Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[Rob c]

Here's hoping the NZDF reprioritizes our Navy as our main defence force, shifts funding from our army to our Navy, and goes for four improved Mogamis.

My personal view is the need for a balanced expanded defence force, focusing on one section at the expence of others leaves gaps that an enemy can then use to their advantage and we will never have a navy big enough to cover the area's neccessary.
The ordering of only 5 new helicopters I think signals that there is no expansion being considered at this time.

 

[Todjaeger]

The ordering of only 5 new helicopters I think signals that there is no expansion being considered at this time.

My personal take is move along the lines of lessons from the past have not been learned. IIRC the RNZAF also did a 1:1 replacement for the C-130's...

Such small numbers of platforms might work early in the service life of a platform, but will lead to problems and unavailability for ops well before the end of service life. Penny wise (perhaps, not even sure I would agree with this one), but certainly pound foolish.

 

[StingrayOZ]

My personal view is the need for a balanced expanded defence force, focusing on one section at the expence of others leaves gaps that an enemy can then use to their advantage and we will never have a navy big enough to cover the area's neccessary.
The ordering of only 5 new helicopters I think signals that there is no expansion being considered at this time.

3 Mogami frigates, even just another 3 helicopters (which can still be ordered), would be a worthwhile upgrade for the NZDF. They wouldn't always have to be deployed. If not additional MH60s, then UUV/UAV options which are also valid.

I think another P8, LRASM (just a few housed in country) would also be really useful.

Between Australia and Japan the Mogami design has a huge number of build units. It I think would be a good platform to get into, and not only that, upgrades will happen, you have a choice of manufacturer, local support and mission wise it fits with NZ. It would certainly be the time right now to look at them very closely, maybe benchmark against type 31.

 

[Catalina]

My personal view is the need for a balanced expanded defence force, focusing on one section at the expence of others leaves gaps that an enemy can then use to their advantage and we will never have a navy big enough to cover the area's neccessary.

That's my point Rob. Our current defence force isn't balanced - its way too top army heavy. The army takes 50% more of the defence budget, (32%) than our Navy receives (21%).* For our sea trading maritime nation these proportions should be reversed.

Our Navy is our only force which can simultaneously project power across the realm of New Zealand - while both supplying and defending itself. The convoys upon which our nation depends require naval, not army, escort. Our air force cant defend itself and our army cant project itself, and neither can defend their own supply lines from missile strikes, only our Navy can do all three - project, defend, and self supply.

Naval warfare is fundamentally different from land warfare. The goal is never to statically cover anywhere, it is to use maneuver, even in defence, to be able to concentrate power at a place and time of our choosing across a whole theater. Maritime maneuver massively multiples the power of navies. Warships can move 24 hours a day 7 days week. At 18 knots a naval formation can traverse over 3,000nm in a week. The incredible force multiplier that is HMNZS Aotearoa allows our combat frigates this theater wide striking and defence power with its purpose built capability of refueling our frigates some 14 to 17 times. In Maritime Warfare, which is what the Pacific theater is, our army, stuck in NZ with hundreds of vehicles, doesnt defend us, it drain us.

Two sailors for every soldier, two dollars for our Navy before one for the army.

Four improved Mogami class frigates, with their combined defense missile firepower of 628 missiles provides a real force capable of defence, and thus offense. We have had four frigates before, and we should have them again.

------

2024/25 financial year Departmental output expenses:

$3,681 million for Departmental output expenses comprising of:

$1,168 million for Army (32%)

$1,108 million for Air (30%)

$782 million for Navy (21%)

 

[Wombat000]

I think Army has been prioritised budget-wise, because NZ foreign policy has been passive/humanitarian/peace keeping focused.
Anything deployed will have been judged and weighted by its ‘ground effect’.

It perceived its own sovereignty and national interactive integrity as secure, and would default any anomaly capability requirements to its allies.
- Its allies allowed this attitude to prevail.

The other services were regarded as either enablers to the priority ‘ground effect’ policy or simply catering to Garrison functions.
Hence their lesser budgeted support.

 

[Catalina]

I think Army has been prioritised budget-wise, because NZ foreign policy has been passive/humanitarian/peace keeping focused.
Anything deployed will have been judged and weighted by its ‘ground effect’.

It perceived its own sovereignty and national interactive integrity as secure, and would default any anomaly capability requirements to its allies.
- Its allies allowed this attitude to prevail.

The other services were regarded as either enablers to the priority ‘ground effect’ policy or simply catering to Garrison functions.
Hence their lesser budgeted support.

Yes that is well reasoned Wombat.

In effect due to a now shattered sense of security, our Defence Force morphed away from multidomain combat into more of an overseas HADR force prioritizing the security of others rather than the security of New Zealanders and in doing so hobbled the two most effective legs of defence we need - our Navy and air force.

Now though a new and growing hostile power is on the scene and new ways of thought and preparation are needed.

If that is the case, my calls to reprioritize our Navy over our army are even more valid.

 

[ADMk2]

That's my point Rob. Our current defence force isn't balanced - its way too top army heavy. The army takes 50% more of the defence budget, (32%) than our Navy receives (21%).* For our sea trading maritime nation these proportions should be reversed.

Our Navy is our only force which can simultaneously project power across the realm of New Zealand - while both supplying and defending itself. The convoys upon which our nation depends require naval, not army, escort. Our air force cant defend itself and our army cant project itself, and neither can defend their own supply lines from missile strikes, only our Navy can do all three - project, defend, and self supply.

Naval warfare is fundamentally different from land warfare. The goal is never to statically cover anywhere, it is to use maneuver, even in defence, to be able to concentrate power at a place and time of our choosing across a whole theater. Maritime maneuver massively multiples the power of navies. Warships can move 24 hours a day 7 days week. At 18 knots a naval formation can traverse over 3,000nm in a week. The incredible force multiplier that is HMNZS Aotearoa allows our combat frigates this theater wide striking and defence power with its purpose built capability of refueling our frigates some 14 to 17 times. In Maritime Warfare, which is what the Pacific theater is, our army, stuck in NZ with hundreds of vehicles, doesnt defend us, it drain us.

Two sailors for every soldier, two dollars for our Navy before one for the army.

Four improved Mogami class frigates, with their combined defense missile firepower of 628 missiles provides a real force capable of defence, and thus offense. We have had four frigates before, and we should have them again.

------

2024/25 financial year Departmental output expenses:

$3,681 million for Departmental output expenses comprising of:

$1,168 million for Army (32%)

$1,108 million for Air (30%)

$782 million for Navy (21%)

So much for the joint force, eh?

But seriously, before you get too wrapped up in who should get what, I think you need to understand the basis of those payments.

RNZN is 1/3rd the manpower size of the NZ Army, but currently receives 2/3rds of the funding that Army receives. Comparatively the RNZN per person is already funded significantly better than the NZ Army and your “robbing Peter to pay Paul” approach does absolutely nothing to enhance the joint force, but rather tries to strip bare an Army that is already almost as threadbare as an Army can be and still be called a modern, capable Army, in order to modestly improve the Navy.

The NZDF’s Service‘s problem is not the “ratio” of funding they receive compared to the other services, but rather the overall level of funding they receive.

The NZ Gov needs to do better on this front across all 3 services. Period.