StevoJH
The Bunker Group
The Type 31 possibly makes more sense to New Zealand then whatever Australia buys this time.
Especially since New Zealand for whatever reason got CAMM rather than ESSM to replace sea sparrow.
Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
Especially since New Zealand for whatever reason got CAMM rather than ESSM to replace sea sparrow.
The acceptance that RNZN should only operate second tier anything is an enigma to me.
This is especially so if we are asking our personnel to operate this equipment in a kinetic environment where second best may be detrimental to their survival and tasking. As we have so little equipment, RNZN should possibly operate both tier one and tier two equipment in-order to have the best chance of achieving the NZG missions that require a fighting navy.
Quality weapon system integration may be best achieved in an efficient and effective style though a larger unit build with Australia rather than an isolated Kiwi-only path. A modern weapon system is a complex electronic integration, certification/evaluation, training, and interoperability issue; I am told that ‘steel is cheap’, and that the manufacturing is the relatively easy part.
Given our deteriorating strategic maritime environment, the long-term expansion to a 6 frigate navy with a relatively immediate acquisition of 3 Australian ‘tier 2’ General Purpose Frigates, for quick replacement of the 2 ANZACs, and then 3 HUNTER Class FFG into the 2030's would be a good start to NZ finally pulling its weight as a worthwhile partner. This 2 class fleet could then be part of a regular replacement program over decades that avoids the financial stupidity of the recent ANZAC FSU.
This still needs to work for our security interests and budget-value, but if we are aiming for a fighting navy this is quite possibly the best path.
This is especially so if we are asking our personnel to operate this equipment in a kinetic environment where second best may be detrimental to their survival and tasking. As we have so little equipment, RNZN should possibly operate both tier one and tier two equipment in-order to have the best chance of achieving the NZG missions that require a fighting navy.
Quality weapon system integration may be best achieved in an efficient and effective style though a larger unit build with Australia rather than an isolated Kiwi-only path. A modern weapon system is a complex electronic integration, certification/evaluation, training, and interoperability issue; I am told that ‘steel is cheap’, and that the manufacturing is the relatively easy part.
Given our deteriorating strategic maritime environment, the long-term expansion to a 6 frigate navy with a relatively immediate acquisition of 3 Australian ‘tier 2’ General Purpose Frigates, for quick replacement of the 2 ANZACs, and then 3 HUNTER Class FFG into the 2030's would be a good start to NZ finally pulling its weight as a worthwhile partner. This 2 class fleet could then be part of a regular replacement program over decades that avoids the financial stupidity of the recent ANZAC FSU.
This still needs to work for our security interests and budget-value, but if we are aiming for a fighting navy this is quite possibly the best path.
A nice dream, but NZ politicians are not going to frount up with anything like the money needed to do this. You would have to sut down both the Army and The Airforce to even get halfway there and the crewing requirements would be very difficult to meet.
My take on defence is that before you can help anyone else, you first of all have to be able to defend yourself and our current armed forces would currently struggle to defend Great Barrier Island . my personal view is it would be a mistake to put all our eggs in one basket and a well balanced Defence force is required which we have not had for several decades.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Actually Gooey's suggestion has some historical precedent.
WW2: Admiralty supporting the provision of a third light cruiser for the RNZN. A RNZN Naval Board request to Admiralty to acquire three ASW Destroyers if a light cruiser was to return to the RN fleet. A kind of a Tier 1/Tier 2 fleet from a NZ perspective.
Postwar: Light cruisers (1-2) and ASW Frigates (6) was the RNZN fleet in the immediate Cold war period (granted some were in reserve/rotation but by having sufficient "mass" it meant vessels were always available in sufficient numbers for deployment i.e Korean war, Malayan emergency etc).
Even if we go back to Lord Jellicoe's plan of 1919 it was for "3 cruisers, 6 submarines and, for local defence, 8 old destroyers or P-boats, 18 minesweeping trawlers and 4 boom defence vessels".
For today or correctly a 2030's world (i.e. when such vessels could be built and delivered time-frame wise) I don't think it would be unreasonable for the RNZN to have at least 3 (RAN type) Tier 2 vessels with low crewing and optimised for ASW & MCM operations in this part of the Oceania and patrolling its sea-lanes. Plus at least 3 larger vessels for global operations (eg AH140 or T26 or similar?) primarily in the wider Indo-Pacific. Plus a couple of OPV's optimised for deep Southern Ocean patrol and presence (and underwater ISR) as that area is becoming of increased interest to other players with desires to exploit and control resources both on land and in the sea.
Defence expenditure of at least 2.5% would largely fund this and a better resourced Army and AF. There doesn't appear to be any major issues with personnel recruitment, the problem seems to be that of retaining experienced personnel so of course pay, conditions and accommodation need to continue to be addressed (or be ramped up and sustained rather than piecemeal).
I believe the NZG is on track for this planning wise (current negative press is largely the same Treasury 2024 budget savings cut being restated from time to time) but the proof in the pudding of course will be the DCP and that the NZG and Treasury defines a clear pathway forward outlining how and where expenditure will support their "rhetoric". Anything less won't be acceptable and be deserving of utter condemnation and scorn.
(Mee-thinks or wonders whether the fast approaching change of Govt for the USA means NZG and importantly Treasury, are having to revise any conservative DCP pathways to be more "realistic" for the challenges ahead in these changing geo-political times and our standing with our allies and close partners)!
WW2: Admiralty supporting the provision of a third light cruiser for the RNZN. A RNZN Naval Board request to Admiralty to acquire three ASW Destroyers if a light cruiser was to return to the RN fleet. A kind of a Tier 1/Tier 2 fleet from a NZ perspective.
Postwar: Light cruisers (1-2) and ASW Frigates (6) was the RNZN fleet in the immediate Cold war period (granted some were in reserve/rotation but by having sufficient "mass" it meant vessels were always available in sufficient numbers for deployment i.e Korean war, Malayan emergency etc).
Even if we go back to Lord Jellicoe's plan of 1919 it was for "3 cruisers, 6 submarines and, for local defence, 8 old destroyers or P-boats, 18 minesweeping trawlers and 4 boom defence vessels".
For today or correctly a 2030's world (i.e. when such vessels could be built and delivered time-frame wise) I don't think it would be unreasonable for the RNZN to have at least 3 (RAN type) Tier 2 vessels with low crewing and optimised for ASW & MCM operations in this part of the Oceania and patrolling its sea-lanes. Plus at least 3 larger vessels for global operations (eg AH140 or T26 or similar?) primarily in the wider Indo-Pacific. Plus a couple of OPV's optimised for deep Southern Ocean patrol and presence (and underwater ISR) as that area is becoming of increased interest to other players with desires to exploit and control resources both on land and in the sea.
Defence expenditure of at least 2.5% would largely fund this and a better resourced Army and AF. There doesn't appear to be any major issues with personnel recruitment, the problem seems to be that of retaining experienced personnel so of course pay, conditions and accommodation need to continue to be addressed (or be ramped up and sustained rather than piecemeal).
I believe the NZG is on track for this planning wise (current negative press is largely the same Treasury 2024 budget savings cut being restated from time to time) but the proof in the pudding of course will be the DCP and that the NZG and Treasury defines a clear pathway forward outlining how and where expenditure will support their "rhetoric". Anything less won't be acceptable and be deserving of utter condemnation and scorn.
(Mee-thinks or wonders whether the fast approaching change of Govt for the USA means NZG and importantly Treasury, are having to revise any conservative DCP pathways to be more "realistic" for the challenges ahead in these changing geo-political times and our standing with our allies and close partners)!
I agree that 2.5% would go along way to refreshing the armed forces. The personal problem is not in the recruitment, but in the retention as at present is the big problem as all of the experience is disappearing, to the point that the airforce had to contract supervising civilian aircraft engineers to check and oversign for work on the P8's. from what I have heard that this is a cross the board problem in all services as the experienced personal have left. We need them back and that will cost an arm and a leg.