Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[Xthenaki]

Drones will become a bigger player for our defence force as technology progresses and in NZ's case dollars become available

 

[Challenger]

The current Associate Minister for Defence is Chris Penk - former RNZN officer who pursued his dream and transferred to the RAN’s Submarine Service.

The capabilities of these amazing platforms won’t be lost on him - so I’d hope they’ll get a fair trial, rather than just from us internet heroes.

 

[ADMk2]

Not really. Australia has struggled to manage and sustain a force of six subs, with a significantly larger defence budget as well as potential pool of personnel to draw from. In order for the RNZN to manage to have a single sub either available for or on a deployment somewhere, then NZ would likely need a minimum of three and IMO more likely four subs in order to manage that. The RNZN would also likely have problems managing to sustain an adequate number of personnel to actually crew that few boats (a problem the RAN has encountered trying to sustain ops for six boats).

If essentially all the NZDF resources were directed to subs, then NZ might be able to manage it, but such a force structure distortion would play havoc with everything else that the NZDF needs or might need to do.

Subs are great ISR and anti-shipping assets and depending on design and armament configuration can also be great platforms to launch strikes. However they are useless at protecting surface shipping from aerial threats and likely would not even be aware of when merchant shipping might be threatened by many of the potential dangers to shipping. They also cannot replicate any of the capabilities provided by elements of the RNZAF or NZ Army.

If (big IF) Vote Defence does get sustained funding increases in real terms, there are a number of areas where more and sustained funding could be put to use. Unfort establishing a Kiwi sub force is not such an area because there are too many other areas which would need coverage first.

A big part of RAN’s problem with Collins Class subs have been their own design choices and the modifications they have chosen to make since their introduction to service. It is those sorts of issues broadly across ADF acquisitions that have led to the current strategic imperative of “minimum viable capability”

A less bespoke design such as a Scorpene class (chosen purely as an example) in an off the shelf configuration” (as far as you can get in a submarine) seem to be beset by far fewer problems than the Collins Class have had to endure and thus require far fewer resources (and yes, budget) to operate.

RNZN will never be allocated the resources to operate any manned submarine squadron however so it is a pointless exercise.

Unmanned submarines however, may well be a different story…

 

[Stampede]

The current Associate Minister for Defence is Chris Penk - former RNZN officer who pursued his dream and transferred to the RAN’s Submarine Service.

The capabilities of these amazing platforms won’t be lost on him - so I’d hope they’ll get a fair trial, rather than just from us internet heroes.
[/

Let’s please be mindful as to where New Zealand’s Navy is today.
I think it’s currently five active ships.
Wish lists are easy, but the reality is it takes time and money to build the fleet that some of you desire.
It also takes commitment.
If you double New Zealand’s fleet to 10 ships, what would they look like?
What would the balance be?
What would be their purpose?
Not saying that it’s not desirable but going on recent defence history is it realistic?

Similar sized nations to New Zealand such as Denmark and Singapore have impressive navy’s for their size.
These nations are a guide to what New Zealand’s fleet could be,so there is some hope that New Zealand could manage a much larger fleet.
Let’s see what the future holds and if there is a change in attitude to New Zealand defence if there is an increased presence of the people’s liberation army Navy

NZ submarines I feel are after doubling the surface fleet and that endeavour will take many years.

Cheers S

 

[Todjaeger]

A big part of RAN’s problem with Collins Class subs have been their own design choices and the modifications they have chosen to make since their introduction to service. It is those sorts of issues broadly across ADF acquisitions that have led to the current strategic imperative of “minimum viable capability”

A less bespoke design such as a Scorpene class (chosen purely as an example) in an off the shelf configuration” (as far as you can get in a submarine) seem to be beset by far fewer problems than the Collins Class have had to endure and thus require far fewer resources (and yes, budget) to operate.

RNZN will never be allocated the resources to operate any manned submarine squadron however so it is a pointless exercise.

Unmanned submarines however, may well be a different story…

The problems I was referring to had, to my understanding, nothing to do with the platforms themselves.

Also since this is the RNZN thread I do not wish to really take things too OT but if one looks back to the mid-1980's when tenders for what became the Collins-class SSG were requested or submitted, there really were not many OTS sub options, and even fewer that are of comparable size to the Collins-class. Even less than that are the designs which would be used similar to how the RAN appears to utilize their subs.

The three closest I have been able find are the Dutch Walrus-class, and the Japanese Harushio-class subs, or the ex-RN Upholder-class.

 

[ADMk2]

The problems I was referring to had, to my understanding, nothing to do with the platforms themselves.

Also since this is the RNZN thread I do not wish to really take things too OT but if one looks back to the mid-1980's when tenders for what became the Collins-class SSG were requested or submitted, there really were not many OTS sub options, and even fewer that are of comparable size to the Collins-class. Even less than that are the designs which would be used similar to how the RAN appears to utilize their subs.

The three closest I have been able find are the Dutch Walrus-class, and the Japanese Harushio-class subs, or the ex-RN Upholder-class.

Depends what you mean by the “platform”. The entire Rockwell Int combat system for one had to be junked, which was a major issue for the class for many years, the Haedamora diesel engines another and so on…

Anyways, I agree, subs have few relevance to an RNZN thread, regrettably...

 

[Catalina]

Hi all. Agree with the points above regarding the difficulties of our nation establishing and sustaining submarines. The point I was making though was how the innate stealth capabilities of submarines greatly complicate the enemy's plans and freedom of action. My focus was on the tactical and operational advantages of them, not on the purchase and procurement level.

Note though the implications of the Communist Chinese nuclear submarine believed by the ADF to be accompanying the surface units of their Task Group 107.

New Zealand does need more powerful navy. A concerted push to return to at least 4 combat surface warships, capable of protecting shipping, projecting power, and persecuting subsurface contacts, as well as deploying our new naval helicopters and drones is much needed.

And so sayest the New Zealand Navalists!

 

[recce.k1]

New Zealand does need more powerful navy. A concerted push to return to at least 4 combat surface warships, capable of protecting shipping, projecting power, and persecuting subsurface contacts, as well as deploying our new naval helicopters and drones is much needed.

Fully agree but even (assumption) that four becomes the new normal again, it's still not enough vessels to monitor non-friendlies conducting FON in the region particularly if they ramped up and deployed multiple task forces or simply only deployed one (or two) that persist for a long period of time.

Not sure if a major combatant would be required all of the time, sometimes (and may be better utilised elsewhere), after all sometimes auxiliaries are also used by navies for presence. So wonder if a potential answer is to look into additional supplementary vessels that are rather basic e.g. OPV like, with long range, low crewing, a basic self-defence system (but with adequate ISR sensor fit-out for the tasks required of it) and with the ability to carry unmanned air/surface/underwater surveillance assets. Ideally costing only (eg) around US$100-200m ea, so several could be potentially acquired? Is there such a thing in existence already (or as a concept) that "we" (i.e. Aus/NZ etc) could look into?

 

[recce.k1]

For clarification, something "off the shelf" (or close to an existing design that is good enough), so that "we" don't spend years/decades designing/modifying/changing/cancelling/restarting/redesigning a capability needed to be rolled out within a handful of years rather than be delayed into the never-never (too late) years of the 2030's or 2040's ....

So likely something without the layers of redundancy/damage control a combatant would be expected to have, thus reducing complexity and cost and allowing additional shipyards or engineering firms to participate in the build particularly if they are of modular design (overseen by the prime of course).

Maybe not WW2 type fast-building but something near good enough for these times.

Such a capability would also be useful for monitoring gray zone fleets (so there will always be a need). Thus freeing up the majors for other more pressing demands.

 

[Challenger]

Anyways, I agree, subs have few relevance to an RNZN thread, regrettably...

Well some other Naval planners have considered them worthy of conversation before. Submarines were recommended first by Lord Jellioce post First World War. NZ financially contributed (IIRC) along with Australia to the RN’s 4th Submarine Squadron based in Sydney post Second World War till the RAN achieved it’s own independent capability. Again, in the 1980s the GOTD gave consideration in joining the Collins programme over the Anzacs. Obviously it’s challenging comparing three different eras with their different threats, and within the wider NZDF ecosphere at that time. However, I personally think the strongest case for them is now today.

They have clearly been a desire and logical capability for the Navy given the obvious clear advantages for a maritime nation, even before it was even an independent Navy! Whether we ever see a Kiwi on the side of a conning tower is still a low chance, but I don’t think it’s anywhere near as low as some of the others here.

WRT to funding/crewing/timing I don’t think anyone relalistically is expecting miracles nor anything before the late 2030s. Everyone excepts there would and need to be trade offs. Finally we are at about ~1.1%, ‘getting close to 2%’ by 2030 and sustaining that as Luxon has indicated (yes yes, we know) would go a hell of a long way for an improved Navy with Frigates, OPVs and (and maybe) SSKs over the next decades.

Finally within the wider NZDF consider this.

I’ll quote Richard Marles to Sky News yesterday (25th Feb), when describing the extra billions to be spent on maintaining the RAN’s aging fleet of SSKs, ‘more than any other capability that we operate, it is the one which gives any advisary pause for thought, it is the one, which projects our nation the furtherest, it is utterly utterly essential we maintain this capability going forward’.

The interviewer then went on describe them as ‘Australia’s most important strategic deterrence’.

‘Gives any advisary pause for thought’ and ‘strategic deterrence’ are the exact words to describe future capabilities we will need to consider given what we are facing now. Appreciate apples and oranges wrt to ADF vs NZDF, but realistically what else can really a make a Chinese Admiral think twice. The strategy of just assuming the US navy will get in the way isn’t as full prof as it was pre Trump. Everything needs to be re- prioritised. With priority one - denying our sealanes to an enemy. Priority two - refer to priority one.

 

[Armchair]

Fully agree but even (assumption) that four becomes the new normal again, it's still not enough vessels to monitor non-friendlies conducting FON in the region particularly if they ramped up and deployed multiple task forces or simply only deployed one (or two) that persist for a long period of time.

Not sure if a major combatant would be required all of the time, sometimes (and may be better utilised elsewhere), after all sometimes auxiliaries are also used by navies for presence. So wonder if a potential answer is to look into additional supplementary vessels that are rather basic e.g. OPV like, with long range, low crewing, a basic self-defence system (but with adequate ISR sensor fit-out for the tasks required of it) and with the ability to carry unmanned air/surface/underwater surveillance assets. Ideally costing only (eg) around US$100-200m ea, so several could be potentially acquired? Is there such a thing in existence already (or as a concept) that "we" (i.e. Aus/NZ etc) could look into?

The apparent military threat to NZ is not from surface task forces but from conventional submarines interdicting sea lines of communication. I am not sure the OPV you describe is useful for either submarines or trailing task forces.
Where it might be required is for grey zone operations, and fisheries protection and Pacific cooperation.

 

[At lakes]

Fully agree but even (assumption) that four becomes the new normal again, it's still not enough vessels to monitor non-friendlies conducting FON in the region particularly if they ramped up and deployed multiple task forces or simply only deployed one (or two) that persist for a long period of time.

Not sure if a major combatant would be required all of the time, sometimes (and may be better utilised elsewhere), after all sometimes auxiliaries are also used by navies for presence. So wonder if a potential answer is to look into additional supplementary vessels that are rather basic e.g. OPV like, with long range, low crewing, a basic self-defence system (but with adequate ISR sensor fit-out for the tasks required of it) and with the ability to carry unmanned air/surface/underwater surveillance assets. Ideally costing only (eg) around US$100-200m ea, so several could be potentially acquired? Is there such a thing in existence already (or as a concept) that "we" (i.e. Aus/NZ etc) could look into?

OFFSHORE PATROL VESSEL - OPV 90 - Kership

L'OPV 90 Kership est un navire idéal de taille moyenne pour assurer la surveillance des eaux côtières et des zones économiques exclusives (ZEE).

www.kership.com

This page appeared on my screen just after I read your post. Kership90 unsure of the price or manning levels but it "may" fit into the description you listed. They have a number of other designs but this is the biggest OPV

 

[Xthenaki]

Fully agree but even (assumption) that four becomes the new normal again, it's still not enough vessels to monitor non-friendlies conducting FON in the region particularly if they ramped up and deployed multiple task forces or simply only deployed one (or two) that persist for a long period of time.

Not sure if a major combatant would be required all of the time, sometimes (and may be better utilised elsewhere), after all sometimes auxiliaries are also used by navies for presence. So wonder if a potential answer is to look into additional supplementary vessels that are rather basic e.g. OPV like, with long range, low crewing, a basic self-defence system (but with adequate ISR sensor fit-out for the tasks required of it) and with the ability to carry unmanned air/surface/underwater surveillance assets. Ideally costing only (eg) around US$100-200m ea, so several could be potentially acquired? Is there such a thing in existence already (or as a concept) that "we" (i.e. Aus/NZ etc) could look into?

Four frigates - initially two ANZACs that we have plus two to be off the shelf and into service ASAP. As long as the new hulls are big enough, of good design, reliable proven power plant with excess generator output and top VLS capacity that would be a good start. To be part of SEA3000 program would be ideal for the replacement of our ANZAC.s say two at the beginning of the building program and two at the end (Slotting into a continuous new build replacement program - two frigates every eight to twelve years to start with). For NZ;'s future Navy OPV,.s should be upgraded to either frigates (more of) or corvettes.
The expansion into a bigger UAV program with NZ:"s and Aust experience and technology is also the way to go. NZ needs to create a defence industry based on its ability to create hull forms with composite materials (eg. Team NZ) and join up with Aus. AUKUS 2 for the military tech. This needs Govt financial input and direction. I feel that we need to find our niche in the UAV field for our three forces and expanding that is the key.
Expanding our own defence industrial base. A new dock in Northland and the associated engineering is another tangent the govt is exploring.

 

[Catalina]

'Navy more, frigates four'.

Our new defence force budget prioritization.

And so sayest the New Zealand Navalists.

 

[ADMk2]

Well some other Naval planners have considered them worthy of conversation before. Submarines were recommended first by Lord Jellioce post First World War. NZ financially contributed (IIRC) along with Australia to the RN’s 4th Submarine Squadron based in Sydney post Second World War till the RAN achieved it’s own independent capability. Again, in the 1980s the GOTD gave consideration in joining the Collins programme over the Anzacs. Obviously it’s challenging comparing three different eras with their different threats, and within the wider NZDF ecosphere at that time. However, I personally think the strongest case for them is now today.

They have clearly been a desire and logical capability for the Navy given the obvious clear advantages for a maritime nation, even before it was even an independent Navy! Whether we ever see a Kiwi on the side of a conning tower is still a low chance, but I don’t think it’s anywhere near as low as some of the others here.

WRT to funding/crewing/timing I don’t think anyone relalistically is expecting miracles nor anything before the late 2030s. Everyone excepts there would and need to be trade offs. Finally we are at about ~1.1%, ‘getting close to 2%’ by 2030 and sustaining that as Luxon has indicated (yes yes, we know) would go a hell of a long way for an improved Navy with Frigates, OPVs and (and maybe) SSKs over the next decades.

Finally within the wider NZDF consider this.

I’ll quote Richard Marles to Sky News yesterday (25th Feb), when describing the extra billions to be spent on maintaining the RAN’s aging fleet of SSKs, ‘more than any other capability that we operate, it is the one which gives any advisary pause for thought, it is the one, which projects our nation the furtherest, it is utterly utterly essential we maintain this capability going forward’.

The interviewer then went on describe them as ‘Australia’s most important strategic deterrence’.

‘Gives any advisary pause for thought’ and ‘strategic deterrence’ are the exact words to describe future capabilities we will need to consider given what we are facing now. Appreciate apples and oranges wrt to ADF vs NZDF, but realistically what else can really a make a Chinese Admiral think twice. The strategy of just assuming the US navy will get in the way isn’t as full prof as it was pre Trump. Everything needs to be re- prioritised. With priority one - denying our sealanes to an enemy. Priority two - refer to priority one.

I don’t have a problem with RNZN operating submarines, but they never have. Their resourcing, personnel levels and capability needs certainly don’t indicate any likelihood of doing so in any foreseeable future.

NZ is struggling to man it’s current ships and is struggling to fund replacements for it’s existing ships and for basic supporting capabilities such as maritime helicopters.

There aren’t funds appearing for a submarine fleet for NZ. Period.

 

[StevoJH]

There is no way that the RAN could afford to give up an early build slot for Mogami (if that’s what is ordered), the RAN is already going to shrink significantly before numbers start to increase.

Depending on how the Japanese build program goes they may be able fit a couple of New Zealand ships into the program.

Alternatively maybe Babcock could add additional units onto the end of their Type 31 build or additional units could be added to the Polish build.

 

[Xthenaki]

1st paragraph I understand completely.
Japanese build program - may suit us for delivery early to mid 2030;'s (say frigates 3 and 4)
So Babcock, Polish build or another (South Korea) now that they appear to have stopped the infighting between the top shipbuilders and have agreed to work together for naval contracts might be the best option for our immediate future with the shortest or quickest delivery option for Frigate 1 or both 1 and 2.

 

[Xthenaki]

Manning shortages - We need a faster turnaround with maintenance upgrades and programs to enable more sea time with our 2nd ANZAC. Ideally future frigate personal need frigate experience even if that is staggered. The GOD need to put their hands in their pockets and provide the incentives needed to kick start a more positive employment program.

 

[Catalina]

We need a faster turnaround with maintenance upgrades and programs to enable more sea time

Hi Xthenaki.

Isn't Australia to build 8 new general purpose frigates at Henderson?
Could it be of advantageous in ordering our 4 new frigates from there too?

 

[Catalina]

‘Gives any advisary pause for thought’ and ‘strategic deterrence’ are the exact words to describe future capabilities we will need to consider given what we are facing now. Appreciate apples and oranges wrt to ADF vs NZDF, but realistically what else can really a make a Chinese Admiral think twice. The strategy of just assuming the US navy will get in the way isn’t as full prof as it was pre Trump. Everything needs to be re- prioritised. With priority one - denying our sealanes to an enemy. Priority two - refer to priority one.

Gidday Gidday Challenger,

Thank you for your excellent history and advocacy of submarines for New Zealand use. Although I have a military soft spot for submarines, SSKs are most effective in maritime choke points and littoral zones, and as such are geographically more suited to the Australian maritime environment with its many choke points and islands to its north, such as the Jomard Passage, Lombok Strait, Sundra Strait, and the Straits of Malacca, than the vast distances of the wide open maritime Realm of New Zealand. The comments of others, perhaps best summarized by ADMk2 as "There aren’t funds appearing for a submarine fleet for NZ. Period." is realistic

We do need to be able to protect our shipping as well as attacking the enemy's shipping. Multipurpose combat frigates, equipped with helicopters and drones allow for this. Four combat frigates are needed.

You are correct that as the Trump winds of isolationism and global withdraw blow stronger and stronger, we do have to assume that in the future we may not be able to rely on the USN.

This is a chilling thought and gives further strength to the call for future New Zealand defence funding catch cry for the public as
Navy more, Frigates four.