And the crewing for all this?
Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
The expected response of belittling and ignoring as a means of avoidance rather than answer the fundamental question that calls into doubt the wish list that appeared above the cursory reference to "long-term planning for..."
And to add, there is a need for some in this group to avoid creating an echo-chamber devoid of connection to the realities of the current economic and political environment influencing the defence spending decision of any GOTD - simply look at the cartoon in the DomPost today if you don't understand.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Looks like you are referring to the Japanese New FFM build slots for the RAN (with the potential option of MHI following on for the RNZN). I'm doubtful anyone here can say with any certainty or with any authority (i.e. not unless they are connected to Govt/Defence/MHI) but we can all offer opinions so here is mine which is .... "now/soon" and "it depends".
"Now/soon" because if the 3rd RAN New FFM is being ordered "now" with a delivery date of 2033 (as per Reptilia's post) then it seems plausible that NZ would need to order now (2025) otherwise soon (2026) to achieve a 2035 delivery date (I'm basing this as per Reptilia' post of a two-year delivery schedule for the RAN i.e. 2029/2031/2033 and that 2025 is an indicative replacement date for the RNZN's first ANZAC FFH.
"It depends" is because the Japanese Govt has bent over backwards to accommodate the Australian Govt order (IMO) due to the numbers being sought (11 in total), Japan-Australia's close defence ties, the strategic environment both countries face with the same "adversary" and industrial collaboration and resilience. There may not be the same urgency to accommodate NZ's "smaller" requirements i.e. IIRC Japan is giving up some of their build slots to accommodate the order for the RAN - can Japan further afford to delays to their own Navy shipbuilding plans? OTOH perhaps Japan has the capacity to increase production for themselves and ourselves (and any potential follow on orders for Australia and other ASEAN nations) and my guess is the Japanese Govt would be more than happy to accommodate NZ's needs where it can (as the Japan-NZ relationship is also relatively good).
Now I could be wrong but my reading of the situation, based on the odd throw-away comment from the NZ Govt's PM and DefMin (and MSM speculation - although that is all it is as there is nothing concrete to base the MSM's speculation on i.e. they state something as a matter of fact without explaining their reasoning) is that the NZ Govt is interested in working closely with the Australian Govt on replacement options (and that they want to increase NZ industrial participation for when increasing defence expenditure) ... which suggests they are assessing joining the Australian build programme as a possible favorable option. If that is the case I'm not sure anyone here can say anything definitive yet until there is a Govt announcement but for example what will be the costs (for Australian domestic builds compared to Japanese builds); does the build timelines align for both nations; will there be NZ industrial input, if so, what/where/how much; what if there are delays ... as NZ's ANZAC's were part of the ANZAC project's first batch of four (and the first vessel HMAS ANZAC has already been retired, with the third build HMAS Arunta being retired within a couple of years). OTOH the RNZN ANZAC's are being periodically upgraded in order to have a longer life ... suggest by the late 2020's we'll have a clearer understanding of how successful this will be.
I also wouldn't necessarily discount the AH140 option yet. Apparently Babcock's last Type 31 for the RN will be completed in 2029 meaning NZ could potentially start acquiring replacement vessels in the very early 2030's. Which surely has some advantages if the two ANZAC's need to be retired earlier than what was planned for in the mid-2030's. Babcock has also been pro-actively building connections with NZ industries to participate in the build or sustainment programme (and they have had a long association with the RNZN dockyard in Auckland).
Anyway these are some ideas and other people here will have theirs.
IIRC the Maritime Fleet Renewal project is expected to make some recommendations to Govt this year, if that's the case we may have some clearer answers by the end of the year (or early-ish next year perhaps).
Last edited:
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
A valid point. We do know that the Govt is funding an increase in personnel numbers across Defence (and I did see the DefMin stating the Army training courses will be doubled in 2026).
Navy though does have issues with retaining critical skillsets that allow ships to sail, no doubt this is being addressed ... particularly with plans to consolidate fleet types and automation.
We've been here before, prior to WW2 when the GOTD decided it would be quicker and less risky to prioritise expanding offensive air-power (over expanding the Navy) and frankly I believe we should be looking at NZ's future maritime defence (and offensive) as a combination of both, which we are. We need both but more could be done to increase air-capabilities, IMO. Perhaps that's what the planned strike across domain refers to in the DCP?
Recce. Thank you for such a thorough response clearly identifying where uncertainty remains and what information/assumptions underlie your own views. I worry that a 2026 decision is unlikely given the election year and these are not the sort of spending decisions any MoF (regardless of stripe) want in their election year Budget.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I would argue that there are a few things we (or at least those of us who have been paying attention) can state with some certainty.
NZ not getting Hunter-class frigates is one of those things. It is not an issue of budget, personnel, or even diplomacy. Rather, the problem is timing. The RNZN's ANZAC-class frigates are currently supposed to be getting replaced in the mid-2030's though TBH they might need to get replaced before then. Around that time, the RAN will have started receiving their Hunter-class frigates, but likely only one or two of them and the order book likely to run until the early/mid-2040's. Given RAN needs, I cannot see Australia giving up production slots for their premier ASW frigate and given RNZN needs, I cannot foresee them being able to wait until after the RAN order is finished to start getting new frigates.
Also, even if NZ decided to go with a larger, two frigate-class navy with more of both types, I do not see a realistic way for Australia to build 'extra' Hunter-class frigates for NZ. Once the truncated RAN FFG order is completed, the yard would need to start producing the replacement for the Hobart-class DDG as those ships will be nearing 30 years and we have already seen that they have space and displacement issues which have complicated upgrades and modernization work already. As such, I do not see 20 more years that type problem getting better for the class.
Also, the new yard which is to be producing the Australian side of the RAN Mogami-class frigate order is likely (unless the entire programme falls over, still a possibility IMO) to be running until the early 2050's to fulfill the RAN order. This in turn means that a yard in WA would not be able to start producing a new DDG design for delivery in the mid-2040's or thereabouts, because it would still be actively working on the SEA 3000 order.
Basically it looks like Australia warship production, assuming things run more or less smoothly (hah!) and does not run into problems, is more or less spoken for until some time 2050's and that the most recent Australian warship production at that point would be whatever the replacement DDG design ends up being, and the Mogami-class or possibly a follow-on to that.
With NZ needing to get new warships in a decade or less, I cannot really see NZ being able to wait until 2050+ for build slots in Australia to become available. Even if NZ did end up deciding to expand the overall size of the fleet AND was able to get orders placed for Australian production post-2050, I cannot see NZ being willing and able to pay all the costs which would be involved to restart production for a design which last was produced five or maybe even as many as ten years before.
It would seem the most logical solution would be for NZ to place orders for a Japanese shipyard Mogami build, to similar configuration to what they build Australian ships, or any latter configuration suitable at that future time.
It combines potential build slot efficiency, probable cheaper costs and compatibility with Australian assets which eases logistics and training burdens.
…..I appreciate logic and practice are not always the same thing.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Honestly I think that NZ will have to place an order with either a Japanese, S. Korean or Euro yard, and do so soon, in order to make an in-service replacement date of 2035. Australian and North American yards look like they will already have their hands full trying to meet their respective domestic naval construction demands. To be fair, I also am uncertain that the planned new WA yard will be ready and able to provide the domestic Mogami-class production currently planned for, and I suspect that Australia might need to order a few more units to be built overseas.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Thoroughly agree with your points, particularly with the issue of "timing", glad you said it as I didn't want to ... as much as I'd like to see, in an ideal world, a RNZN Hunter variant for closer interoperability, timing wise (nevermind costs) it just does not look practical at all and can be ruled out.
I also agree there could be risk (for NZ) with an Australian New FFM build in terms of a "smooth production" run, as per the reasons some commentators in the RAN thread have been pointing out including yourself (eg shipyard readiness and experience), and potential cost or delivery overruns as a result .... so I do have some small doubts but personally myself I wouldn't quite rule this option out just yet i.e. not until Australia and/or NZ Govt says one way or another - both sides have made very quiet noises about it but until something concrete comes out I'll put it in the "let's wait and see" category.
After all pollies being pollies, will (could) sell/talk this up and most of them may not be around by the time the programme is underway if there are difficulties encountered in the 2030's. So for it to work (for NZ) it would mean NZ obtaining a vessel part way through the programme and not at the end. But that of course depends on what and how the Australian Govt prioritises the programme for its own naval needs, which is the over-riding priority, but still ... I can see the pollies scratching each others backs if it's in their interests (and not necessarily Defence) after all it seems to come naturally for some reason!
Just as a side note on the Mogami SAM discussion, it's worth pointing out that while Aus ships will be compatible with ESSM Blk2, Japanese Mogamis and upgraded Mogamis will instead be fitted with the Type 23 ship-to-air missile. This is an advanced missile, created by taking an upgraded version of the Chu-SAM Kai used by the JGSDF and attaching it to the top of the Type 07 ASROC rocket booster. This missile has a range of 100 - 120km, an active AESA radar homing head and an advanced track-via-missile datalink.
An upgraded version of this missile is in development to give anti-ballistic and hypersonic missile capability.
Before someone asks, no it can't be quad packed in the mk41 VLS.
An upgraded version of this missile is in development to give anti-ballistic and hypersonic missile capability.
Before someone asks, no it can't be quad packed in the mk41 VLS.