Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[Todjaeger]

That’s because geography never changes. We are talking about a large north Asian country in both Imperial Japan and modern China.

In addition to this, both heavily rely on sea borne trade and resources. China’s view of Asia and areas they would want to control will therefore end up similar to WW2.

For NZ, the greatest threat is a subdued or controlled Australia. Whatever contributes to our mutual defence should be priority. If NZ can only afford a good surveillance system (P-8, drones etc) and a small offensive navy (2-4 Mogami?) then it still means they can contribute to an ANZAC force.

I tend to think NZ should refocus their army to light/medium amphibious forces. 1-2 commercial built RORO ships for peacetime disaster relief only. Otherwise as much surveillance systems as they can afford. If they can see it, the RAAF can be tasked to destroy it. Even land based HIMARS or similar would be better value than more surface ships that will just get sunk by the PLAN.

The problem (or at least, one of them) I have which an approach and focus as proposed that if one neglects the sea-going forces component, then not only can an island nation become cut off, but also threats to SLOC well outside of the region can effectively cut off NZ or even Oz. Having three or four multi-role frigates with capabilities like that of the Mogami-class can provide NZ some response and persistence capabilities both in the region, as well as an ability to sustain a deployment to areas of interest beyond the immediate region.

Imagine a scenario where or Indian naval or PLAN forces began harassing/targeting shipping transiting the Indian Ocean in an effort to gain an advantage over each other. In such circumstances, some effort to escort merchant shipping might be necessary to ensure that non-aligned/non-involved traffic, ports and trade hubs can remain in operations. It would be reasonable to expect NZ to be able to undertake missions like this, either individually or as part of a larger multi-national TF without providing a vessel that itself would require escort.

Of course one of the major issues facing the NZDF as an entire entity is that given the overall reductions in relative capabilities and budget over successive gov'ts and decades, the NZDF really needs more of everything and also time to relearn or even just develop the necessary skills and doctrine. The problem here then becomes the question, what is the priority?

 

[swerve]

...I tend to think NZ should refocus their army to light/medium amphibious forces. 1-2 commercial built RORO ships for peacetime disaster relief only. ...

Why peacetime disaster relief only? There's a template for commercial ROROs adapted to military use - the UK's Point class. Cargo deck strengthened to take MBTs, military comms. The UK decided two were surplus to requirements & sold them - & one is now used by Singapore's navy. The same minor modifications could be applied to another RORO design, & any ships built would be well-suited to military transport, not just peacetime disaster relief.

I think it's unlikely that the RNZN would have enough use for two such ships, though. They might make sense as a joint RNZN/RAN capability, if the RAN's more purely military vessels (LHDs & LSD) need supplementing.

 

[pea032]

After the Charles Upham, there might be some resistance to acquiring commercial ROROs for the RNZN

 

[StevoJH]

After the Charles Upham, there might be some resistance to acquiring commercial ROROs for the RNZN

The Point class were purpose designed and built for the role, with a commercial operator operating them under contract.

They were not existing commercial hulls purchased and modified.

 

[swerve]

Yes. Based on a commercial design, but with design changes to make it better suited to military use before construction began. They've been successful in service.

 

[spoz]

But they really have very little application to the NZ situation - they are unlikely to want to move a Brigade overseas to a secured port in the immediate future. And the Points are not much use (Militarily) for anything else.

 

[swerve]

Fair enough. I've already said I think such vessels wouldn't really fit the RNZN's needs, except perhaps shared with Australia. In that case, Australia would be the major user.

Mostly, I was just trying to point out that ro-ros in the hands of a navy can be useful for more than just peacetime disaster relief. Germany & Denmark have the ARK agreement, under which commercial operators contract to supply selected ro-ros for military transport. It's been running for a long time, & was renewed last year IIRC. I think they also provide transport for some other NATO members.

The Points have been used for a lot more military purposes than moving whole units overseas. They're used a lot for supplying forces deployed abroad (some rather less than a brigade), & supporting exercises.

 

[Gibbo]

In today's NZ Herald businessdesk ...behind a paywall.... what would these missiles likely be.... NSM?
Defence homing in on Norwegian made missiles for frigates

Now that the article is in the printed herald we can now confirm it is the NSM that RNZN is eyeing up, probably no real surprise. However it also saliently states this hasn't gone to Cabinet & Treasury yet!

 

[Nighthawk.NZ]

Now that the article is in the printed herald we can now confirm it is the NSM that RNZN is eyeing up, probably no real surprise. However it also saliently states this hasn't gone to Cabinet & Treasury yet!

Article behind pay wall... :-(

 

[John Fedup]

Article behind pay wall... :-(

A trend that is increasing daily....

 

[recce.k1]

Quote:

Sources with knowledge of the process have confirmed that Cabinet has not yet signed off on the purchase of the NSM; however, the acquisition is actively being considered.

A Business Case is standard and as Challenger states if the supplier has been on-site only just recently then I think it's fair to say once they finalise their proposal then the MoD will be in a position to advance the business case to Govt for consideration.

I do wonder though if there are any other factors to consider such as the placement of the existing DLF(3b) floating decoy launchers and whether the NSM launchers could co-exist, or perhaps be situated on the quarterdeck behind the bridge instead a la the Greek Meko 200's Harpoon launchers (notwithstanding topweight considerations)? If so, that could potentially free up the b-mount position for other self-defence systems in time (I'm thinking for further drone swarm protection measures).

 

[Gibbo]

Article behind pay wall... :-(

Yep, sorry should've stated the full article was in the weekend's hardcopy paper.

 

[Cadredave]

Quote:

A Business Case is standard and as Challenger states if the supplier has been on-site only just recently then I think it's fair to say once they finalise their proposal then the MoD will be in a position to advance the business case to Govt for consideration.

I do wonder though if there are any other factors to consider such as the placement of the existing DLF(3b) floating decoy launchers and whether the NSM launchers could co-exist, or perhaps be situated on the quarterdeck behind the bridge instead a la the Greek Meko 200's Harpoon launchers (notwithstanding topweight considerations)? If so, that could potentially free up the b-mount position for other self-defence systems in time (I'm thinking for further drone swarm protection measures).

Wasn't this meant to be the original position of our ANZAC Class ships, before RAN changed to just forward of the bridge? TBH its definitely been along time coming lets hope beauraucratic process doesn't get in the way and slow things down.

 

[recce.k1]

Wasn't this meant to be the original position of our ANZAC Class ships, before RAN changed to just forward of the bridge? TBH its definitely been along time coming lets hope beauraucratic process doesn't get in the way and slow things down.

Early renditions show it there - perhaps the DefPros with knowledge of the project can explain the changes?



Was that original position chosen to provide an additional Mk41 VLS (2x 4 cell SD length) option on the fo'c'sle? If so it doesn't show on the above plan. However wonder if 2x ExLS launching systems could be fitted nowadays?

 

[recce.k1]

Anyhoo back to the real world, according to this article two fully outfitted Mogami New FFM's are expected to cost $6-8b. Not clear whether "fully outfitted" also includes the munitions, but if these costs are accurate I would have expected two or three UK T26 batch 2's could be bought for similar costs?

Of course there are also on-going support and sustainment costs to weigh up against the acquisition costs.

So I wonder could it be a case of two or three Mogami's verses three or four AH140's for roughly the same up front costs?

 

[Nighthawk.NZ]

Anyhoo back to the real world, according to this article two fully outfitted Mogami New FFM's are expected to cost $6-8b. Not clear whether "fully outfitted" also includes the munitions, but if these costs are accurate I would have expected two or three UK T26 batch 2's could be bought for similar costs?

Those numbers don't really add up... Australia is paying an estimated $10 billion AUD ($6.5 billion USD) for its initial fleet of Japanese-designed Mogami-class frigates. Even with inflation added and converting to NZD say $1b each is only 2-4 billion depending on how many

I suspect since this article is from South China Morning Post they inflated the cost to try and scare the public into saying that is to expensive... China don't want us spending more money on defence. But I could be wrong.

 

[Todjaeger]

Those numbers don't really add up... Australia is paying an estimated $10 billion AUD ($6.5 billion USD) for its initial fleet of Japanese-designed Mogami-class frigates. Even with inflation added and converting to NZD say $1b each is only 2-4 billion depending on how many

I suspect since this article is from South China Morning Post they inflated the cost to try and scare the public into saying that is to expensive... China don't want us spending more money on defence. But I could be wrong.

Those numbers look like numbers from this Scoop article from 30 Oct 2025. One thing I noted was that the article writer referred to the Improved Mogami-class frigates as being a 'Ferrari' option for the RNZN whilst the Cook Strait ferries were the Toyota Corolla option... IMO the author is certainly entitled to their own opinion, but at the same time the author also seems to spend an awful amount of time talking out of something he should be using to sit.

 

[spoz]

I’m fairly sure the Program cost has gone up to about $20 billion AUD, but you have to remember in Australian Defence accounting terms that includes both the facilities required to support them and through life costs. The two latter are usually assumed to work out at something like the equivalent of the initial procurement cost. So if you just want that, you roughly divide Program cost by two to get the cost of the as built vessels - and you’re back to about $10 billion AUD for the 11 ships; something like $500m USD each. Even at the 20 billion figure, the amortised ship cost is under $1 billion USD each.

You might get a T31 for that, but you certainly won’t get a T26. Last time I saw a costing for them they were well north of 1.3 billion pounds ($1.7 billion or so USD) each; and SFAIK that is shipbuilding cost alone.

 

[Bevan]

Gordon Campbell also wrote the article: "On Having The Backbone To Restrict Our Defence Spending".

On Having The Backbone To Restrict Our Defence Spending

Lynda Topp can look after herself. Yet the rejoinder by Paul Goldsmith to her criticism of our irresponsible spending spree on Defence was so patronising it begs for a rebuttal.

www.scoop.co.nz

My opinion of Gordon Campbell is he would still scream Benign Strategic Environment even if a foreign sub surfaced in the Hauraki Gulf uninvited.

 

[recce.k1]

The US Govt has approved the sale of five MH-60R's and associated equipment and munitions to NZ and a second package for MK 54 torpedoes at an overall cost of US$1.57bn.

Technical Difficulties

Technical Difficulties