Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[recce.k1]

So when you have in the future 1 x frigate in refit, 1 x frigate on patrol could be not even in the pacific!!, 1 x frigate in port, and if we purchase 4 1 x frigate doing escort duties!!
You only have 1 x ship that can engage Chinese ships in an emergency situation but even then may not be in a location close by! OPV'S are not armed/equiped for full on T1 naval combat!!

Also we might be in just a wee bit of ahem trouble with our supposed 1-4 frigates if an adversary hypothetically sends over a much larger task force (dunno let's say 6 vessels and a couple of subs and then they split off to different areas)!

Solution might be to not put all one's eggs into one basket, perhaps ...

 

[old faithful]

Also we might be in just a wee bit of ahem trouble with our supposed 1-4 frigates if an adversary hypothetically sends over a much larger task force (dunno let's say 6 vessels and a couple of subs and then they split off to different areas)!

Solution might be to not put all one's eggs into one basket, perhaps ...

I know, I know!!! A fast jet armed with ASM.....sorry.

 

[recce.k1]

I know, I know!!! A fast jet armed with ASM.....sorry.

Now, now, from your previous postings on "fast air" options for NZ you've usually been dismissive, so I taking that as a sarcastic response.

Which is fine of course, but I'm certainly keen to hear your views on options to enhance 1 or 2 operational FFH's going forward.

Recent DCP is suggesting options are to be considered (enhanced maritime vessels and strike), but details are vague and of course your good self will have thoughts to contribute to Catalina's discussions?

 

[ADMk2]

Also we might be in just a wee bit of ahem trouble with our supposed 1-4 frigates if an adversary hypothetically sends over a much larger task force (dunno let's say 6 vessels and a couple of subs and then they split off to different areas)!

Solution might be to not put all one's eggs into one basket, perhaps ...

Almost like you need a layered force with options in air, land, maritime, cyber, information and space domains, that provide flexible options designed to address a range of threats, rather than a personally preferred option that counters threats (barely) in a single domain?

Out of interest, Australia is spending AUD$1.6b (NZD (1.8b) to acquire a fleet of 42x HIMARS, plus a substantial inventory of weapons, establishment of a Regiment, training, sustainment and so on. These weapons at present include GMLRS, ER-GMLRS, ATACMS and a quantity of PRsM Increment 1 missiles, weapons capable of a wide range of strike operations, including some degree of maritime strike.

U.S. Army Conducts First Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile SINKEX using PrSM - Naval News

The U.S. Army successfully used two Precision Strike Missiles (PrSM) against a moving target at sea, marking a first...

www.navalnews.com

NZ is spending NZD $2.34b on it’s existing P-8A capability - one that doesn’t presently provide a stand-off anti-ship capability…

Any replacement frigate program budget is unknown as yet, but there is little doubt that if your desire is to be able to put a lot of missiles down-range as quickly as possible, neither air or maritime means are the most efficient nor cheapest way to do it.

A full regimental fire effort from the 10th fires brigade puts more ASM’s down range than the entire surface fleet of the RAN could manage, even if you could get them all to sea at once, not to mention when dispersed they cover many more locations than the RAN could possibly manage. The difference would be even more stark with the NZDF.

If NZ wants to be able to control it’s approaches using ASM’s, then HIMARS even if only on a cost basis, has to be a consideration.

 

[old faithful]

Now, now, from your previous postings on "fast air" options for NZ you've usually been dismissive, so I taking that as a sarcastic response.

Which is fine of course, but I'm certainly keen to hear your views on options to enhance 1 or 2 operational FFH's going forward.

Recent DCP is suggesting options are to be considered (enhanced maritime vessels and strike), but details are vague and of course your good self will have thoughts to contribute to Catalina's discussions?

Mate, I would love to see NZ back to a similar manning of the 80s, Fighter jets, 4 frigates etc.
I just don't see much happening, NZ ordered 5 sea hawks, that sends a message that the RNZN does not plan to expand the frigate fleet to me.
I hope I am wrong of course.
If NZ were to go with some kind of ACF, then they would likely need an AWACs type platform, possibly some tankers as well. The horse has bolted for the NZDF I am afraid, it will take too much time to expand nearly anything.
Army could get HIMARs, that would be handy, maybe a few more rotary assets.
Ghost sharks and (armed) ghost bats would really be handy, and I would think be very doable, I hope that is whats happening.

 

[recce.k1]

Almost like you need a layered force with options in air, land, maritime, cyber, information and space domains, that provide flexible options designed to address a range of threats, rather than a personally preferred option that counters threats (barely) in a single domain?

Out of interest, Australia is spending AUD$1.6b (NZD (1.8b) to acquire a fleet of 42x HIMARS, plus a substantial inventory of weapons, establishment of a Regiment, training, sustainment and so on. These weapons at present include GMLRS, ER-GMLRS, ATACMS and a quantity of PRsM Increment 1 missiles, weapons capable of a wide range of strike operations, including some degree of maritime strike.

U.S. Army Conducts First Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile SINKEX using PrSM - Naval News

The U.S. Army successfully used two Precision Strike Missiles (PrSM) against a moving target at sea, marking a first...

www.navalnews.com

NZ is spending NZD $2.34b on it’s existing P-8A capability - one that doesn’t presently provide a stand-off anti-ship capability…

Any replacement frigate program budget is unknown as yet, but there is little doubt that if your desire is to be able to put a lot of missiles down-range as quickly as possible, neither air or maritime means are the most efficient nor cheapest way to do it.

A full regimental fire effort from the 10th fires brigade puts more ASM’s down range than the entire surface fleet of the RAN could manage, even if you could get them all to sea at once, not to mention when dispersed they cover many more locations than the RAN could possibly manage. The difference would be even more stark with the NZDF.

If NZ wants to be able to control it’s approaches using ASM’s, then HIMARS even if only on a cost basis, has to be a consideration.

Mate, I would love to see NZ back to a similar manning of the 80s, Fighter jets, 4 frigates etc.
I just don't see much happening, NZ ordered 5 sea hawks, that sends a message that the RNZN does not plan to expand the frigate fleet to me.
I hope I am wrong of course.
If NZ were to go with some kind of ACF, then they would likely need an AWACs type platform, possibly some tankers as well. The horse has bolted for the NZDF I am afraid, it will take too much time to expand nearly anything.
Army could get HIMARs, that would be handy, maybe a few more rotary assets.
Ghost sharks and (armed) ghost bats would really be handy, and I would think be very doable, I hope that is whats happening.

Aussie Digger and Old Faithful, thanks, very much appreciate your perspectives, I'll combine my reply as the topics are connected.

Agree to layered and NZG is signaling intent to do so across those domains (obviously funding won't reflect the wider range and greater depth that Australia provides for example, but I simply mean it is a step in the right direction and the next few years will judge intent/effectiveness and capability gaps, and whether they get addressed or not in longer term funding planning etc).

Examples of long range fires like HIMARS, are to me hypothetically affordable on a typical smaller NZ scale (eg looking at RNZA operating a couple of batteries as a baseline minimum) but I do question whether the NZ Army would be committed to fully support this capability at the moment when their priorities are the NZ contribution to Plan ANZAC i.e. that of a Motorised Infantry Battle Group to integrate into an Australian-led Brigade (and the organisational changes playing out behind the scenes to achieve this - perhaps something that more informed folk like CD or RegR could perhaps comment on).

So looking more like a future option to replace the artillery post 2029 to me (which DCP25 signals) and once the MIBG ihas been achieved perhaps funding and effort could be expended to increase the structure/capabilities of the RNZA? In the meantime I'd suggest arming the P-8's and ANZAC FFH's would achieve similar capabilities in the near term and be technically feasible personnel/skillsets wise.

On unmanned capabilities (such as the suggestions of Ghost Shark and Ghost Bats), yes, that was what I was inferring to for "solutions". NZG is wanting NZDF and Industry to prioritise these areas.

Government unveils strategy for the defence industry

The plan will lift New Zealand's defence spending to more than 2 percent in the next eight years with the Defence Minister seeking to have New Zealand develop weapons for export.

www.rnz.co.nz

NZ defence strategy explores space weapons export potential

Defence Minister Judith Collins insists NZ-produced technology could compete internationally.

www.rnz.co.nz

Could we see NZ industry develop niche capabilities to also cover longer range autonomous air and maritime ISR and ultimately weapon delivery systems? If so perhaps that could assist with "defending" the scenarios that Catalina has been highlighting (although the likelihood of a couple of adversary combatants "blasting" NZ (or even Australia for that matter) I would thought be unlikely as said adversaries would more than likely be tied up in the first or second island chains or have a few scattered resources in the Indian Ocean being tracked. But who knows anything is possible I suppose.