Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[Aussie Digger]

Good point re; maintaining obsolete structures. Certainly the AusArmy is taking to the old structure with a knife. Units still belong to the various brigades and corps but in reality the regs and reserves are being re-structured (and in some cases re-roled) to fit into the BattleGroup concept. You're all aware of this I'm sure, but for my mind the US Marine MEU approach to combined arms warfare certainly makes the most sense for most (small to medium) modern armed forces. Certainly with a little reorganisation and some additional lift the NZArmy would be able to replicate the land forces component of a standard BattleGroup. As Lucas suggests re-form into the 3 battlions plus HQ. And then over the next few years procure more C-130 lift (some of the RAAFs H models will do), modern comms, organic air defence and perhaps a larger LPD type ship with onboard C&C facilities. That would leave you with an Army used to working with combined teams, not focused on the old structure and very capable in terms of the regions probable scenarios.

I don't have a HUGE problem with NZ's force structure. For all the hype of Australia's re-org, each battalion will have 3x rifle coy's (no battalion has the full 4 at the moment due to manning issues anyway) a support coy an admin coy and RHQ.

Each Coy will still have 3x rifle platoons, a support section and a Coy HQ. Which is what they've always had. The only real difference will be the additional heavy weapons embedded within the platoons IF that happens. A21 was a "sure thing" too, back in the mid 90's...

NZ will maintain 1x air mobile infantry battalion (with lift capacity provided by NH-90) and 1x motorised battalion, equipped with NZLAV. In effect it will be capable of generating 3-4x battlegroups, depending on whether they are infantry or armour/Cavalry heavy for a particular task.

Australia's Al Muthana taskgroup for example is armour heavy with 2x ASLAV Sqn's deployed, but only 1x infantry company...

The Queens Alexandria Regt will provide lift capacity with NZLAV, just as it used to do with M113, for the light inf btn if necessary, and will probably act as a Cavalry/Armoured Recon force (much like Australia's 2nd Cav Regt) when lift is not required for infantry forces.

As to it's reserve forces, I understand they are particularly undermanned. In that case, I'd recommend "mirroring" the regular structure and only maintain 2x reserve battalions, plus a reserve Cav Regt and artillery and combat support units. These could comprise geographically separated rifle Coy's/Squadrons/Bty's as is done in Australia, but combine under a single Battalion/Regimental command for larger exercises.

If an expansion is needed due to a "serious" threat looming on the horizon each individual rifle company in the reserve units, could be used as a base for expansion. That'd provide an extra 6 inf battalions to NZ's order of battle once achieved, giving them 8 in total, which would be the largest force NZ has deployed since WW2.

It is rare even for a regular infantry battalion, for each company to exercise together much. Company level training makes up the maority of training in Australia and New Zealand armies.

I'm not sure what kind of force you are referring to Whiskeyjack, with your "recon force to tie together" all arms of NZDF. Is there a similar force somewhere you could point out, to illustrate this?

NZ already has capable special forces. I'm sure they do this as part of their operations...

 

[Whiskyjack]

I don't have a HUGE problem with NZ's force structure. For all the hype of Australia's re-org, each battalion will have 3x rifle coy's (no battalion has the full 4 at the moment due to manning issues anyway) a support coy an admin coy and RHQ.

Each Coy will still have 3x rifle platoons, a support section and a Coy HQ. Which is what they've always had. The only real difference will be the additional heavy weapons embedded within the platoons IF that happens. A21 was a "sure thing" too, back in the mid 90's...

NZ will maintain 1x air mobile infantry battalion (with lift capacity provided by NH-90) and 1x motorised battalion, equipped with NZLAV. In effect it will be capable of generating 3-4x battlegroups, depending on whether they are infantry or armour/Cavalry heavy for a particular task.

Australia's Al Muthana taskgroup for example is armour heavy with 2x ASLAV Sqn's deployed, but only 1x infantry company...

The Queens Alexandria Regt will provide lift capacity with NZLAV, just as it used to do with M113, for the light inf btn if necessary, and will probably act as a Cavalry/Armoured Recon force (much like Australia's 2nd Cav Regt) when lift is not required for infantry forces.

As to it's reserve forces, I understand they are particularly undermanned. In that case, I'd recommend "mirroring" the regular structure and only maintain 2x reserve battalions, plus a reserve Cav Regt and artillery and combat support units. These could comprise geographically separated rifle Coy's/Squadrons/Bty's as is done in Australia, but combine under a single Battalion/Regimental command for larger exercises.

If an expansion is needed due to a "serious" threat looming on the horizon each individual rifle company in the reserve units, could be used as a base for expansion. That'd provide an extra 6 inf battalions to NZ's order of battle once achieved, giving them 8 in total, which would be the largest force NZ has deployed since WW2.

It is rare even for a regular infantry battalion, for each company to exercise together much. Company level training makes up the maority of training in Australia and New Zealand armies.

I'm not sure what kind of force you are referring to Whiskeyjack, with your "recon force to tie together" all arms of NZDF. Is there a similar force somewhere you could point out, to illustrate this?

NZ already has capable special forces. I'm sure they do this as part of their operations...

In regards to the recon element I think I should have used the ISTAR company, similar to the force the British are talking about and integrating it into the Battalion structure, I believe the US also use such a force in their Stryker Brigades.

I guess where I am coming from is not so much the army side, as I said above I would have done things differently (the whole LAV purchase smacks of politics both NZDF and Govt, rather than thought out force structure 105 is to much to equip one battalion and to little to equip two, and no specialist LAVs), but I agree that the basic units and equipment are in place. I think I still prefer a more ‘marine’ style emphasis in training and identity, every person a rifleman/women. But I would still use the existing equipment to base this on.

Over the next ten years I would like the NZDF to look at what it wants to achieve (and needs to be able to achieve in the national interest). For this I think it requires more lift and sustainment, hence my idea for two LPD type ships that can lift and support 500-600 troops. The reason I think this is due to the fact that the Pacific and SEA are full of Islands and NZ cannot afford a strategic aircraft lift. It also needs to be able to deploy faster. It is not expensive, for less than what Australia is paying for 1.5 C-17s ($750m Aus) NZ can have 2 such LPDs.

IMO where the west has been a bit light in the past is the ability to deploy its forces rapidly hence the investment we see in this ability form the UK, France, Australia. Canada and other European countries are also heading in this direction.

Back to NZ army I agree with Lucas that 3 battalions are needed, for the flexibility it brings to operations. NZ needs to be able to rapidly deploy a 2 coy force IMO say 450-500 person.

As for one battalion being air mobile I don’t see the required amount of NH90s available for that NZ would need around 16 to be able to deploy one company lift (4 in maintenance, 3 training, 9 deployed to provide 80%-90% availability)

 

[Rocco_NZ]

The Queens Alexandria Regt will provide lift capacity with NZLAV, just as it used to do with M113, for the light inf btn if necessary, and will probably act as a Cavalry/Armoured Recon force (much like Australia's 2nd Cav Regt) when lift is not required for infantry forces.

QA Squadron is being developed to provide a third manouvre element (cavalry role). It will become a dedicated medium reconaissance unit - APC duties are long gone.
---------

Question: What plans does Army have for a "3rd manoeuvre group," as
mentioned by Colonel Dave Gawn in Issue 350 of the publication Army News?

Portfolio: Defence

Minister: Hon Phil Goff

Date Lodged:26/04/2006

Answer Text: The transition of the Queen Alexandra’s Mounted Rifles
Squadron into the New Zealand Army’s third combat manoeuvre unit with a
cavalry role is intended in part to maintain the Army’s reconnaissance
capability, and to support the growth of the Army under the Defence
Sustainability Initiative. The transition should be complete by December
2010 as part of a programme to create a Network Enabled Force.

Attachment: None

Date Received:09/05/2006
--------

 

[Sea Toby]

From the New Zealand Defence Force website, to properly patrol offshore the navy needs 400 days at sea, with the two OPVs providing over 300 days and the MRV providing the rest. One may assume that with the larger size of the MRV and its better seakeeping qualities, the MRV is scheduled to patrol the Ross Sea and Southern Ocean areas during the summer months. During the rest of the year the MRV will be at anchor providing much needed shore based training and will be ready to take on its role quickly as a sealift ship.

However, in an emergency she can return from her patrol duties and revert back to her sealift role quickly, depending how far away she is deployed. Since she has a sustained top speed of 19 knots, in 10 hours she can travel 190 nautical miles, in 100 hours she can travel 1900 nautical miles. A hundred hours is a bit more than 4 days. Even when she is anchored at home, it will take the army more than a day, possibly two to four days, to get prepared for a forward deployment, and more days at sea to reach their destinations. Any quicker large deployments can be made by Hercules transports, and with either of the OPVs, a quicker small deployment of 30 troops each can be made if necessary.

Some of the army's exercises can be done while the ship is anchored, and others can be done at a designated beach nearby in New Zealand or further away in an Australian exercise. For its sealift role, I doubt whether the army would need the ship more than 30 days each year to keep sharp, and that's operating the LCMs. With other ships having a helicopter deck, I doubt whether the Air Force and its NH-90 helicopters or the Navy's SeaSprite helicopters need to operate as much off the MRV except for trials.

And since the New Zealand army isn't prepared to quickly send a large number of troops off, the MRV's capacity of 250 men is more than likely more than enough. If more troops are needed, surely New Zealand can lease another merchant vessel to provide the rest of the sealift.

The whole purpose of buying the MRV is its multi-role capabilites. Like many other small nations New Zealand cannot afford to keep an LPD at anchor the entire year, nor can it afford to keep more vessels at anchor either. The ship must have a function at anchor, at sea on patrol, and at sea for army exercises, and be useful as a sealift ship when called upon.

 

[Whiskyjack]

QA Squadron is being developed to provide a third manouvre element (cavalry role). It will become a dedicated medium reconaissance unit - APC duties are long gone.
---------

Question: What plans does Army have for a "3rd manoeuvre group," as
mentioned by Colonel Dave Gawn in Issue 350 of the publication Army News?

Portfolio: Defence

Minister: Hon Phil Goff

Date Lodged:26/04/2006

Answer Text: The transition of the Queen Alexandra’s Mounted Rifles
Squadron into the New Zealand Army’s third combat manoeuvre unit with a
cavalry role is intended in part to maintain the Army’s reconnaissance
capability, and to support the growth of the Army under the Defence
Sustainability Initiative. The transition should be complete by December
2010 as part of a programme to create a Network Enabled Force.

Attachment: None

Date Received:09/05/2006
--------

This is VERY good to see. Thanks for the info!

Tried to find it but couldn't. But I did find some interesting stats on established and actual strength, not pretty reading e.g

2 land forces group established 2145 actual 1538, 1 NZIR as part of 2LFG est 633 act 506!

3LFG est 905 act 696 2/1 RNZIR est 621 act 469!

I see why there is a 10 year plan.

 

[Lucasnz]

This is VERY good to see. Thanks for the info!

Tried to find it but couldn't. But I did find some interesting stats on established and actual strength, not pretty reading e.g

2 land forces group established 2145 actual 1538, 1 NZIR as part of 2LFG est 633 act 506!

3LFG est 905 act 696 2/1 RNZIR est 621 act 469!

I see why there is a 10 year plan.

Do the maths on this so total actual for 2 & 3 LFG is 2234 plus say 200 for NZSAS = 2434. The 2005 Annual report states Army strength is 4438, which means just 55% of the Army is assigned to operational units if I'm not mistaken. If that does'nt say that something is seriously wrong with Army structure I don't know what does.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Do the maths on this so total actual for 2 & 3 LFG is 2234 plus say 200 for NZSAS = 2434. The 2005 Annual report states Army strength is 4438, which means just 55% of the Army is assigned to operational units if I'm not mistaken. If that does'nt say that something is seriously wrong with Army structure I don't know what does.

I'm not so sure I think that that figure is, give or take a few percent, the same as other armies. Australia is looking at 28,000 to support 10 battalion sized units (1 x tank, 2 x cav, 2 x mech, 3 x inf, 1 x cmdo, & 1 x aviation).

Although having said that the British army has 46-50 battalion sized units for 102,500. Larger force efficiencies?

 

[Rocco_NZ]

Question: What is the maximum authorised and average strength over the
last 5 years of each army unit in 2 Land Force Group?

Portfolio: Defence

Minister: Hon Phil Goff

Date Lodged:26/04/2006

Answer Text: See attachment.

Attachment: PQ 4323 John Carter.doc

Date Received: 17/05/2006

Established strength
Unit 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
16 Field Regiment 344 314 328 295 301
1 RNZIR 680 720 865 687 633
2 Engineer Regiment 433 415 459 408 382
2 Field Hospital 78 117 91 133 123
Headquarters 2 LFG 40 45 45 42 39
2 Logistics Battalion 365 488 385 515 502
2 Signals Squadron 189 211 231 192 164
2,129 2,309 2,403 2,272 2,145

Average strength
Unit 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
16 Field Regiment 157 177 214 210 214
1 RNZIR 297 436 444 485 506
2 Engineer Regiment 246 265 287 247 264
2 Field Hospital 54 80 70 66 61
Headquarters 2 LFG 29 30 38 31 33
2 Logistics Battalion 242 331 299 302 359
2 Signals Squadron 87 127 143 106 100
1,113 1,445 1,495 1,445 1,538

 

[Rocco_NZ]

Question: What are the terms of reference of the Army Configuration
Review?

Portfolio: Defence

Minister: Hon Phil Goff

Date Lodged:26/04/2006

Answer Text: The Army Configuration Review (ARC) followed from a specific
recommendation of the Defence Capability and Resourcing Review (DCARR)
that a special study should be undertaken "of the current position of the
Army to establish how it should be configured to best maintain its
operational capability during the next few years as it builds towards the
level required by Government policy".This recommendation was noted by Cabinet when it received the DCARR Final
Report.As with all the other DCARR recommendations, the ARC is being undertaken
as a project within the Defence Sustainability Initiative programme and is
expected to be finalised by the end of 2006.

Attachment: None

Date Received:16/05/2006

 

[Rocco_NZ]

Question: What is the maximum authorised and average strength over the
last 5 years of each army unit in 3 Land Force Group?

Portfolio: Defence

Minister: Hon Phil Goff

Date Lodged:26/04/2006

Answer Text: See attachment.

Attachment: PQ 4324 John Carter.doc

Date Received: 17/05/2006



Established strength
Unit 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
2/1 RNZIR 788 702 698 705 621
Headquarters 3 LFG 23 25 27 26 26
3 Logistics Battalion 233 275 254 269 199
3 Regional Training Unit 32 32 32 22 0
3 Signals Squadron 64 27 25 63 60
1,139 1,061 1,036 1,085 905


Average strength
Unit 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
2/1 RNZIR 376 297 481 457 469
Headquarters 3 LFG 16 21 22 19 23
3 Logistics Battalion 189 211 205 170 156
3 Regional Training Unit 28 27 27 14 0
3 Signals Squadron 42 14 14 51 49
651 571 750 711 696

 

[Big-E]

Please stick to navy topics, this is Naval forces mind you.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Please stick to navy topics, this is Naval forces mind you.

Yes good point.

Any way I would like to see the option of using the navy to enhance NZs expeditionary role in the South Pacific and South East Asia explored more.

 

[Aussie Digger]

QA Squadron is being developed to provide a third manouvre element (cavalry role). It will become a dedicated medium reconaissance unit - APC duties are long gone.

Tell that to the 2nd Cav Regt...

Anyhoo's Big-E's right, if a little ahead of himself.

Let's re-direct this back to naval topics. There's other threads in which NZ's land forces can be discussed...

 

[Markus40]

Re: MRV

Hi Sea Toby, having read through your report, my conclusion is that NZ is heading in the right direction as far as sealift is concerned and i think 250 army personel is a sufficient number to deploy in any immediate theatre of operations. I believe this will be the future if what we see in Fiji or The Solomons or East Timor is concerned.

I think that NZ should be able to operate with its Naval assets and be able to secure areas in the Pacific should the needs arise, however there are still holes in our capability that still need to be filled. What worries me is that there is no defensive ability from either the MRV or OPVS to defend them selves from attack, either from the sea or air. My suggestion is to arm them with a CIWS each. Also the MRV will need the escort of a frigate (ANZAC) if needed to enter a field of operations. I think to have the ability to operate with the Australians with these assets is a giant leap from where we have been, but i have to add that our Navy is stretched. We are in desperate need of a third ANZAC to relieve the other two from their grueling assignments in the Gulf, and with Exercises with the Australians. If our government can come round to this then we have a Navy that can fullfill all its obligations without over commiting itself. Let me know what you think.

From the New Zealand Defence Force website, to properly patrol offshore the navy needs 400 days at sea, with the two OPVs providing over 300 days and the MRV providing the rest. One may assume that with the larger size of the MRV and its better seakeeping qualities, the MRV is scheduled to patrol the Ross Sea and Southern Ocean areas during the summer months. During the rest of the year the MRV will be at anchor providing much needed shore based training and will be ready to take on its role quickly as a sealift ship.

However, in an emergency she can return from her patrol duties and revert back to her sealift role quickly, depending how far away she is deployed. Since she has a sustained top speed of 19 knots, in 10 hours she can travel 190 nautical miles, in 100 hours she can travel 1900 nautical miles. A hundred hours is a bit more than 4 days. Even when she is anchored at home, it will take the army more than a day, possibly two to four days, to get prepared for a forward deployment, and more days at sea to reach their destinations. Any quicker large deployments can be made by Hercules transports, and with either of the OPVs, a quicker small deployment of 30 troops each can be made if necessary.

Some of the army's exercises can be done while the ship is anchored, and others can be done at a designated beach nearby in New Zealand or further away in an Australian exercise. For its sealift role, I doubt whether the army would need the ship more than 30 days each year to keep sharp, and that's operating the LCMs. With other ships having a helicopter deck, I doubt whether the Air Force and its NH-90 helicopters or the Navy's SeaSprite helicopters need to operate as much off the MRV except for trials.

And since the New Zealand army isn't prepared to quickly send a large number of troops off, the MRV's capacity of 250 men is more than likely more than enough. If more troops are needed, surely New Zealand can lease another merchant vessel to provide the rest of the sealift.

The whole purpose of buying the MRV is its multi-role capabilites. Like many other small nations New Zealand cannot afford to keep an LPD at anchor the entire year, nor can it afford to keep more vessels at anchor either. The ship must have a function at anchor, at sea on patrol, and at sea for army exercises, and be useful as a sealift ship when called upon.

 

[Padman]

.

I think that NZ should be able to operate with its Naval assets and be able to secure areas in the Pacific should the needs arise, however there are still holes in our capability that still need to be filled. What worries me is that there is no defensive ability from either the MRV or OPVS to defend them selves from attack, either from the sea or air. My suggestion is to arm them with a CIWS each. Also the MRV will need the escort of a frigate (ANZAC) if needed to enter a field of operations. I think to have the ability to operate with the Australians with these assets is a giant leap from where we have been, but i have to add that our Navy is stretched. We are in desperate need of a third ANZAC to relieve the other two from their grueling assignments in the Gulf, and with Exercises with the Australians. If our government can come round to this then we have a Navy that can fullfill all its obligations without over commiting itself. Let me know what you think.

I agree. One of the greatest threats to NZs security is our small Pacific neighbours becoming failed states. This could lead to them becoming bases for terrorism and narco crime. NZ needs the ability to provide support for the legal governments of these nations, be it in a military sense or a civilian sense (eg disaster relief, civilian aid). The MRV certainly provides enough lift to provide an initial military force for operations in the Pacific. It would be great to see a third frigate to provide extra firepower for such ops, and to relieve deployment strain on current ANZACs, the later causing personnel retainment problems for NZ Navy. I would also like to see third OPV and all with 57mm, plus training for use as Pacific deployment asset for SAS platoons.

 

[Padman]

Would it be possible to fit the MRV with a heavier gun, say 76mm?

 

[Markus40]

Re: Project Protector.

Thank you. Yes a 76mm cannon each would do it, however a CIWS might be better for self defense for incoming missiles as well. These days small countries use motor boats to do their damage and we need our OPVs and MRV to protect themselvs from them. The OPV should definetly have it, as they will assist other units of the Navy protecting assets. The MRV most likely will deploy with an ANZAC so at least there is protection. Still, the MRV being a capital ship needs a defensive weopon system.

Would it be possible to fit the MRV with a heavier gun, say 76mm?

 

[Padman]

As an alternative to extra and upgunned OPVs, maybe we could consider at lest one of the new Danish flexible support ships, its a frigate, its a command ship, its an amphib support vessel all in one. Armed with 127mm, Harpoons and Enhanced Sea Sparrow. Compatiable with ANZAC systems.

 

[contedicavour]

As an alternative to extra and upgunned OPVs, maybe we could consider at lest one of the new Danish flexible support ships, its a frigate, its a command ship, its an amphib support vessel all in one. Armed with 127mm, Harpoons and Enhanced Sea Sparrow. Compatiable with ANZAC systems.

Very good idea. At least the NZ Navy wouldn't have to choose between sealift capability and escort capability.

cheers

 

[alexsa]

Thank you. Yes a 76mm cannon each would do it, however a CIWS might be better for self defense for incoming missiles as well. These days small countries use motor boats to do their damage and we need our OPVs and MRV to protect themselvs from them. The OPV should definetly have it, as they will assist other units of the Navy protecting assets. The MRV most likely will deploy with an ANZAC so at least there is protection. Still, the MRV being a capital ship needs a defensive weopon system.

Fitting a 76mm gun to a vessel not originally built to take it is not a simple task. The system has deck penitration and requires a shell room below the mount for the ready use rotary magazine. Given the rate of fire addtional rounds would derfinately be requred to refill the rotary magazine stowage. So you would be looking at a shell handling room, main magazine and some sort of handling system for the ammunition transfer. That before we start looking at fire control. This all costs and imposes quite a bit of top weight.

30mm gun based CIWS like goalkeeper also take up considerable space and require deck pentration and housing below the mount. However the Phalanx 20mm gun system or, better still, Sea RAM don't have such a restriction and are self contained in so far as sensors are concerned.

This would appear to be a more realistic option