Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

kiwi in exile

Active Member
personel and ships- you cant have one without the other. At present we have our 2 xOPVs tied up for personell reasons. 4 frigates (optimistically crewed 80-100ppl), 2 x OPVs, 1 x SOPV, canterbury replacemet all mid 2030s. The govt needs to develop a long term personell startegy in tandem with a fleet strategy. Common platforms with our allies would facilitate cross crewing and traing opportunites.
 

kiwi in exile

Active Member
could potentially equate to an easier sell of a 3 frigate purchase WITH options instead of the usual FFBNW option or a status quo 1 for 1 scenario. I see no point in spending $bns on frigates if they are essentially just expensive targets with limited/no eyes, ears, teeth or backbone.
"Fitted with" will depend on geopolitical neccesity and political balls as well as/more than cost. (I'm thinking of our historic avoidance of AShMs.)

I think we all agree no one on this forum is advocating for new ships with limited/no eyes, ears teeth or backbone. We have scaped by with this for too long
 

Gracie1234

Well-Known Member
The way i see the manpower issues are able to be fixed, then there is no reason the future fleet could not be 4 hull types.
- 4 Frigates. These could be manned with the same number as our 2 current frigates. Australian fleet type.
- 4 OPV. Focussed on modularity, these would perform the roles of HMNZS Manawanui, the OPVs including the SOPV. Type 31.
- 1 Logistics support
- 2 Troop transport, LPH type

This would give us efficiencies with reduced fleet types. By joining Australia, we would not have the same hull for potential synergies with the Frigates and OPVs. The above mix is the same number of hulls as we had/planned.

Very strong words from the PM.
 
Last edited:

RegR

Well-Known Member
personel and ships- you cant have one without the other. At present we have our 2 xOPVs tied up for personell reasons. 4 frigates (optimistically crewed 80-100ppl), 2 x OPVs, 1 x SOPV, canterbury replacemet all mid 2030s. The govt needs to develop a long term personell startegy in tandem with a fleet strategy. Common platforms with our allies would facilitate cross crewing and traing opportunites.
This is where something like the Mogami offering only helps with its smaller crews (90 vs 170) so we can actually crew 3 frigates AND 2 OPVs with the numbers required for 2 ANZACs and dependant on the levels of automation could/should require less spec class crew (well marine engineers anyway) for a single ship so they could be spread around the fleet more. This is actually a consideration for the JMSDF as well as they have manning issues also.

A case of not having to put all our eggs into one basket so to speak with labour intensive platforms and so being able to share the skillsets around the fleet abit more, readily crew more ships and more importantly put them to sea.

Added. This whole commonality thing is again not as much of a deal breaker as it is made out to be, the ANZACs actually proved this as in whilst the same class in name that was essentially it and both navies from literally day dot went their separate ways on their respective upgrade paths to the point where today I would argue they are completely different ships. Sure it probably makes it easier to hit the heads and find the mess but then that's where the commonality ends. You do not need the exact same ship to achieve commonality with allies more so similar TTPs, systems and mindsets, knowing where your bunk is located is just a bonus. The main benefit here would be mainly economic as in scale of build (as per the ANZACs) along with certain commodoties like some parts at a pinch, ammunition and basic fixtures. Technically, historically Australia will generally upgrade 3x to our 1 and we will both do what is deemed best for each country, something which I do not see changing regardless of if we initially buy into the same class or not.
 
Last edited:

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
This is where something like the Mogami offering only helps with its smaller crews (90 vs 170) so we can actually crew 3 frigates AND 2 OPVs with the numbers required for 2 ANZACs
We have to be careful with numbers as we have to have the right mix of skills and experience. I would assume that smaller crews could mean higher skill and experience requirements.
 

RegR

Well-Known Member
We have to be careful with numbers as we have to have the right mix of skills and experience. I would assume that smaller crews could mean higher skill and experience requirements.
Oh I have no doubt new skills will need to be gained/learnt/aqquired to some degree for any new ships and tbh that comes with any upgrade in military technology but in saying that the ANZACs, especially the current iterations, were not exactly dinosaurs either so the technical ability is already there, they were just more manpower intensive to do the same tasks with older processes and equipment. The technology requirement/required is just a natural progression in operation as is crew requirements ie the Leanders required 250 crew, the ANZACs need 170 and these mogamis are down to 90 to essentially fullfill the same role. I read a few years ago now how even current navy had made changes to watchs in where they used more monitoring systems like computers, sensors and cameras from the CIC more to watch spaces instead of needing a physical presence to actually be there as in the older days but it was a fine line as you still needed numbers for damage control, shift watchs and the like.

Perhaps it means more positions double hat, more weapons are RWS, modular replacements vs fixes and more tasks are remotely operated requiring, yes, a degree of up-skilling but then that also would come alot easier to the PlayStation generation and be alot more relative to todays youth and therefore picked up, applied and remedied alot easier as well.
 

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Oh I have no doubt new skills will need to be gained/learnt/aqquired to some degree for any new ships
Yep, but the current problem is that we are struggling to keep the experienced personnel that we have. I remember in a past defence white paper in the past (around 2011 approx) this problem was highlighted, however our brilliant pollies instead of dealing with it actually reduced the terms and conditions of service and made them worse and made the situation deteriorate much further. Were the problem lies is in what would be called in civilian business as lower and middle management which are the people who have the training and experience to actually know what they are doing. The governments since then have not wanted to admit that they screwed up back then and come up with a overall fix.
 

RegR

Well-Known Member
Yep, but the current problem is that we are struggling to keep the experienced personnel that we have. I remember in a past defence white paper in the past (around 2011 approx) this problem was highlighted, however our brilliant pollies instead of dealing with it actually reduced the terms and conditions of service and made them worse and made the situation deteriorate much further. Were the problem lies is in what would be called in civilian business as lower and middle management which are the people who have the training and experience to actually know what they are doing. The governments since then have not wanted to admit that they screwed up back then and come up with a overall fix.
It's always been about the conditions of service tbh, I've said this before as NZDF has received a number of pay rises since then (actually quite well paid now IMO) and still has not stemmed the flow, in any of the services. Obviously vital technical trades are not going to be able to match their civilian equivalents and the DF would go broke trying before they did so they need to literally try a different tac ie improved conditions and service such as housing (which is especially relevant to navy), work life balance and benefits etc. I've never quite understood govts need to apply "market rates" to NZDF accomodation when NZDF accommodation is no where near market standards ie there are generally no 60 room flats out there with a shared bathroom and like any landlord anyway you can set whatever rent you like in your own property. It's abit like charging more only to cost extra so what exactly are we achieving other than paying a premium?

Another thing certain trades have been trying is the 4 day working week and variable start times which works for especially pers with children and is something that is workable for both parties yet doesn't break the bank and still delivers the outputs. I always found it's not always about the money but in the same vein no one wants to make a career out of being fxcked around for a living as there are always other options out there in civi street and the reason you even look at those other options to begin with comes down to overall job staisfaction or more importantly, lack of.
 

Catalina

Member
A very sad day for the Navy as the powers that be cancel printing the excellent Navy Today magazine after almost 30 years.

Navy Today.jpg

Stopping publishing Navy Today is a great loss for all of us who collect and regularly refer to our Navy Today magazines on our book shelves...The hard copy magazines are also great on coffee tables and as introduction pieces to those interested in the Navy. Rather than retreating from the public view, we need to be advancing the Navy more into the national conscious and thought-space of the nation.
 
Last edited:

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
A very sad day for the Navy as the powers that be cancel printing the excellent Navy Today magazine after almost 30 years.

View attachment 51758

Stopping publishing Navy Today is a great loss for all of us who collect and regularly refer to our Navy Today magazines on our book shelves...The hard copy magazines are also great on coffee tables and as introduction pieces to those interested in the Navy. Rather than retreating from the public view, we need to be advancing the Navy more into the national conscious and thought-space of the nation.

Who can be appealed to to reverse this decision?
Was this a government publication?
 

anzac3

Member
Thats a real shame about the Navy Today magazine. Loved it in hard copy. With regard to the OPVs and IPV in Care and Custody, will they ever return, or maybe get sold as well?
 

Nighthawk.NZ

Well-Known Member



oh no... some one wasn't watching where they were going...
 
Last edited:

Teal

Active Member



oh no... some one wasn't watching where they were going...
Not good at all, to be in a liferaft must mean there is a desent breach to allow alot of water in. So much for financial savings , this recovery will blow the budget
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
We have to be careful with numbers as we have to have the right mix of skills and experience. I would assume that smaller crews could mean higher skill and experience requirements.

That's been very much the USN's experience with LCS - crunch the numbers downwards and there's less room for learning on the job and suddenly, everyone has to know everything.
 

SeaplanePaul

New Member
Sad to hear of the 5th October 2024 grounding of HMNZS Manawanui on a reef in Samoa.
Glad everyone abandoned ship safely and all 78 on board are accounted for, albeit still floating in liferafts when the below account was received.
A hard time ahead for Commander Yvonne Gray.

When was the last time our Navy had to abandon a ship...?

 
Last edited:
Top