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.

 

[recce.k1]

For context on the latter, yes NZ could buy autonomous capabilities off the shelf from allied countries (and likely will, particularly capabilities being developed "across the ditch" for A/NZ defence force interoperability), but like buying replacement naval vessels or aircraft, with NZ being a small nation there are limited opportunities for offsets meaning $$ simply heads overseas (which the Bean Counters get really upset about and do their best to curtail spending ... hence why only 5 Seahawks for example. But that could change if the Naval Fleet renewal project recommends increasing the fleet = more helos needed = fund that later/then say the Bean Counters, that's how it rolls here, unfortunately. But fortunately Seahawk will still be in production when these decisions are to be made "soon-ish" so fingers crossed).

Hence the NZG priorities to develop NZ defence industry (within reason of course). The DefMin met her US Administration counterparts last week and issues like ITAR were raised apparently (as NZ doesn't have an exemption). In terms of NZ's defence expenditure the DefMin stated Hegseth and Colby “congratulated us on being able to increase our defence budget”. I think the US was probably being a bit generous here by not putting NZ in the hot seat so-to-speak but perhaps that was because DefMin Collins also said "I was not asked for the 3.5% but I certainly have indicated that the 2% is, as we've described on numerous occasions, now a floor, not a ceiling and, as we are capable of doing so, we will step up further.” So it's on record by both sides so deliver they must!

 

[Rob c]

o it's on record by both sides so deliver they must!

Or until the government changes, or enough time passes for the pollies to think that most would have forgotten what they said.

 

[Lolcake]

Time to bite the bullet and become the 7th state .

 

[Shanesworld]

Could you imagine the commentary to follow if we made that request? Rather try to join Antarctica.

 

[Rob c]

Could you imagine the commentary to follow if we made that request? Rather try to join Antarctica.

Would solve the 501 problem, Telling the pollies to either become 7th state or get our defence in order may get them at least thinking, "maybee"

 

[ADMk2]

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

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.

Not sure if you can call this “niche” but NZ has a requirement for an air-launched weapon from it’s upcoming MH-60R’s.

A potential air-launched weapon required for it’s P-8A’s, a potential ship-launched weapon for it’s ANZAC Class and a requirement as stated in their most recent DCP for “greater“ strike. What this will look like in practice is as yet unknown, but there are emerging options I think that are worth considering, rather than just going with the status quo (Hellfire, NSM and LRASM etc) as most expect.

In line with the article above calling for the greater involvement of “tech companies“ - I wonder if NZ is eye’ing off something like the Barracuda M family of weapons to address it’s strike and industrial requirements?

Given the relatively “low” base this is starting from (no offence intended, merely commenting that NZ is not necessarily tied to legacy concepts or systems such as Harpoon to newer weapons such as NSM etc filling the same basic role by virtue of never having operated them) and as such new ideas and concepts may be open to her, that perhaps are not so much to others with more “skin in the game” of moving from legacy to newer systems?

Anduril Unveils Barracuda-M Family of Cruise Missiles

The Barracuda family of air-breathing, software-defined expendable Autonomous Air Vehicles (AAVs) is designed for low-cost, hyper-scale production, rapid upgrades, and flexible employment.

www.anduril.com

With systems addressing those known requirements as listed above and additional capabilities available to address “greater strike” (standalone container launch systems, C-130J palletised launch systems, etc) with the systems relative low cost and flexible manufacturing practices and commonality between munition variants, such a family might offer NZ a baseline “family” of systems that address all these requirements? A local assembly / manufacturing plant for AUR’s to meet local demand and support allies may well be feasible too, whereas for legacy systems even evolved ones, cost would be prohibitive to set up multiple production lines.

Obviously there are going to be issues with integration and perhaps role suitability (how much ASM capability does a Barracuda M 500 really provide?) but NZ is calling on tech companies to provide solutions.

This sort of concept may well be a way in which NZ can also address it’s “mass” of fires, while maintaining it’s existing force structure with relatively few major platforms? Lots more missiles, fired from more basic launch systems. The missiles carry the smarts the launchers are more like structural support?

A serious look at this idea, might be an interesting way forward…

 

[Pusser01]

Out of interest, noting earlier models of H-60's could carry the AGM-119 Penguin, does anyone know if this capability carried over to the current MH-60R? I was wondering if the RNZN had looked into this, that is of course assuming that their Penguins have much life left. Cheers

 

[Todjaeger]

Out of interest, noting earlier models of H-60's could carry the AGM-119 Penguin, does anyone know if this capability carried over to the current MH-60R? I was wondering if the RNZN had looked into this, that is of course assuming that their Penguins have much life left. Cheers

I do not know for certain, but I tend to doubt it. It looks like the USN retired their AGM-119 Penguins ~2003, which IIRC was when the MH-60R 'Romeo' Seahawk was still being developed. Further, a LockMart sales sheet lists Hellfire but not Penguin for the MH-60R. Lastly, two of the current Penguin operators, Greece and Spain, have in the last couple of years started the process of transitioning to the MH-60R from older Seahawk models.

I would imagine that LockMart would do the development and integration work needed for a 'Romeo' to carry and launch a Penguin if someone was interested enough to fund it. I also rather doubt that the current pool of Penguin operators have enough interest to fund such development.

EDIT: Follow-up thought, currently my thinking is a little foggy. NZ might not have very many Penguins in stock, so unless the integration was already done or dirt cheap, it probably would not be worthwhile. IIRC NZ likely has only ~20 Penguins.

 

[swerve]

After years of building up its navy, Saudi Arabia is testing its new warships with real-world missions (yahoo.com)
Freedom-class littoral combat ship - Wikipedia
The Americans are building the Saudis 4 Frigates based on the Freedom class LCS for the national defence radar picket role, they are to be fitted with Spy-1F and Aegis and the Mk 41 VLS for the SM-2 and ESSM. The Mica system is a CIWS and not really suitable for this role.
You will probably find that it was more about the US not allowing the Mk 41/ESSM being fitted to French built ships in a French yard, than an outright rejection of the Saudis.

VL Mica NG is said by MBDA to have an effective range of 40km & to be compatible with existing VL Mica systems. Just needs a software update. First order (by an undisclosed customer, but IIRC it's since been revealed to be Egypt) was in 2020.

More efficient & dual pulse rocket, & more fuel, made possible by smaller & lighter electronics.

I don't think 40km is CIWS.

 

[spoz]

Well, that’s a bit of a non sequitur! OP was Dec 2023?

 

[Catalina]

I love your faith in a few frigates. Naive, but optimistically brave and not at all deterred by reality or surface combatant vulnerability. I would be analysing the reality of surface combatant operations in Ukraine long and hard before I invested too large a percentage of my few defence dollars in surface warships if I controlled defence vote allocations.

Yes, combat frigates are exactly what our nation needs, unless you expect army soldiers to walk on water escorting convoys while projecting power across the South Pacific and defending themselves against missile strikes.

I would suggest you are looking in the wrong theater and are demonstrating a land based continentalist approach to warfare, rather than an ocean focused maritime mindset to warfare. The Russian Black Sea is a captive fleet it is not a free fleet.

New Zealand sits in the Pacific Ocean ergo we need an Ocean fighting force. Black Sea maritime operations are as different from Indo-Pacific operations as room clearing operations are to mechanized desert warfare.

You should instead by referring to the glowing successes of a free fleet. Successfully defending against over 170 attacks modern American and British warships have successfully defeated over 400 drone, cruise missile, and ballistic strikes in Red Sea operations over the last two years.

With the ability to each carry 157 missiles, 4 Improved Mogami Class frigates gives our nation the ability to pack 628 missile.
Modern warships are highly capable military units able to project power across whatever the ocean touches.

 

[Catalina]

The Crete item just reinforces what can happen if you leave gaps in your defence

You are drawing the wrong lesson from Crete. Crete showed the supreme importance of the Navy.
1. The Navy stopped the German naval invasion of Crete.
2. The Navy rescued the failed army.
3. No Navy and our army boys would have been in POW camps at best and graves at worst.

The also have a powerful RAAF and Army, a fa mo balanced force than us.

No. Australia is not going for 'balance'. (The Kiwi obsession with the feel good word 'balanced' destroys effectiveness).
Australia is putting its money where it is effective - into its naval forces.
Just look at the numbers. Australia is investing
A$368 billion into new submarines.
A$76 billion into undersea warfare programs.
A$54 billion into doubling its surface warfare fleet.
Thats $498 billion being spent on Australia's navy. Yes half a trillion dollars.
And for the Army? A$28-35 billion.

Realizing the crucial importance of the maritime environment Australia has announced spending 14 times more on its navy than on its army. (498 billion vs 35 billion). As a navalist I would like New Zealand to do the same and spend 14 times more on our navy than our army. At the very least military spending should be at least double the spending on our navy than our army.

Could be Christchurch, Wellington, Ohakea, Napier or were ever.
they have to be at the right place at the right time

They have to be within that distance and there are no guarantees of this and 24 hrs could easily be too late.
Also you need to factor in that any potential aggressor will take measures to counter what you have and having all your eggs in one basket makes that a lot easier and in the past has been disastrous.

Your arguments above point again to why it is that for a maritime nation surrounded by ocean it is control of the sea, not the land that determines survival.

1. "or wherever" - NZ has 8 urban areas with the population of Napier or above. Spreading ineffective army personal, that cant even defend against missile strikes from over the horizon, across 8 areas doesnt defend the nation - it drains the nation. Land units are the slowest military formations and the most vulnerable during movement. Naval units though can swiftly reposition while defending themselves.

2. "you have to be at the right place at the right time" - true if you are a land unit, because your mobility and defence while moving is so low. Not true if you are a naval unit. For example the combat radius of Seahawk helicopters is some 380nm, that allows the helicopter to reconnoiter over 113,000 square nautical miles. Put another way a naval helicopter can operate some 18 hours cruising time ahead of a warship. This allows the warship to reposition to meet incoming forces.

3. "24 hrs could easily be too late"
No for the reasons above. As the Pacific Theater shows us, which is the theater to be focussed on when discussing the defence of NZ, not the European theater, our naval forces can also act as guerre de course breaking the link between any landed forces and their supply lines. Land units on islands are isolated and trapped. Naval units on the sea are able to combine when needed and free to disperse when required. As long as you have naval forces you have hope.

4. "having all your eggs in one basket" - that's our Air Force putting everything into the defenseless base of Ohakea.

 

[Rob c]

You are drawing the wrong lesson from Crete. Crete showed the supreme importance of the Navy.
1. The Navy stopped the German naval invasion of Crete.
2. The Navy rescued the failed army.
3. No Navy and our army boys would have been in POW camps at best and graves at worst.

But Crete was lost to an inferiour sized force with no naval support due to a lack of air power. The ability of the Germans to give air support to their forces was critical

Your arguments above point again to why it is that for a maritime nation surrounded by ocean it is control of the sea, not the land that determines survival.

A some what less than logical answer, how a few figates is going to protect against air borne attack over the whole of NZ is interesting.

1. "or wherever" - NZ has 8 urban areas with the population of Napier or above. Spreading ineffective army personal, that cant even defend against missile strikes from over the horizon, across 8 areas doesnt defend the nation - it drains the nation. Land units are the slowest military formations and the most vulnerable during movement. Naval units though can swiftly reposition while defending themselves.

But air power can.

4. "having all your eggs in one basket" - that's our Air Force putting everything into the defenseless base of Ohakea.

You are the proponent of all the eggs in one basket, in the event of conflict you disperse, common sence prevails and who said Ohakea is not defendable.

3. "24 hrs could easily be too late"
No for the reasons above.

If you allow your Enemy 24hrs to consolidate, you lose, historically invasions of islands which have had a day to consolidate have succeded

 

[Rob c]

Naval units on the sea are able to combine when needed and free to disperse when required. As long as you have naval forces you have hope.

We need to be able to defend NZ and a small number of frigates (4 to 6) is not going to do this,

2. "you have to be at the right place at the right time" - true if you are a land unit, because your mobility and defence while moving is so low. Not true if you are a naval unit. For example the combat radius of Seahawk helicopters is some 380nm, that allows the helicopter to reconnoiter over 113,000 square nautical miles. Put another way a naval helicopter can operate some 18 hours cruising time ahead of a warship. This allows the warship to reposition to meet incoming forces

While the figures sound impressive, our EZ is 4,3000000sq km on its own and you are relying on your enemy not sinking you as in our case we would easily be overwelmed by quantity