability, complexity, and skill. The decision to adopt commercial management of the dockyard in the 1990s was made to access commercial practice not held by Royal New Zealand Navy personnel, and maximise the return on the asset. The contribution of Babcock to the current personnel challenges is a positive one. Babcock employs a range of ex-Navy personnel who otherwise would have ceased their contribution to fleet maintenance activities, and they are able to surge resources to undertake activities such as care and custody of ships in “lay up”, a role that the Royal New Zealand Navy is currently unable to provide.

202. Why is maintenance performed by Babcock not performed in-house by NZDF? Does the arrangement with Babcock contribute to the personnel retention issues in Defence?

Response:
The Committee is referred to the response to question 198. With respect to retention, while there is no formal agreement between NZDF and Babcock on staff recruitment, an understanding exists that Babcock will not actively recruit NZDF personnel. An advantage of NZDF personnel gaining employment with Babcock is the retention of a skilled knowledgeable person within the total workforce supporting NZDF operations and readiness. A number of former NZDF personnel who are employed with Babcock may also remain in the Reserve Force and can therefore transition between both organisations.
 
the case has been made by one former RNZN officer in the latest Line of Defence and at the June CSS Maritime Security symposium that NZs ANZAC replacement should be tied into the RANs plan to aquire 11 tier 2 naval combat ships.
Benefits: economy of scale tacking on to Australian order, interoperability, ability to cross crew, training and logistics support pipeline with Australia.

Shortlisted options for RAN tier 2 frigate as per wiki:
NB no type 31 :(
 
kiwi in exile said:
the case has been made by one former RNZN officer in the latest Line of Defence and at the June CSS Maritime Security symposium that NZs ANZAC replacement should be tied into the RANs plan to aquire 11 tier 2 naval combat ships.
Benefits: economy of scale tacking on to Australian order, interoperability, ability to cross crew, training and logistics support pipeline with Australia.

Shortlisted options for RAN tier 2 frigate as per wiki:
NB no type 31 :(
Click to expand...

Didn’t Luxon just get a tour of the Mogami whilst in Japan?
 
recce.k1 said:
Japan doesn't muck around when it comes to self-promotion of their capabilities, JS Noshiro (FFM-3) is currently visiting several South Pacific nations (as well as Australia and the US) and conducting port visits and exercises.

View attachment 51503

Pic source: @DefenceAust
Click to expand...
Lots to like about the Mogami class - specifically it’s capability (surface to air, surface to surface and ASW) with a crew of approximately 90 (as I understand it). Given our recruitment and retention issues, this is a great option for NZ as we could likely find it easier to crew more (dare we say back to a 3 frigate Navy…). Is Australia considering the Mogami class as a Tier 2 frigate to supplement/offset the Hunter class…?
 
Whiplash34 said:
Lots to like about the Mogami class - specifically it’s capability (surface to air, surface to surface and ASW) with a crew of approximately 90 (as I understand it). Given our recruitment and retention issues, this is a great option for NZ as we could likely find it easier to crew more (dare we say back to a 3 frigate Navy…). Is Australia considering the Mogami class as a Tier 2 frigate to supplement/offset the Hunter class…?
Click to expand...
Project Sea 3000: What we know - Australian Defence Magazine
Australia is planning to buy 11 GP Frigates as well as 6 Hunters.
 
I understand the rationale for the ADF/RAN wanting to go for a proven off the shelf design, but it seems weird not to see the type 31 on the list. The 31 is designed to accommodate western weapons/systems, including possibly CEAFAR. Mogami etc would involve a certain amount of cost and risk fitting anglo systems. All of this is worth considering for rnzn plans. Plan ANZAC makes sense but on paper I would go for type 31 with the 32 cell mk 41 VLS as per the RN over the listed tier 2 candidates.
 
kiwi in exile said:
I understand the rationale for the ADF/RAN wanting to go for a proven off the shelf design, but it seems weird not to see the type 31 on the list. The 31 is designed to accommodate western weapons/systems, including possibly CEAFAR. Mogami etc would involve a certain amount of cost and risk fitting anglo systems. All of this is worth considering for rnzn plans. Plan ANZAC makes sense but on paper I would go for type 31 with the 32 cell mk 41 VLS as per the RN over the listed tier 2 candidates.
Click to expand...

The Mogami will have a 32 cell mk 41 VLS as well plus the advantage of being regional with Japan if not Australia as well vs UK on the other side of the planet so there are certain synergies in its favour as well as some political element. I do like the Mogami, regardless of if Australia chooses it or not, due to its multi-role, high automation, features (ie that CIC alone!) and more importantly build cost benefits which added up could potentially equate to an easier sell of a 3 frigate purchase WITH options instead of the usual FFBNW option or a status quo 1 for 1 scenario. I see no point in spending $bns on frigates if they are essentially just expensive targets with limited/no eyes, ears, teeth or backbone.

Like I have said before we may not have the quantity but what we should have is at least the quality to make up the difference (or actively try to anyway) otherwise it's all rather pointless and token at best.
 
I would like to see an initial purchase of 2 FFM's in bloc. ASAP. followed by further hulls in 8- 10 years. This gives our Navy time to transition and strengthen. Technologically there will be massive advances in change with naval warfare. Already we are seeing the implementation of laser weapons. Because of this we need to be able to change accordingly and I am against a bigger initial purchase. (the upgrades could be a greater cost than a bulk purchase discount) Another point here is that with our ANZAC's the govt initiated upgrades at a stage when they were heading towards a reduced economic life.. I also agree totally with your last paragraph. Finally we need to look at the role of our OPV's. - they are too small and maybe a big jump to a Type 31 multirole vessel would be a start possibly using the last ANZAC to transition for a short time.
 
Further as has been mentioned many times on this forum we need to be making sustained progress towards increasing personal especially skilled. After the gaps have been filled we can then look at expansion. We dont want new vessels laid up at Devonport. The navy has to look at depth in its shoreside facilities to cope with a foreseeable change. Interesting stuff but daunting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top