Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[Catalina]

Drones will become a bigger player for our defence force as technology progresses and in NZ's case dollars become available

Xthenaki is 100% correct.

Following on from this I believe our army should shrink and reformat along USMC marine littoral lines under naval control. USMC littoral formations are dropping their armour and artillery and reformatting into smaller, tighter units for island control with real sea strike capability.

The days of 'every marine a rifleman' are fast becoming every marine a drone pilot.

Give each fighting Kiwi Marine a drone or 3, made in New Zealand, and a ship to sail on.
Ditch the 20th century army soldier mindset to become littoral marine warriors of the 21st century.

 

[spoz]

It’s the drones that are taking the headlines; but if you look closely at what is going on in Ukraine it looks a lot like World War 1. Both sides are churning through the PBI like it’s going out of style; and even the way they are doing it has tactical similarities, albeit with drones replacing, or rather supplementing, artillery. It still requires an infantryman with a rifle to take and hold ground.

 

[jbc388]

Xthenaki is 100% correct.

Following on from this I believe our army should shrink and reformat along USMC marine littoral lines under naval control. USMC littoral formations are dropping their armour and artillery and reformatting into smaller, tighter units for island control with real sea strike capability.

The days of 'every marine a rifleman' are fast becoming every marine a drone pilot.

Give each fighting Kiwi Marine a drone or 3, made in New Zealand, and a ship to sail on.
Ditch the 20th century army soldier mindset to become littoral marine warriors of the 21st century.

That would be a major mistake trying to copy the USMC!! as they are equipped with Light Armored Vehicle (LAV) and the Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV). Transport vehicles like the Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement (MTVR) and the Logistics Vehicle System (LVS) are designed to move large equipment in large numbers The Marine Corps also deploys light tactical vehicles with offroad capabilities like the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) and ultra-light tactical vehicles like the MRZR.
They also have Aircraft NZ doesn't have such as the F-35B, heavy lift helicopters, MV-22 Osprey, medium lift helicopters etc. Plus, their drone aircraft etc.
The USMC are also equipped with HIMARS/ Extreme long-range capabilities include the Navy/Marine Corps Expeditionary Ship Interdiction System (NMESIS), a ground-based launcher that equips Marines to fire anti-ship missiles from land.
Also, the USN has plenty of destroyers for naval arty, air defense, plus other support such as the amphibious assault ships, , helicopter carriers etc. which again we don't and will never have!!
NZ troops don't even have any real anti air capability!! the NZ navy once they have used their limited anti-air capability have to return to a friendly port to re- arm! Navy is too small lack of actual combat ships!!
The USMC has 169000 plus 33000 reserve forces roughly 15 times larger than the entire NZDF!!
Then following the above is the US Army armored divisions if needed!!
New Zealand needs to grow it's Army/Navy/Airforce personal numbers

 

[ngatimozart]

In February 2022 the tyrannical autocratic Communist Chinese Regime demonstrated its ability to position modern warships within striking range of high value Australian targets, strategically intimidated Australia (and NZ), and through rehearsed simulated drills improved their ability to attack Australia.

Given the increased growing hostility between PLAN and Australia military units, do we not think that the Peoples Army Navy Liberation high command used this as a military rehearsal of the ability of their naval forces to position themselves to attack Australia?

The Communist Chinese Party Central Military Commission (CMC) sent their most powerful surface combatant, the Type 055 Renhai class cruiser Zunyi with 112 land attack and anti ship missiles, including the CJ-10 long sword, the Chinese tomahawk equivalent, within striking range of the military, economic, and political heart of Australia. RAAF Base Amberley, the ADF's largest operational air base 40km south west of Brisbane, RAAF Base Williamtown the ADF's premier fighter base 30km north of New Castle, and Fleet Base East off Sydney were all held hostage to PLAN Task Group 107.

Do we think that the sailors on board were not being ordered to tireless ensure their missiles were ready to fire at a moments notice, that they were not being ordered to practice no notice targeting simulated missile launches, and that they were not being drilled hard at attacking the Australian mainland and shadowing forces?

If we don't think the Captain and his CCP Political Officer were not working their crew hard on simulating attacking Australia as they sailed by the above high value targets, then we are falling under the seductive blanket of imaging intent through our Western eyes rather than understanding the cold hearted reality of increased aggressive communist military capability off our shores.

Through this rehearsed attack on Australia the CCP has increased their capability and experience in attacking our ally.

How should the NZDF prepare for when the CCP sends its warships off Auckland and Wellington to block our sea and air routes and strike our military and civilian infrastructure from the sea?

OK no need for all the drama and emotion. Yes most of us are aware of the nefarious activities of the CCP / PRC. FYI that PLA-N task group was well within its rights to sail where it did and to conduct live fire drills. The UNCLOS which the PRC, Australia and NZ are signatories to and ratified is quite clear. Go read it. What upset most of the politicians and defence agencies was the unprofessional conduct of lack of reasonable notification.

I saw you post about about an invasion force. Funny looking invasion force because there were no amphibious forces present, not unless they had an invisibility cloak. There is no need for the shrill claims. Just calm down and take a few deep breaths. 1

The PLA-N aren't going to appear off NZ beaches with an invasion force because they don't need to invade us to force our acquiescence to their demands. A naval and air blockade would suffice. it's an age old well proven strategy. That's how the Royal Navy prevented Napoleon's invasion of Britain during the Napoleonic Wars. They just sat outside French and Spanish naval ports. Trafalgar was the culmination of that strategy. Blockading Britain in both World Wars was the German strategy. They got close, but not close enough. In the Pacific Theatre of Operations the USN submarine service quite successfully institute a blockade of the Japanese Home Islands. They basically sank everything that flew the Japanese flag, fully destroying the Japanese merchant fleet.

The PLA has never done an opposed invasion from the sea, and they are still learning how to use their CV fleet. It will take them decades to become fully proficient in operating Carrier Battle Groups (CBG). It's not something you can just learn from books and movies. You have to gain experience in it and that takes time. If they decide to invade Taiwan they could suffer immense casualties in both personnel and equipment, because they won't have the surprise factor. I don't believe them to be stupid like Putin was invading Ukraine even after the operation had been blown open. The PLA-N has built some interesting invasion barges to enable them to offload amphibs and civilian RO/RO ships onto beaches, but those barges will make for juicy targets. If the defenders can take out most of the barges and a goodly number of the RO/RO ships, they may just have a chance.


We don't have to worry about a PRC invasion fleet off our shores for a while yet. Whilst I have said that it probably won't happen, nevertheless the possibility still exists,,no matter how small. I would suggest that for that to happen Australia must fall.

 

[ngatimozart]

It’s the drones that are taking the headlines; but if you look closely at what is going on in Ukraine it looks a lot like World War 1. Both sides are churning through the PBI like it’s going out of style; and even the way they are doing it has tactical similarities, albeit with drones replacing, or rather supplementing, artillery. It still requires an infantryman with a rifle to take and hold ground.

That it definitely is, but if the Russian GeneralStaff had planned the invasion and followed their CONOPS we would not be having this conversation because they would have succeeded in overrunning Ukraine in a matter of weeks. However history tells us different. You definitely need a soldier with a rifle firmly standing on a piece of ground to hold it. However I think many people are underestimating the impact that drones are having upon the war and war in particular. Because of drones it is now very difficult to move anything without being seen. The Ukrainians have been able to watch the Russians building up forces and logistics for an attack, enabling them to take appropriate measures. To a slightly lesser degree the Russians are able to return the favour.

What is coming out of this war is that your average grunt on the battlefield can now carry his own ISR & CAS with him if needed, because the modern drones are so small, yet lethal. If you get spotted by an enemy drone, it can and generally will follow you into enclosed spaces. The average Russian soldier is terrified of battlefield drones, and the Ukrainians have a very similar feeling about them. Like it or not they are a component of future warfare. Finally the NZ government has accepted that and working towards providing NZDF both the offensive and defensive capabilities.

I think that the impact of drone technology on the modern battlefield equates the impact that airpower had on WW1.

 

[seaspear]

With regards to drones on the battlefield in Ukraine we still have not seen the use of Iron Fist or Trophy as deployed on modern Western armour, I'm not sure how effective the Australian Slinger counter drone system that has been sent to the Ukraine has been

Australia launches hunt for counter-drone systems - Electro Optic Systems

Australia is seeking to create its own counter-uncrewed aerial system (CUAS) capability with a Request for Tender expected on 30 January as the war in Ukraine highlights the need.

eos-aus.com

 

[koxinga]

Since this is a naval thread, this talk of drones in the context of army is side tracking.

A final word is drones, at least in the context of land conflicts has proven to be game changing within the matrix of lethality, low cost and limited options to defend against, especially for an infantryman. The application within aviation with MUM-T/CCAs are also coming into maturity.

For naval applications, the utility, at aleast for now seems specific to certain use cases

1. Counter invasion, where you are directing towards a specific massed source - e.g Ukrainian Seababy/Magura type kamikaze missions
2. Harbour patrol and interdiction - e.g Singapore Navy's use in coastal waters
3. Anti-submarine operations from a mothership

But when it comes to long range, open water missions, say surface action groups, the CONOPS remains unclear to me. Yes, many nations are exploring large USVs like the USX-1 or that big Chinese USV (JARI USV).

If we use back the same matrix, lethality (yes, u can put ASHM on them), low cost, (relative, since those could well be in the 10s of millions and not cheap), limited options to defend against (no, if it is a small PC displacement, u can find it)

 

[ngatimozart]

Since this is a naval thread, this talk of drones in the context of army is side tracking.

A final word is drones, at least in the context of land conflicts has proven to be game changing within the matrix of lethality, low cost and limited options to defend against, especially for an infantryman. The application within aviation with MUM-T/CCAs are also coming into maturity.

For naval applications, the utility, at aleast for now seems specific to certain use cases

1. Counter invasion, where you are directing towards a specific massed source - e.g Ukrainian Seababy/Magura type kamikaze missions
2. Harbour patrol and interdiction - e.g Singapore Navy's use in coastal waters
3. Anti-submarine operations from a mothership

But when it comes to long range, open water missions, say surface action groups, the CONOPS remains unclear to me. Yes, many nations are exploring large USVs like the USX-1 or that big Chinese USV (JARI USV).

If we use back the same matrix, lethality (yes, u can put ASHM on them), low cost, (relative, since those could well be in the 10s of millions and not cheap), limited options to defend against (no, if it is a small PC displacement, u can find it)

I follow Ukrainian drones reasonably closely because of how they use them. Their use of maritime drone capabilities has astounding to say the least and they are forever innovating and improving. They are fitting some with kinetic self defence capabilities in the form of machine guns and I believe recently, MANPAD capabilities. Both of those came as a shock to Russian helicopter crews used to firing at targets that don't shoot back. The Ukrainian use of maritime drones in concert with AGM & SSM attacks is also noticeable. IMHO both the RNZN and RAN wouldn't go wrong by paying very close attention to how the Ukrainians use their maritime drones and in acquiring a manufacturing licence.

Talking of drones, the NZ government have announced the acquisition of two USV manufacturers by Ocius Technologies of Sydney, NSW. The craft are 7.4m and powered by use solar, wind, or wave motion. They have radar, electro-optic and infrared sensors. Great thought and much consideration has been given to their names; Tahi and Rua. For non Māori speakers tahi = one, and rua = two. This acquisition is a combined Defence and NZ Customs acquisition.

Defence and Customs strengthen maritime security with uncrewed surface vessels

www.nzdf.mil.nz