Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Understanding that this is a RNZN thread, I'll sail on anyway with pleasure:

Nga. ACF: It will cost approximately $8 billion and take a minimum of 10 - 15 years to stand up a viable ACF. We don't have the money, nor the time, so that money is better invested in other more pertinent NZDF capabilities.

I note that:
- ANZAC FFH replacement will be in the same expenditure/time envelope, if not more so; does that mean we should ignore their 4 - 6 unit replacement too; I would assume not, so why use this as an argument when ACF may also be a critical/cost effective NZ maritime war fighting capability?
- DCP is looking at some sort of long range fires, in the future, separate to possible FF/P-8 fires; why would you spend limited $B on a limited role SSM that sits waiting for trade when ACF has (yes you know it) vastly better flexibility, firepower, and speed/range?
- how/when ACF is reinstated into the RNZAF is for the bosses but if the eventual answer is not F-35A, then lets not bother please (I.E., the latest Pakistan/India OCA ding-dong)
But is an ACF cost effective? It is going to cost about $8 billion and take 10 - 15 years for it to be stood up and established to FOC. $8 billion can buy us three frigates and three more P-8A Poseidons, as an example. What are you going to use an ACF for? Our sole ally and our partners already have a goodly supply of fast jets in the region. We don't have an unlimited money pot, so we have to spend what we are given wisely. NZDF has been hollowed out and we have more than one capability issue to address.

ACF discussion belongs in the RNZAF thread not in the RNZN thread. Please stay on topic.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Unfortunately it would make frigates easy prey for subs with slower speed.
Why would it do that? The Royal Danish Navy operate such frigates, especially Arctic waters. HMNZS Aotearoa is ice strengthened and being a tanker is a high priority target.
 

Nighthawk.NZ

Well-Known Member
Pg 25 of budget. So what parts are the decommissioning I assume upgrading the drydock some how... new wharfs/docks maybe

Defence Capability Plan – Future Naval Base Programme –Tranche 1a, Design and Enabling Works

This initiative provides funding for planning, design and decommissioning work at Devonport Naval Base across eight priority projects. This initiative forms the first stage of the Future Naval Base Programme which will regenerate infrastructure at Devonport.


Vote2024/252025/262026/272027/282028/29Operating TotalCapital Total
Defence Force-0.7001.3001.6631.7125.37525.185
 
Last edited:

Lolcake

Active Member
As I have said before, due to our location I think refitted second hand ACF aircraft would be adequate to provide a reasonable level of defence and deterrent for NZ making the cost significantly less.
The other factor is what can we have for a similar cost that would provide a similar level of defence and deterrent. The reality is that introducing a significant upgrade to the NZDF to put it in a position to be an effective defence force with a significant deterrent ability is going to take a significant period of time and budget to achieve meaningful results, something that the recent announcements will not achieve.
Maybe they dust off those F-16s nz were supposed to get 20 odd years ago.

Jokes aside. The facilities, crew and support systems for an acf have long since disappeared or have been severly degraded. It would take a half a decade or more to put up something reasonable and the cost would be crippling
 

Gooey

Well-Known Member
Contrary to popular belief combat drones are not the be all to end all. Such a capability is in its infancy and the NZ government will consider it far to fiscally risky.
At the risk of discussing maritime air capability in a maritime thread, it depends what your combat drone CONOPS are.
The current crop of 'combat drone' Loyal Wingman types (E.G., Ghost Bat) are to augment fighters with additional, closer-in, spear chucking or decoy/comms/EW.
Something like MQ-4C is a specialist ISR platform:
+ve
persistence
coverage
-ve
cost
resources, particularly lots of specialists
less flexible than manned aircraft

I would argue that for NZ, additional P-8 would more efficiently build on the current training, logistics, and operations investments without having to build another niche unit.
 

Warhawk

New Member
Why would it do that? The Royal Danish Navy operate such frigates, especially Arctic waters. HMNZS Aotearoa is ice strengthened and being a tanker is a high priority target.
Current Frigates only have 2x engines double hull required 3 or 4 engines per ship depending on size. I believe next ships down from frigates should be able to dual purpose example patrol/MCM etc .The vessel for patrol in the southern waters should be built to suit conditions.
Why would it do that? The Royal Danish Navy operate such frigates, especially Arctic waters. HMNZS Aotearoa is ice strengthened and being a tanker is a high priority target.
Yes but have 3 or 4 engines to maintain speed of conventional Frigates with 2 engines better have purpose built patrol ship that can multirole .
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Actually, many frigate designs have “3 or 4 engines”. And what does the number matter? OTH why on earth would you want ice strengthened frigates in our part of the world? Unlike the Arctic, the sea ice around Antartica does not present a problem for navigation to anywhere other than Antarctic bases. Further, at present the Antarctic Treaty effectively prevents the operation of ships with significant armament in the Antarctic littoral. NZ has limited finances - and many more important things to spend its money on than making its combat ships ice capable.
 
Top