Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[Todjaeger]

A quick replay, then I'll agree to disagree:
- your examples of current recruitment issues are yesterdays problems from the past 2 decades with a record low defence vote, old ships, unattractive terms of service, and a lack of political will to change policy
- to your list of auxiliary support boats that require personnel are Mine Warfare vessels; I'm not disagreeing they are important, but I am pointing out the real work of a fighting navy are the combat forces, which in our case is likely to remain FF based and the only NZ war fighting capability
- todays problem is rebuilding what is arguable a broken system (EG. HMNZS Manawanui); however, recently we have seen increases in expenditure, bipartisan recognition of our deteriorating strategic outlook, and some limited numbers of new equipment
- If the new FFGs are replaced ASAP with shiny boats, defence vote continues to increase, and service terms and conditions are restored, I belief that the recruiting mountain will come to Muhammad (IE. the youngsters will come flocking in)

I think your realist label is the current problem in NZGov, MFAT, and MoD/NZDF. The warriors have long gone (Our anti-nuclear policy has produced a warped assessment of our environment; RNZN strip mined; Army high intensity capability just not; RNZAF without air power) with positions staffed by brow beaten seat warmers. I'd argue that the above talk of Sea Captor and FFGs, which don't get me wrong is fascinating but ultimately similar to my J-10C v Rafale analogy, is pointless without allowing for our current and projected strategic situation.

Unlike the past few decades of 'peace' (for the lovies) we are now entering a period of having to resist CCP domination in both soft power (Magic Weapons) and realistically hard kinetic power. So that is my context for a 6 FFG RNZN over the next 15 years. I will understand if people reject this, or believe that the CCP are our mates (PM Clark and Key) but new NZGov and MoD policy has been consistently alarmed about our deteriorating strategic situation.

I tend to classify myself as a realist FWIW. With that in mind, I also do not see the RNZN being able to get to a six frigate navy in 15 years. Right now NZ might even find it hard to remain a two frigate navy over the next ten years.

There does seem to have been some movement in the right direction in terms of both funding and attitudes generally, but the big issue from my perspective has entirely to do with time. Who has designs which would be at least somewhat relevant and of interest to NZ? Out of these, who has production capacity (both of overall vessels as well as long lead time shipboard systems) available to start a build for NZ? From this now smaller list, who can produce a design which NZ could bring into service (which means not just the vessel itself, but have operators and maintainers familiar with and able to operate/maintain/support everything including spares & parts) within a decade from now?

With each iteration of question, the pool of potential candidates gets smaller and smaller. Two ships in ten years could be a problem, an additional four ships beyond that over the next five years is IMO even more of a problem. That is also before taking into account any issues with being able to crew and maintain a force of six frigates. The most junior officers and ratings could likely be taken in and trained fairly quickly to reach at least some of those numbers required. However the more senior ratings and officers take years of training and experience to be ready for important postings aboard frigate.

I had previously suggested that NZ might be able to get some ex-RAN frigates towards the end of the currently planned SEA 3000 build programme, but IF that were to happen, the frigates built in Japan would likely not be available until towards the end of the 2040's or early 2050's, which is more like 23 - 26 years from now, not 15.

Further thoughts. If NZ were to increase the size of the RNZN, then base infrastructure would also likely need to be improved/increased/expanded, which would also incur further cost increases atop those needed to increase the number of personnel and the number of vessels,

All of this is potentially achievable, but one cannot ignore the fact that NZ has shown a historical reluctance over the last 30+ years to resource Defence appropriately.

 

[Bluey 006]

AFAIK that is correct, however LockMart/Sikorsky still has versions of the S-70 in production and a customer has quite a very capability requirements which they can request so a new S-70 order could likely be spec'd to be an equivalent to a MH-60S.

It would be surprising if Lockheed Martin/Sikorsky hasn’t already developed and will eventually mass market a modernised utility variant based on the Romeo, given its widespread global adoption and proven naval capabilities. With many countries operating the MH-60R and, in the maritime domain at least, moving away from European platforms like the NH90, there is a clear and low-risk market opportunity for a utility-focused variant.

Something like a MH-60U or MH-60R Block III, offering modular cabin configurations for troop transport, SAR, special operations, maritime strike, medevac, mine warfare, drone control, and logistics support, all while using the same rugged, marinised, and familiar, ship-compatible airframe.

Such a variant would likely appeal to many U.S. allies seeking a high level of fleet commonality, simplified training, and reduced sustainment costs.

Meanwhile, the Future Vertical Lift (FVL-MS) program, though promising, remains uncertain and will likely face some further delays, especially for non-U.S. customers, who may not receive deliveries until well into the 2040s or 2050s, if at all. Even then the platform is expected to be very expensive, and may be out of reach for some.

In this context, an updated Romeo-derived utility variant could fill critical capability gaps in the 2030s/40s, aligning with global defence needs and budget constraints across the board. It could also complement FVL-MS in the broader U.S. fleet as part of a hi-lo mix.

 

[Gooey]

I tend to classify myself as a realist FWIW. With that in mind, I also do not see the RNZN being able to get to a six frigate navy in 15 years. Right now NZ might even find it hard to remain a two frigate navy over the next ten years.

I had previously suggested that NZ might be able to get some ex-RAN frigates towards the end of the currently planned SEA 3000 build programme, but IF that were to happen, the frigates built in Japan would likely not be available until towards the end of the 2040's or early 2050's, which is more like 23 - 26 years from now, not 15.

Further thoughts. If NZ were to increase the size of the RNZN, then base infrastructure would also likely need to be improved/increased/expanded, which would also incur further cost increases atop those needed to increase the number of personnel and the number of vessels,

All of this is potentially achievable, but one cannot ignore the fact that NZ has shown a historical reluctance over the last 30+ years to resource Defence appropriately.

If I may be blunt, does a realist recognise the CCP threat over the next 30-50 years with a plan to develop a combat capable RNZN or say my pint is half full and it's all too difficult?

You're right, I should have said 15 years, having not looked at a fag packet schedule; below.

From ukdj article and comments about a Type 31 production article, from Jan 2025:
"Probably we are going to see actual worked up operational ships ( not just commissioned)

Venture 2028/2029
Active 2029
Formidable 2029/30
Bulldog 2030/2031
Campbeltown 2031/32

Then tie that in with the likely dates each T26 becomes operational
Glasgow 2028
Cardiff 2029
Belfast 2030/31
Brimigham 2032/3
Sheffield 2033/4
Newcastle 2034/5
Edinburgh 2035/6
London 2036/7"

Allowing for my limited research, based on the above I see the the last RN Type 31 finishes production in 2029. Without saying this basic type (UK systems, no ASW, limited radar etc) or the Type 26 (UK systems, specialist role, basic radar/self defence) are the answer for RNZN, the following schedule shows 6 RNZN FFG by 2040.
- First NZ FFG finish build/ initial operation 2030/2033 (T31 no 1)
- Replacement FFG for ANZAC no 1 build/operation 2031/2034 (T31 no 2)
- Replacement FFG for ANZAC no 2 build/operation 2032/2035 (T31 no 3)
- Fourth NZ FFG build/operation 2036/2038 (T26 no 1)
- Fifth NZ FFG build/operation 2037/2039 (T26 no 2)
- Sixth NZ FFG build/operation 2038/2040 (T26 no 3)

Obviously, infrastructure, like recruiting, logistics, and training would start now IOT meet the 3rd frigate 2033 dates and the follow on vessels.

I'd be tempted to standardise any RNZN Type 26 and 31 fit-outs to have a closer RAN systems integration/compatible with:
- Saab CMS
- CEA radars
- NSM, ESSM II and SM-2 weapons as well as Sea Ceptor
- RAN/USN/FVEY Comms, EW, and TDL
Noting that this would add to risk, cost, and possibly/definitely schedules. It would need to be traded ... obv's, as the kids say.

I am in total and wild agreement with you statement that our national system has woefully neglected national security since the mid 80's. This has seen a destructive collapse of NZDF capability, by both major parties. Perhaps I am too optimistic that NZ is now reversing this disaster.

 

[Todjaeger]

If I may be blunt, does a realist recognise the CCP threat over the next 30-50 years with a plan to develop a combat capable RNZN or say my pint is half full and it's all too difficult?

You're right, I should have said 15 years, having not looked at a fag packet schedule; below.

From ukdj article and comments about a Type 31 production article, from Jan 2025:
"Probably we are going to see actual worked up operational ships ( not just commissioned)

Venture 2028/2029
Active 2029
Formidable 2029/30
Bulldog 2030/2031
Campbeltown 2031/32

Then tie that in with the likely dates each T26 becomes operational
Glasgow 2028
Cardiff 2029
Belfast 2030/31
Brimigham 2032/3
Sheffield 2033/4
Newcastle 2034/5
Edinburgh 2035/6
London 2036/7"

Allowing for my limited research, based on the above I see the the last RN Type 31 finishes production in 2029. Without saying this basic type (UK systems, no ASW, limited radar etc) or the Type 26 (UK systems, specialist role, basic radar/self defence) are the answer for RNZN, the following schedule shows 6 RNZN FFG by 2040.
- First NZ FFG finish build/ initial operation 2030/2033 (T31 no 1)
- Replacement FFG for ANZAC no 1 build/operation 2031/2034 (T31 no 2)
- Replacement FFG for ANZAC no 2 build/operation 2032/2035 (T31 no 3)
- Fourth NZ FFG build/operation 2036/2038 (T26 no 1)
- Fifth NZ FFG build/operation 2037/2039 (T26 no 2)
- Sixth NZ FFG build/operation 2038/2040 (T26 no 3)

Obviously, infrastructure, like recruiting, logistics, and training would start now IOT meet the 3rd frigate 2033 dates and the follow on vessels.

I'd be tempted to standardise any RNZN Type 26 and 31 fit-outs to have a closer RAN systems integration/compatible with:
- Saab CMS
- CEA radars
- NSM, ESSM II and SM-2 weapons as well as Sea Ceptor
- RAN/USN/FVEY Comms, EW, and TDL
Noting that this would add to risk, cost, and possibly/definitely schedules. It would need to be traded ... obv's, as the kids say.

I am in total and wild agreement with you statement that our national system has woefully neglected national security since the mid 80's. This has seen a destructive collapse of NZDF capability, by both major parties. Perhaps I am too optimistic that NZ is now reversing this disaster.

In my experience, a realist would demand to know who drank from their pint/glass/bottle, but that might just be me.

I see your timeline and note something is missing. Namely that the production schedule for the RN does not include the Type 32 frigate which, whilst still awaiting design selection, looks likely that the only UK facility with open production slots in the timeframe needed would be Babcock International, Rosyth. The place where the RN Type 31's are currently being built. BAE Systems in Glasgow look to be occupied with the Type 26 until the mid-2030's and after that, the RN is looking to have construction for the Type 83 destroyer which I suspect would need to also happen at BAE in Glasgow.

Right now it does not look like all UK shipbuilding is contracted for the 2030's, so there might be a window where NZ could get an order placed and contracts signed, which might also be able to meet the in service time required to replace the existing RNZN frigates. If (again, big IF) this is a possibility, then the NZ Gov't needs to act and act now. I also do not think that NZ could get an order for as many as six frigates in, because again the RN is supposed to selecting a design for the Type 32 and then ordering five of those frigates to supplement the five Type 31's currently under construction.

Of the Euro yards, I tend to suspect that Spain or Germany will be most likely to have capacity available though delivering a six frigate build in 15 years might be beyond them as well. One needs to remember that with basically every build, there will be long lead items which need to get ordered sufficiently ahead of construction so that the items can be delivered for installation at the appropriate times. Looking at the UK orders, at least some of those long lead items need to get ordered two years before the start of construction of the intended ship, and that the actual construction of a modern warship itself takes several years from first steel cut to the completion of fitting out and commissioning. Looking at the lead Type 31, it looks like the total construction process will take over five years from first steel to commissioning, and it took nearly two years to go from the order getting placed to first steel getting cut.

Right now I am not bothering to worry about the RNZN getting to be a six frigate navy, as am far more concerned about it being able to sustain itself as a two frigate navy. Time is ticking by, potential threats (and conflict) appears to be increasing in both number and capability, whilst available production and manufacturing which could provide kit needed in a conflict is getting spoken for.

 

[spoz]

Japan is building Mogamis in two yards, and may have the potential to build in others. The Japanese government might well see it to be in their national interest to have one of those yards build ships for NZ, even if that required them to take up JMSDF slots. Or, given their strategic situation, that a third yard caple of building them would be in their national interest. Plus of course there is the possibility of building in South Korea to one of their designs. Korea has experience in both exporting warships and delivering to NZ, and NZ has experience in dealing with Korean shipbuilders. So there are a number of possible win/win scenarios available, at least potentially, in east Asia.

 

[Aluminium Hail]

Another thing to consider wrt UK type 26 is whether Norway places an order for it. They are looking at 5 or 6 new ships and the type 26 is apparently a favored option. That would probably torpedo any NZ option on that ship.

The more I've thought about this (as a layperson) the more it seems the options are something continental Europe, the Japanese adding another shipyard for Mogami, or South Korea. If Japan can't add another production line then the options become rather limited.

I wonder what info Aus can provide regarding MEKO A200/A210 proposal?

 

[Reptilia]

The Japanese have 3 yards MHI-Nagasaki, MHI-Tamano and Japan Marine United.

 

[Todjaeger]

Right now I am not bothering to worry about the RNZN getting to be a six frigate navy, as am far more concerned about it being able to sustain itself as a two frigate navy. Time is ticking by, potential threats (and conflict) appears to be increasing in both number and capability, whilst available production and manufacturing which could provide kit needed in a conflict is getting spoken for.

I wanted to expand upon this, so that others could better understand where I am coming from and then either poke holes in my thinking or provide better information.

As mentioned, the current RNZN plans are to replace the current frigates by the mid-2030's, with 2035 looking to be the latest date. In order for a 2035 out of service date to be achieved for the class, the 2nd frigate replacement would need to ready to enter service. This in turn would mean that not only has the vessel been completed and finished the various acceptance trials, but there would also need to be a crew for the vessel which is also familiar with the vessel, it's layout and systems. Now I am not entirely sure how long it would take a new crew to become familiar with a new class of vessel, but I would anticipate that the better part of a year of training and drills might be needed. This in turn would suggest then that the 2nd replacement vessel would likely need to be finished some time in 2034 or possibly even 2033 to provide enough time to for the RNZN crew to build familiarity.

Now, in order for construction of a frigate to finish by 2034 it would probably need to have construction commence by 2032, though it could also very easily need to start earlier. Looking at info on the future HMS Formidable, the third Type 31 frigate, first steel was cut in October 2024 and the expectation at that time was that construction would take four years. Side note, it looks like completion of the RN's Type 31 build programme has slipped by at least a few months though I tend to suspect the slippage might end up being closer to a year or two.

In order for a ship to have construction start by 2032, long lead items would likely need to be ordered by 2029/2030, and also this is making the assumption that a yard could turn out a frigate in a two year timespan. Should the total build time be something closer to three or four years, that would push up when the long lead items need to be ordered. Before any of those long lead items would be ordered, contracts would need to have been signed by NZ ordering the frigates to get built in the first place. Also remember, this would all be for the 2nd replacement frigate, the first replacement frigate would have to have been ordered even earlier, though how much earlier would depend on the facility's ability to have multiple vessels under construction concurrently.

Doing the math roughly, and making quite a few assumptions, I tend to think that NZ would need to have signed contracts and placed orders for a new frigates to be built by ~2027 in order for the current frigates to be decommissioned by 2035. That leaves a window of 15 to 26 months for NZ to decide what is needed, make get information from vendors, make a selection and finish contract negotiations. Thus my belief that NZ really needs to get moving on getting something selected and ordered.

If the preferred yard and design is one that actually takes even longer to build and/or the facility does not have much capacity for simultaneous production, then things need to happen even earlier.

 

[spoz]

The Japanese have 3 yards MHI-Nagasaki, MHI-Tamano and Japan Marine United.

True, but so far they have only built in the two MHI yards, although they do have a contract (for one ship only ATM as I understand it) with JMU. MHI is building the RAN’s. I don’t think you can count JMU as being in series production yet.

 

[Gooey]

As mentioned, the current RNZN plans are to replace the current frigates by the mid-2030's, with 2035 looking to be the latest date. In order for a 2035 out of service date to be achieved for the class, the 2nd frigate replacement would need to ready to enter service.

Doing the math roughly, and making quite a few assumptions, I tend to think that NZ would need to have signed contracts and placed orders for a new frigates to be built by ~2027 in order for the current frigates to be decommissioned by 2035.

Thanks Todjaeger

I don't know anything about the RNZN surface fleet review, that has been mentioned by a number of call signs on this forum, but IOT meet the 2035 timelines it would require significant answers to these questions.

After blagging off 'realists' and been on the receiving end of 16 years of financial disaster to financial disaster during my RAF time, I had assumed Type 32 was aspirational. The most likely follow on to Type 31 being some batch 2 ships.

Finally, 24 hours is a long time in fantasy ship building scheduling for the RNZN! I see Norway has announced 10b UKP/5 Type 26 contract.

 

[Todjaeger]

Thanks Todjaeger

I don't know anything about the RNZN surface fleet review, that has been mentioned by a number of call signs on this forum, but IOT meet the 2035 timelines it would require significant answers to these questions.

After blagging off 'realists' and been on the receiving end of 16 years of financial disaster to financial disaster during my RAF time, I had assumed Type 32 was aspirational. The most likely follow on to Type 31 being some batch 2 ships.

Finally, 24 hours is a long time in fantasy ship building scheduling for the RNZN! I see Norway has announced 10b UKP/5 Type 26 contract.

As I understand it, currently the RN wants to increase the overall size/number of the surface escort fleet beyond the 19 currently planned for between the Type 45, the Type 26 and the Type 31. The notional Type 32 GP frigate is to further boost the numbers to get the fleet to ~24 surface escorts.

Back in 2021 it as mentioned that one possibility for the Type 32 might actually just be a build of Type 31 Batch 2 vessels, and indeed the Babcock offering for the Type 32 is based upon the Arrowhead 140 design, just like the Type 31.

From a NZ perspective though, if UK yards end up getting orders booked and run out of build slots with delivery dates on/before NZ needs to have new vessels in service then it would not really matter how good or appropriate a design potentially is. Hence part of being a realist, recognition that there are circumstances outside of NZ's control that will impact the RNZN getting replacement frigates and the closer the date where the replacements need to be in service, the less control and fewer options NZ will have.

One interesting thing I did come across was that apparently back in October 2023, Babcock apparently started putting together a bid for the RNZN using the Type 31, including looking for NZ-based entities to build a domestic supply chain. That was nearly two years ago which could potentially be enough time for decisions to get made so announcements might come out soon, possibly. I certainly hope something gets announced soon, as I feel NZ is running out of time.

 

[Aerojoe]

During the 1980's the average defence spending was 2.5% GDP over twice what he last decade produced with a high of 3% early in the decade and a low of 2.2%. During that period the navy got 2 replacement frigates (second hand) and a new tanker and additional smaller craft, the army got 24 light tanks, new artillery, new rifles, new trucks, new radio's and much more. the air force got an additional P3 plus an upgrade for them additional Skyhawks plus an upgrade, new Jet training aircraft new weapons and other additions. and this all happened in a ten year period.
Let me know how the keyboard goes down,

Thanks Rob. The keyboard tastes likes shit but I'm happy to eat it given there is a modern-day precedent albeit 40 years ago.

My concerns still remain. Can anyone in this group in all honesty say that this government (or any likely combination of the opposition in the next 6 years because regardless of what you may think of the GOTD a 3-term government is unheard of) will be only too happy to sign up to a Defence spend (capital not to mention the operational increase) for 6 new FFG (not second-hand) to replace 2 FFG and 2 OPV plus more MH-60R, plus Canterbury's replacement and the SOPV?

What sort of spend to GDP (remember this is one third of Defence) would be required to achieve this Navy capital procurement and the ongoing operational budget? I don't imagine there would be much, if any, change out of 3% and given the ongoing and increasing pressures for health, education and infrastructure I struggle to see the future New Zealand political environment accommodating this.

If our economy somehow hockey-sticks (can't say I've seen any economist forecast that) then I'll be the first cheering in the street for a Defence:GDP spend >3% but until hospital weight-lists show some sign of improving, firefighters, teachers and nurses stop protesting over wages and conditions, and major businesses stop complaining about infrastructure holding back business development it all feels a bit too much like pipe dreams.

 

[Lucasnz]

The discussion around the time frames for building a new fleet have been really informative. In terms of future ships, the area I struggle with in regard to the Mogami (at present - maybe I'm getting too old) and the small size of the NZ fleet is the lack of ability to provide at sea qualification, on the basis of publicly available information regarding bunk numbers. A full-size Bridge, Ops Room and Engineering plant simulator would be useful, but doesn't solve everything. Perhaps this is where the 60-wartime crew and 30 under training makes up the numbers - insufficient detail to determine from what I've read so far. Assuming my assumption is correct (and it is that based on the known details I've been able to find) that lends itself to at least three - four classes of ships (FFG, LPD, AOR and OPV), something the navy is keen to reduce. I'd be happy with 3 Mogami and 4-6 more capable OPV / Mil spec Crossover type vessels.

That said I have increasingly come to see one of the biggest stumbling blocks to growing the fleet and maintaining the engineering skill base is the current legislation around recruitment and being generally, with some exceptions being able to discharge with a minimum of three months' notice. The navy has stumbled from one manpower crisis to another since 1978 when the 8-year contracts were abolished. What is needed is fixed term contracts with more limited grounds for release (i.e. compassionate and surplus in rank and trade), with people otherwise been retained. Non-Tech trades could be 4 years from completion of basic training and 6 years for technical staff, and 10 years for officers.