Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[Warhawk]

I will agree that going with an all OPV naval patrol force would be a compromise, but I would disagree that it would be a solution of any sort.

After all, if the RNZN were to find itself without any naval combat forces, NZ would be incapable of escorting vessels and would be forced to rely upon friends/allies.

The entirety of the NZDF's ASuW and ASW capabilities would rest upon the P-8 Poseidons and possibly any armed naval helicopters, if there were to get acquired. Also, if the RNZN is left without surface combatants, the utility and value of naval helicopters like the MH-60R 'Romeo' Seahawk or NFH90 is significantly if not entirely diminished, which in turn would mean it would make little sense spending so much coin on a platform where 80% of the capabilities cannot be utilized.

From my POV, GBAD and land-based AShM would be an expensive way to waste significant coin, coin that the NZDF has never had enough of over the last 30+ years. Such capabilities would really only possibly become useful if NZ were to get directly threatened or attacked following an outbreak of hostilities. Even if NZ were to suddenly become a target though, these land-based systems would also need to be positioned somewhere within NZ where both the sensors could detect and track potential targets, and the launched missiles could then hit those targets. A unit based in Auckland would be of little use in defending Wellington, never mind anywhere on South Island. By the same token, if there was a unit based in/near Christchurch, then Auckland would not be covered, never mind ports and harbours further north like Whangaroa or Whangarei.

Also, any land-based units would be worth SFA in keeping the SLOC to NZ open and/or protecting essential merchant marine shipping traffic like tankers. All a hostile force would need to do would be to intercept or interdict NZ-bound tankers say 300 n miles away from NZ ports and NZ would be effectively unable to do anything about it. All the while Kiwi petroleum supplies would begin to dwindle. If enough such tankers get lost along the SLOC leading to NZ, then NZ could effectively run out of power and have little ability to do anything.

Did read anything above land based Sam unit in update have I missed this .

 

[swerve]

I do not really see this as being particularly viable. If NZ were to go for OPV's, or at least more/new OPV's to replace the existing OPV's at some point, there are likely much better options in terms of affordability. If memory serves, the current Protector-class OPV's cost about NZD$110 mil. around 2004, but going by the terms of a recent Indonesian contract to purchase a pair of Thaon di Revel-class OPV's for €1.18 bil. which works out to NZD$2.25 bil. for two vessels which is certainly in the realm of frigate pricing. Now even if these vessels for Indonesia are more of a frigate vs. OPV fitout, I cannot see a vessel based off this class being able to get a non-frigate fitout to be priced competitively vs. a normal OPV build and fitout.

To me, the Thaon di Revel class has always looked like a sneaky way of getting more frigates for the Marina Militare. Now they're in service, 'Light' ones are scheduled for upgrading.

 

[Stampede]

I will agree that going with an all OPV naval patrol force would be a compromise, but I would disagree that it would be a solution of any sort.

After all, if the RNZN were to find itself without any naval combat forces, NZ would be incapable of escorting vessels and would be forced to rely upon friends/allies.

The entirety of the NZDF's ASuW and ASW capabilities would rest upon the P-8 Poseidons and possibly any armed naval helicopters, if there were to get acquired. Also, if the RNZN is left without surface combatants, the utility and value of naval helicopters like the MH-60R 'Romeo' Seahawk or NFH90 is significantly if not entirely diminished, which in turn would mean it would make little sense spending so much coin on a platform where 80% of the capabilities cannot be utilized.

From my POV, GBAD and land-based AShM would be an expensive way to waste significant coin, coin that the NZDF has never had enough of over the last 30+ years. Such capabilities would really only possibly become useful if NZ were to get directly threatened or attacked following an outbreak of hostilities. Even if NZ were to suddenly become a target though, these land-based systems would also need to be positioned somewhere within NZ where both the sensors could detect and track potential targets, and the launched missiles could then hit those targets. A unit based in Auckland would be of little use in defending Wellington, never mind anywhere on South Island. By the same token, if there was a unit based in/near Christchurch, then Auckland would not be covered, never mind ports and harbours further north like Whangaroa or Whangarei.

Also, any land-based units would be worth SFA in keeping the SLOC to NZ open and/or protecting essential merchant marine shipping traffic like tankers. All a hostile force would need to do would be to intercept or interdict NZ-bound tankers say 300 n miles away from NZ ports and NZ would be effectively unable to do anything about it. All the while Kiwi petroleum supplies would begin to dwindle. If enough such tankers get lost along the SLOC leading to NZ, then NZ could effectively run out of power and have little ability to do anything.

I agree with just about all of the above.

Just highlights the wide variety of challenges and how best to balance the response with limited resources

Again I can only suggest NZ should be very prudent in their choices.
Whatever the future direction of capabilities sort commitment is the key even if the capabilities are not too aspirational.

Under armed Frigates in minimal numbers is a compromise that achieves little in true capability.

NZ pretty much has a clean sheet to Aquire a navy for the next generation.

What realistically does that look like?

Thanks for your engagement

Cheers S

 

[Xthenaki]

Under armed Frigates in minimal numbers is a compromise that achieves little in true capability.

The Govt have stated that they are keeping the ANZACs into the 2030's It gives them more time to make a decision but more importantly time needed for any protracted delivery of replacements. In other words frigate replacements are in the region of eight to ten years distant based on that decision. Thats a very long time.

What realistically does that look like?

SOPV to cover the Southern Ocean and Antarctica, LPD, Corvettes and drone mother ship are but some to consider and even brought forward if favourable to the time frame and to maintain continuity of the upgrade.

 

[Nighthawk.NZ]

SOPV to cover the Southern Ocean and Antarctica, LPD, Corvettes and drone mother ship are but some to consider and even brought forward if favourable to the time frame and to maintain continuity of the upgrade.

SOPV: Yes is needed.
Corvettes: disagree... though the line is blurred between a corvettes and frigates as they are with frigates and destroyers.
LPD/Small LHD: Yes agreed however if you are wanting a drone ship as well the Singaporean Endurance 170
Drone mother ship: Not needed as your LPD's and or small LHD can achieve the same thing and more...

 

[Xthenaki]

SOPV:
Yes is needed.
Corvettes: disagree... though the line is blurred between a corvettes and frigates as they are with frigates and destroyers.

With the emphasis on frigates (If they are chosen) and uncertainties around their delivery times Corvettes would provide low end cover for our navy. Another option are more P8's for the air force - sooner.

Edited by Moderator to correct coding errors.

 

[Catalina]

The question is ,does anyone realistically see NZ committing to three such quality ships fully fitted to spec with no compromise's.

Yes.

New Zealand has never been so rich and populous as it is now.
The postwar order has never been as unstable as it is now.
There has never been such a large peacetime naval expansion in the Pacific by both hostile powers and allied powers.
Australia has announced doubling their navy from 11 to 26 warships.
Communist China is increasingly active in the South Pacific, the Realm of New Zealand, the Tasman Sea, and Antartica.
1980s and 1990s New Zealand could afford 4 frigates in service, Waikato, Canterbury, Wellington, and Southland.
2025 New Zealand should start laying our future expanded naval framework.
2035 New Zealand deserves, can, and needs to field 4 combat frigates.

Push back against the end of time left wing pacifism that ripped the guts out of our navy.
Prioritize our navy over the army.
Navy more, frigates four.

 

[Gooey]

Cat,
I couldn't agree more.
We are a maritime nation that should be prioritizing navy and air force. Defence101. Army will always be needed for the land role but are not the priority. Despite our national strategic disasters from PM Lange onwards, where the army has been prioritized at the expense of maritime operational capability, our navy and air force war fighting abilities are what really matters.
Therefore, IMHO:
FFG: if we needed 4 FF in peacetime, then we need more in this time of strategic uncertainty.
SOPV: Yes is needed but auxiliary capability.
Corvettes: nope.
LPD/Small LHD: Yes but auxiliary capability.
Drone mother ship: nope.
ACF: Yes is needed due to flexibility, firepower, and speed/range.
MPA: Again, in this time of strategic uncertainty 4 P-8 is not enough.

 

[Hawkeye69]

Cat,
I couldn't agree more.
We are a maritime nation that should be prioritizing navy and air force. Defence101. Army will always be needed for the land role but are not the priority. Despite our national strategic disasters from PM Lange onwards, where the army has been prioritized at the expense of maritime operational capability, our navy and air force war fighting abilities are what really matters.
Therefore, IMHO:
FFG: if we needed 4 FF in peacetime, then we need more in this time of strategic uncertainty.
SOPV: Yes is needed but auxiliary capability.
Corvettes: nope.
LPD/Small LHD: Yes but auxiliary capability.
Drone mother ship: nope.
ACF: Yes is needed due to flexibility, firepower, and speed/range.
MPA: Again, in this time of strategic uncertainty 4 P-8 is not enough.

Agree with everything here, Navy must be a 4x frigate navy, an SOPV, 2x multi role ships, keep current in shores patrol boats and don’t replace OPV’s. I agree an extra P-8 is required but also that would depend on how many long range UAV’s we get as these compliments the P-8.
I would also like to see an extra 4x NH-90‘s added to the current fleet.

 

[StevoJH]

I don’t think it is so much as the NZ Army being prioritised as it is that there has been underspend on your Navy and Airforce.

The army has suffered least purely because army equipment tends to (as a whole) be much less capital intensive. Especially when talking about infantry rather then armoured forces.

Edit: If the equipment list on Wikipedia is anywhere near accurate, the NZ Army is really light on logistics and utility vehicles, especially if you compare it to the ADF.

 

[Gooey]

Stevo

You are absolutely correct. The army is in no better state than the navy or air force. In many ways the current ORBAT of 2 (minus) battalions, a 105mm battery, and some LAV III armour is not only enfeebled but also lacking in any rational other than survival. Unless you're a politician, then the squadron guys are all that matters!

My prioritise maritime dits are more a counter to the NZ Gov (ala 1985-2015) ill advised fixation with UN support as the prime rational for having a NZDF. This was one of the reasons/excuses why the F-16s were ditched in 1999 and the navy frigate force was reduced to a training capability only, so as armour and helicopters could be acquired instead.

Elements of army did not help matters in the 1990's by being simultaneously monster dicks and imbeciles, back briefing incoming PM Clark about the wonders of UN land support, and betraying NZ CDF. Which is part of the history for our current woeful maritime capabilities. This lead Uncle Helen to eliminate two generations of senior staff, thus loosing what was left of NZDF strategic professional mastery, and let her concentrate on such weighty maters as why submarines were not, and never had been, a threat to kiwi.

So pretty much, we messed our own bed 40 years ago and are now having to clean up the unmitigated disaster.

 

[Xthenaki]

Above in an earlier post I mentioned a drone mother ship and the forum preferred a LHD or LPD. The Singapore Navy intend to build six MRCV.s of 8000 tons (Naval news - SAAB - IMDEX May 2025) Interesting new concept.

 

[ngatimozart]

Cat,
I couldn't agree more.
We are a maritime nation that should be prioritizing navy and air force. Defence101. Army will always be needed for the land role but are not the priority. Despite our national strategic disasters from PM Lange onwards, where the army has been prioritized at the expense of maritime operational capability, our navy and air force war fighting abilities are what really matters.
Therefore, IMHO:
FFG: if we needed 4 FF in peacetime, then we need more in this time of strategic uncertainty.
SOPV: Yes is needed but auxiliary capability.
Corvettes: nope.
LPD/Small LHD: Yes but auxiliary capability.
Drone mother ship: nope.
ACF: Yes is needed due to flexibility, firepower, and speed/range.
MPA: Again, in this time of strategic uncertainty 4 P-8 is not enough.

ACF: It will cost approximately $8 billion and take a minimum of 10 - 15 years to stand up a viable ACF. We don't have the money, nor the time, so that money is better invested in other more pertinent NZDF capabilities.
Corvettesefinitely. It's either them or low capable OPVs that won't be fit for purpose. A corvette can undertake the OPV role, plus provide teeth when required. If we went with 4 FFG as you suggest, then we require 8 corvettes. Corvettes can supplement FFGs and also provide convoy escorts, freeing up the frigates to undertake combat operations. Next, the SOPV should not be an auxiliary but a corvette because eventually we will have to protect our Antarctic territorial claim. That is why I believe that our frigate and corvettes should be ice strengthened to the same level as Aotearoa.

 

[Warhawk]

Unfortunately it would make frigates easy prey for subs with slower speed.

 

[John Fedup]

Unfortunately it would make frigates easy prey for subs with slower speed.

The extra displacement due to ice strengthening can be compensated by more power (~5 hp/ton) albeit with range reduction.

 

[Rob c]

ACF: It will cost approximately $8 billion and take a minimum of 10 - 15 years to stand up a viable ACF. We don't have the money, nor the time, so that money is better invested in other more pertinent NZDF capabilities.

As I have said before, due to our location I think refitted second hand ACF aircraft would be adequate to provide a reasonable level of defence and deterrent for NZ making the cost significantly less.
The other factor is what can we have for a similar cost that would provide a similar level of defence and deterrent. The reality is that introducing a significant upgrade to the NZDF to put it in a position to be an effective defence force with a significant deterrent ability is going to take a significant period of time and budget to achieve meaningful results, something that the recent announcements will not achieve.

 

[StevoJH]

As I have said before, due to our location I think refitted second hand ACF aircraft would be adequate to provide a reasonable level of defence and deterrent for NZ making the cost significantly less.
The other factor is what can we have for a similar cost that would provide a similar level of defence and deterrent. The reality is that introducing a significant upgrade to the NZDF to put it in a position to be an effective defence force with a significant deterrent ability is going to take a significant period of time and budget to achieve meaningful results, something that the recent announcements will not achieve.

Do you really see anyone discarding mid life Fighters in the current political climate?

Even the Typhoons being retired by the RAF are 20 years old, and they are probably beyond the means the RNZAF to operate.

Something like the Korean F/A-50 might be achievable?

 

[Rob c]

Do you really see anyone discarding mid life Fighters in the current political climate?

Even the Typhoons being retired by the RAF are 20 years old, and they are probably beyond the means the RNZAF to operate. The otherside of the question was , what else could we do to achieve the equivilent level of deterrent and defence at reasonable cost and time

Something like the Korean F/A-50 might be achievable?

There are some F18's across the ditch which would make a useful start point and the F/A 50 would also serve as a good way to re-establish the capability.

 

[Gooey]

Understanding that this is a RNZN thread, I'll sail on anyway with pleasure:

Nga. ACF: It will cost approximately $8 billion and take a minimum of 10 - 15 years to stand up a viable ACF. We don't have the money, nor the time, so that money is better invested in other more pertinent NZDF capabilities.

I note that:
- ANZAC FFH replacement will be in the same expenditure/time envelope, if not more so; does that mean we should ignore their 4 - 6 unit replacement too; I would assume not, so why use this as an argument when ACF may also be a critical/cost effective NZ maritime war fighting capability?
- DCP is looking at some sort of long range fires, in the future, separate to possible FF/P-8 fires; why would you spend limited $B on a limited role SSM that sits waiting for trade when ACF has (yes you know it) vastly better flexibility, firepower, and speed/range?
- how/when ACF is reinstated into the RNZAF is for the bosses but if the eventual answer is not F-35A, then lets not bother please (I.E., the latest Pakistan/India OCA ding-dong)

 

[hauritz]

Do you really see anyone discarding mid life Fighters in the current political climate?

Even the Typhoons being retired by the RAF are 20 years old, and they are probably beyond the means the RNZAF to operate.

Something like the Korean F/A-50 might be achievable?

Maybe just skip a gen and go straight to looking at combat drones.