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.
Catalina
Member
Following on from its surprise 25th September firing of a nuclear weapon capable intercontinental ballistic missile into the South Pacific, and the 23rd October unexpected appearance of lead Communist Chinese warships a few days sailing from New Zealand - when the massive Type 055 Renhai Class Cruiser Xianyang along with the formidable Type 052D Luyang III Class Destroyer Nanning appeared in Vanuatu, the Chinese Communist Party has now completed the construction of a prototype aircraft carrier nuclear reactor for its growing carrier fleet.
In the lead up to World War Two, New Zealand sat back, looked the other way, and tried to ignore the approaching signs of Pacific naval war as Imperial Japan built up the largest navy in the Pacific.
In the lead up to World War Three, is New Zealand likewise sitting back, looking the other way, and trying to ignore the approaching signs of Pacific naval war as Communist China builds up the largest navy in the world?
In the lead up to World War Two, New Zealand sat back, looked the other way, and tried to ignore the approaching signs of Pacific naval war as Imperial Japan built up the largest navy in the Pacific.
In the lead up to World War Three, is New Zealand likewise sitting back, looking the other way, and trying to ignore the approaching signs of Pacific naval war as Communist China builds up the largest navy in the world?
Catalina,
many thanks for this information on our CCP friends visiting Vanuatu on 23 Oct.
The only google information that I could find on this Type 055 & Type 052D event is:
www.newsweek.com
"Pacific Defence Monitor, which tracks regional defense and security developments in the Pacific Ocean, reported the arrival of the Chinese Type 055 destroyer CNS Xianyang and the Type 052DL destroyer CNS Nanning at Port Vila, the capital and largest city of Vanuatu.
China is engaging in a new military show of force in the South Pacific" as it deployed a long-range surface combatant to the region, said Anne-Marie Brady, a political science and international relations professor at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand."
Apologies for being an IT buffoon, do you know if NZ media covered this story?
I find it strange that NZDF or Foreign Affairs did not make more of an issue of this. Instead silence. Ala 'ignore the approaching signs ...'.
many thanks for this information on our CCP friends visiting Vanuatu on 23 Oct.
The only google information that I could find on this Type 055 & Type 052D event is:
Chinese warships put on show of force in South Pacific
The Chinese embassy in Vanuatu said the warships stopped at the island country for supplies and crew rest.
www.newsweek.com
"Pacific Defence Monitor, which tracks regional defense and security developments in the Pacific Ocean, reported the arrival of the Chinese Type 055 destroyer CNS Xianyang and the Type 052DL destroyer CNS Nanning at Port Vila, the capital and largest city of Vanuatu.
China is engaging in a new military show of force in the South Pacific" as it deployed a long-range surface combatant to the region, said Anne-Marie Brady, a political science and international relations professor at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand."
Apologies for being an IT buffoon, do you know if NZ media covered this story?
I find it strange that NZDF or Foreign Affairs did not make more of an issue of this. Instead silence. Ala 'ignore the approaching signs ...'.
For those interested in some summer reading, the latest volume (Volume 4) of the Professional Journal of the Royal New Zealand Navy is out. Link to pdf here. Looks to be a bumper issue (147p), with Stephen Hoadley now acting as general editor. Haven't read it all yet. Plenty of potential for some discussion though, while we wait for the release of the much-delayed Defence Capability Plan. The foreword on the importance of logistics was interesting.
Bluey 006
Active Member
Also, the Babcock (NZ) facility, is New Zealand’s largest ship repair and marine engineering facility. That said, the low crewing requirements of the Mogami may appeal to an NZDF that is facing recruitment and retention challenges.
An ANZAC task force with ESSM and CAMM available might not be a bad thing. Provided NZ has enough CAMM war stocks.
CAMM will do what CAMM will do.
in the end of the day, whether it’s actually genuinely meaningful, because it’s regionally unique to NZ, is whether NZs tactical supply system is up to scratch to feed the replenishment requirement.
if it’s not really, well then it’s basically useless isn’t it?
in the end of the day, whether it’s actually genuinely meaningful, because it’s regionally unique to NZ, is whether NZs tactical supply system is up to scratch to feed the replenishment requirement.
if it’s not really, well then it’s basically useless isn’t it?
Gracie1234
Well-Known Member
I think with the change in leadership in the states, 2% GDP will be the min if not 2.5% to get any attention from them.
I would of thought having 8 A140 designed platforms would be ideal.
Four configured as Frigates and 4 as OPVs. This would enable standardisation of a larger fleet where practical as well as the ability to use mission modules where appropriate. The OPVs might only need 2 engines instead of 4 as an example of changes. But navigation systems, comms, training etc could be standard across the fleet.
I would of thought having 8 A140 designed platforms would be ideal.
Four configured as Frigates and 4 as OPVs. This would enable standardisation of a larger fleet where practical as well as the ability to use mission modules where appropriate. The OPVs might only need 2 engines instead of 4 as an example of changes. But navigation systems, comms, training etc could be standard across the fleet.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Unsure of its accuracy but SPIRI reports the RNZN has had "250(?)" CAMM missiles delivered. So stock numbers may not be a major issue as such (well currently, anyway).
IMO the next issue to be addressed, if practical eg weight wise, is to increase the loadout carried. Whilst the original "mushroom" configuration was considered to be "fit-for-purpose "at the time (over 10 years ago now), modern day events demonstrate that is no longer the case, even against ad-hoc adversaries, let alone against a well-prepared adversary (or its proxy gray fleet).
Plus also for geographical reasons i.e. the distance to be traveled from NZ to the AO (likely to be in the Indo-Pacific, joining a wider allied effort) and without needing to leave the AO and return to port to reload, be that NZ itself or an allied base if stocks could be pre-positioned there etc.
So perhaps options could include replacing the mushroom farm with a number of LM 3-Cell Extensible Launching Systems to fit within existing spaces (although unclear weight-wise as haven't seen any published figures for ExLS, and to compare it with the Mk41 VLS, which is also larger and presumably heavier. So making the assumption ExLS is lighter and more compact). If the ANZAC design originally had space reserved for 4x 4-cell Mk41, surely at least 4x 3-cell ExLS could be fitted, which if quad-packed means a 48 missile loadout. And if space/weight allowed additonal 3-cell ExLS then that's even better ...
So how practical is this? Well the mushroom silos were removed (and reinstalled) during the post-FSU upgrades here in NZ a couple of years ago for Te Kaha to allow plant and machinery in the hull area to be accessed and replaced. So it seems this could also be done in-house, relativerly quickly. In terms of CMS integration, the ExLS is a LM product, LM make the CMS and are fitting this exact configuration to the Canadian River-class Destroyers i.e. design/integration are already in motion.
So for NZ IMO this would be an acceptable configuration for the interim until the ANZAC's can be replaced (or supplemented with in the early 2030's).
Sure 4x 4-cell Mk41 VLS would be a "better" system for numerous reasons but suggest it won't be practical, weight wise (it couldn't be done for NZ and Australia in recent upgrades), plus also the weight of Host ExLS needs to also be factored in, so instead address this (Mk41 or Mk41 + ExLS) in the ANZAC replacement vessel.
The second issue to be addressed, as Gracie1234 points out is the number of vessels for the ANZAC replacement. Three replacement ANZAC's would now have to be considered the "mimimum viable capability" (rather than two) but even that number would be questionable in these changing times, so numbers or configurations ought to be a little higher.
Whilst the type and numbers are under consideration as part of the DCP/fleet renewal, the Govt is also is also asking defence to look at "emergent new military technologies (such as remote systems), and how we can work more closely with partners" (pdf page 86). So at this stage, there is much to consider what final fleet replacement options and configurations could look like ... but suggest NZ is looking closely at what paths its allies are taking, what could "plug-in" and what it can afford. I think it is safe to assume times are changing, for the better.
IMO the next issue to be addressed, if practical eg weight wise, is to increase the loadout carried. Whilst the original "mushroom" configuration was considered to be "fit-for-purpose "at the time (over 10 years ago now), modern day events demonstrate that is no longer the case, even against ad-hoc adversaries, let alone against a well-prepared adversary (or its proxy gray fleet).
Plus also for geographical reasons i.e. the distance to be traveled from NZ to the AO (likely to be in the Indo-Pacific, joining a wider allied effort) and without needing to leave the AO and return to port to reload, be that NZ itself or an allied base if stocks could be pre-positioned there etc.
So perhaps options could include replacing the mushroom farm with a number of LM 3-Cell Extensible Launching Systems to fit within existing spaces (although unclear weight-wise as haven't seen any published figures for ExLS, and to compare it with the Mk41 VLS, which is also larger and presumably heavier. So making the assumption ExLS is lighter and more compact). If the ANZAC design originally had space reserved for 4x 4-cell Mk41, surely at least 4x 3-cell ExLS could be fitted, which if quad-packed means a 48 missile loadout. And if space/weight allowed additonal 3-cell ExLS then that's even better ...
So how practical is this? Well the mushroom silos were removed (and reinstalled) during the post-FSU upgrades here in NZ a couple of years ago for Te Kaha to allow plant and machinery in the hull area to be accessed and replaced. So it seems this could also be done in-house, relativerly quickly. In terms of CMS integration, the ExLS is a LM product, LM make the CMS and are fitting this exact configuration to the Canadian River-class Destroyers i.e. design/integration are already in motion.
So for NZ IMO this would be an acceptable configuration for the interim until the ANZAC's can be replaced (or supplemented with in the early 2030's).
Sure 4x 4-cell Mk41 VLS would be a "better" system for numerous reasons but suggest it won't be practical, weight wise (it couldn't be done for NZ and Australia in recent upgrades), plus also the weight of Host ExLS needs to also be factored in, so instead address this (Mk41 or Mk41 + ExLS) in the ANZAC replacement vessel.
The second issue to be addressed, as Gracie1234 points out is the number of vessels for the ANZAC replacement. Three replacement ANZAC's would now have to be considered the "mimimum viable capability" (rather than two) but even that number would be questionable in these changing times, so numbers or configurations ought to be a little higher.
Whilst the type and numbers are under consideration as part of the DCP/fleet renewal, the Govt is also is also asking defence to look at "emergent new military technologies (such as remote systems), and how we can work more closely with partners" (pdf page 86). So at this stage, there is much to consider what final fleet replacement options and configurations could look like ... but suggest NZ is looking closely at what paths its allies are taking, what could "plug-in" and what it can afford. I think it is safe to assume times are changing, for the better.
Challenger
New Member
Agreed - never understood why the thought of operating more capable surface combatants is controversial or out of historical precedence.
Replacement of exisiting capabilities of both quantitative and qualitative means is the way the NZDF can move forward with less political resistance than adding new capabilities, while creating value for us and our allies.
Can a tier 1/2 force of T26 and Arrowhead 140s similar to the RN be justified? 3 Hunters to replace the Anzacs in the mid 30s, 3 A140s (with VLS/NSM) to replace the OPVs and 3 A120s to replace the IPVs.
9 ships to replace 8 ships.
Reading through your last paragraph I agree fully with your appraisal on the considerations now of the changes in naval warfare for one and watching where the emphasis shifts to with technology changes. Whatever we eventually purchase for the dollars spent it will need to be fully operational and that means armed accordingly not with limited munitions. My change of support for the navy with the frigate concept is cost, planning. could be obsolete when eventually commissioned, manning requirements etc. etc. At the moment I would like to see more P8.s ,all armed with LRSM's and
more C130J's some of which could also be armed. We need a fix now not 10years hence. With our navy I think we need to follow changes that will come sooner than later and not splash out too soon. In other words with another war imminent these changes will happen sooner than later. I look at the time taken by Australia to upgrade in naval areas and thats scary. Look at the evolving changes in their designs before any ship hits the briney.
more C130J's some of which could also be armed. We need a fix now not 10years hence. With our navy I think we need to follow changes that will come sooner than later and not splash out too soon. In other words with another war imminent these changes will happen sooner than later. I look at the time taken by Australia to upgrade in naval areas and thats scary. Look at the evolving changes in their designs before any ship hits the briney.
It all depends on which commentator was asked for their opinion and what ever the bias of the journalist and news organisation involved. I would be willing bet that any plan to replace or expand the frigate fleet in NZ will lead to journalists comparing the spending to education and health, such as for this frigate we could build 4 hospitals, 6 high schools blah, blah, blah
In other news, looks like the Manawanui sinking was cause someone didnt realise the autopilot was still on...
www.nzherald.co.nz
Reminds me of the ferry crash a few months back..
Watch: Damning report reveals cause of HMNZS Manawanui's sinking off Samoa
The interim Court of Inquiry’s report blames incident on 'human error'.
www.nzherald.co.nz
Reminds me of the ferry crash a few months back..
So someone plotted a course, and set the autopilot and just... hung around?In other news, looks like the Manawanui sinking was cause someone didnt realise the autopilot was still on...
Watch: Damning report reveals cause of HMNZS Manawanui's sinking off Samoa
The interim Court of Inquiry’s report blames incident on 'human error'.
Reminds me of the ferry crash a few months back..
What was the OOW and bridge team doing?
Last edited:
RetirementIsGood
Member
I'm afraid that this is a question that a Court Martial will undoubtedly ask and require answered