Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
With a budget like that not that likely. Originally I thought the CY would be a good fit (for them) and we could sell Canterbury to then fund the new sealift ship (I seriously cannot see us getting 2 as mooted awhile back for a number of reasons) but I see Ireland wants a purpose built new build with all the trimmings. Sure I read somewhere they want a tanking option so sounds like a cross between a tanker/sealift ship with true multi role capabilities, probably hence the price increase.

The funding envisaged is almost double what we paid for CY new!
Well Canterbury, the OPVs & IPVs are all due for a MLU by the end of this decade; that's only 6 years less change away. IIRC the last DCP saw the Canterbury serving until the second ESV (Enhance Sealift Vessel) entered service around 2035. With the change in the way the GOTD understands the current geostrategic environment, the introduction of the ESV maybe be bought forward somewhat. Then again, they may not. We will have to wait on the release of the DCP to find out.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Just wondering should the RAN retire an ANZAC or two, would NZ be interested!

Now I fully understand that the ANZACs have evolved to be very different ships in service for each of the RAN and RNZN, but I can still see some benefits.

I'd envisage that the Australian ship would be striped of most of the non NZ in service gear , leaving it as a large vessel with a 5inch main gun and a useful helicopter platform.
The ship would be more of a stop gap measure to provide NZ with an additional constabulary come training platform.

A quick addition to the fleet that would still have some military capacity in low end scenarios.

Not a long term investment, but a means to help grow personnel numbers for the type of fleet they want in the future.
With only two frigates I'm sure it would be a welcomed addition.

If they could get another five years out of this purchase , I feel it would be of great benefit way above the cost of the purchase.


Thoughts S
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Good to see the Navy has started trials of the Australian Ocius USV out of Auckland Harbour.

Actually the Kiwi's are being sneaky, that's the latest America's Cup yacht :D
 

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
Just wondering should the RAN retire an ANZAC or two, would NZ be interested!
It probably would be dependent on the outcome of the NZ Govt's defence policy review in terms of whether increasing the future fleet in the 2030's when the ANZAC's are due to be replaced is deemed a priority. Presumably the RNZN is advocating for this to better sustain operations, to allow for when vessels are undertaking maintenance periods and to also provide some concurrency in times of urgent need. That is, lessons have been learnt the hard way (as in hopefully by the politcal class) that two combatants is clearly insufficient and the changing, challenging strategic environment will only exacerbate this if not addressed. (So suggesting at least 3 ideally 4, if not more, future combatants).

But that is looking ahead so to dial it back in relation to your question this presents an interesting opportunity to address this issue much sooner and provide a pathway for a greater mass of trained sailors and specialists in time for when the fleet is renewed. It would mean though the NZ Govt would need to committ to this much sooner than may have been anticipated, funding and overall NZDF capability/priority wise. (Although frankly I'm suprised the Aus Govt is prepared to ditch two combatants now-ish when replacements are years away. Could there be pushback)?

Realistically though any potential NZ acquisition of HMAS ANZAC (planned withdrawal date 2024) and potentially HMAS Arunta (planned withdrawal date 2026) will come at a cost and have some challenges. As VADM Mark Hammond, RAN CN, at last week's Senate hearngs stated, ANZAC is not only the oldest (combatant) vessel in the fleet she is also the hardest working of the ANZAC class ("steaming" 750,000 miles in her service). She is currently in extended readiness and her scheduled maintenance period last year was put on hold whilst a material condition assessment was conducted. Apparently material fragility has emerged also affecting her drive chain, which hasn't been experienced before.

So it sounds like NZ would need to spend quite a bit of money in the short term to remedy these issues even if the vessels were on-sold cheaply etc. OTOH of the two RNZN ANZAC's one has had and the second is having their main engines replaced and work done on rectifying corrosion (a process which takes several months) so perhaps something similar could be applied to HMAS ANZAC (although suspect it might be a more complex task with greater risk)?

Then if say Arunta is taken up (as surely it would make sense to have two vessels with the same capabilities rather than one odd-ball type + 2x RNZN) presumably moslty the same engineering work would need to be undertaken.

As stated it all comes at a cost, but also buys time to train up crews (and potentially have some experienced personnel rejoin) knowing they will then get more time at sea on deployments compared to the current situation (due to ship unavailability due to upgrades and planned maintenance). It also means NZ Govt could in time commit to more regional deployments in support of its allies. It also means the RNZN could work more closely with the RAN as that is what our politicians are advocating. But time will tell about how committed they really are and the ball is squarely in their court ...
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Dennis Connor will be seething at this, he's done it before...
We should ask him for a core sample.
Just wondering should the RAN retire an ANZAC or two, would NZ be interested!

Now I fully understand that the ANZACs have evolved to be very different ships in service for each of the RAN and RNZN, but I can still see some benefits.

I'd envisage that the Australian ship would be striped of most of the non NZ in service gear , leaving it as a large vessel with a 5inch main gun and a useful helicopter platform.
The ship would be more of a stop gap measure to provide NZ with an additional constabulary come training platform.

A quick addition to the fleet that would still have some military capacity in low end scenarios.

Not a long term investment, but a means to help grow personnel numbers for the type of fleet they want in the future.
With only two frigates I'm sure it would be a welcomed addition.

If they could get another five years out of this purchase , I feel it would be of great benefit way above the cost of the purchase.


Thoughts S
It was announced by Richard Marles yesterday that Anzac is being decommissioned and that it won't sail (for the RAN?) again. When I heard that I was thinking that it might be worthwhile NZ paying a dollar down and a dollar a week for it. We wouldn't need to give it any of the upgrades the remaining RAN frigates are having, but enough to ensure its seaworthiness and safety. On top of that we could replace the Harpoon with the NSM. The only problem I have with Anzac is that it's the first of the class, and Te Kaha was second of the class, so we would be looking at replacing both ships at the same time. However, Anzac would give us experience with the SAAB 9LV CMS, CEAFAR radar systems, ESSM and NSM.

The biggest problem we would have is crewing the ship. We would need to find another 180 bods. Man of us old bastard naval veterans might volunteer to help out, but we would have some stipulations:
  • We get all night in so no:
    • First (2000 - 2359),
    • Middle (0001 - 0400),
    • Morning (0400 - 0800) or,
    • 2nd dog (1800 - 2000) watches.
  • Wakey wakey is at 0700 for us not 0600. That gives us enough time for a dhobi and scran before the forenoon (0800 - 1200) watch.
  • We get to have a nana nap for the 1st dog watch, waking up in time for scran.
  • We don't stand harbour watches.
  • We are issued our daily tot of squirt.
 

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Being an ex RAN ship, how about a special Australian ship allowance as well.;)
Seriously, can't see it happening as these decisions are dragged out so long ANZAC would be a pile of rust before anything would happen. Unless the Australians really put the boot in behind the scenes, there will be a lot of talk and very little do.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Being an ex RAN ship, how about a special Australian ship allowance as well.;)
Seriously, can't see it happening as these decisions are dragged out so long ANZAC would be a pile of rust before anything would happen. Unless the Australians really put the boot in behind the scenes, there will be a lot of talk and very little do.
ANZAC would be a great opportunity for NZ to get people to sea and start to grow their personel numbers.
The ship does provide some capability that will be in addition to NZs two frigate navy

Cheers S
 

RegR

Well-Known Member
Haha ironically it's not a lack of ships that is (now) the issue for navy so not exactly sure what throwing another ship (and a manpower, tech and resource intensive ship at that) into the mix is going to do other than actually add to the problem? If we had enough pers to run another frigate then we wouldn't have a third of the fleet tied up.

TBH I would rather see those funds directed into their replacements to get the ball rolling now with the vision of having the numbers in place over time to A. crew what we already have and B. crew into the future. By simply adding another (even older) platform of essentially the same when we are literally struggling to operate what we have is more of a cart before the horse type scenario and we are literally running out of space in DNB to park idle ships.

TBH I feel we should be multi-crewing classes in the first instance to give ships max days at sea (as originally mooted for the protector fleet) before we throw precious funding (in a budget cycle I might add) into another second hand ship of the type we are actively looking at replacement options for anyway ie the downward lifespan trajectory. A new build of the type we need going into the future would be more beneficial than a current type from the past and a better use of limited funding regardless of any perceived "upgrades".

If anything I would have assumed RAN would now hold onto the ANZACs longer for much the same reasons we want/need/would like another frigate, rapid fleet expansion, long term recruitment and retention and the old changing political environment?...
 

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
I can pretty much guarantee that now Anzac's fate has been decided, she will very rapidly be cannibalised for parts to keep the rest of the fleet going, cheers.
Thanks, not only does that make sense in terms of keeping the rest of the fleet going (particularly if any of the equipment dates back to the 1990's and is now hard to obtain or maintain?), it also makes sense as to why ANZAC (and Arunta) are scheduled to be retired at their planned withdrawal dates before their replacements are ready. And as VADM Hammond stated last week the RAN have been consistently crewing 5 ANZAC's now for at least a decade anyway.

So for NZ the way forward is for new builds ...
 

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
So for NZ the way forward is for new builds .
And new pay and conditions for service personal to get the numbers and increase retention. The treasury and previous government listening to treasury and allowing the reduction of terms and conditions of service have been a disaster in that they have caused the loss of a large proportion of experience in most sectors and this will take many years to recover.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
From Australian Senate Estimates, February 14, 2024 - NZ was the only country that expressed interest in buying entire Australian Army MRH-90 airframes from February 2022 onwards, before pulling back from buying them and seeking only spares.

I can imagine price and sustainment costs were what killed the idea.

Can‘t imagine the price and sustainment costs of 28 and 26 year old, thrashed out ANZAC frigates, being any more attractive to NZ…

HMAS ANZAC has sailed more than 750m miles and is thoroughly shagged. Arunta hasn’t sailed as far, but isn’t in much better shape…
 

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
From Australian Senate Estimates, February 14, 2024 - NZ was the only country that expressed interest in buying entire Australian Army MRH-90 airframes from February 2022 onwards, before pulling back from buying them and seeking only spares.

I can imagine price and sustainment costs were what killed the idea.
Yes could very well be .... OTOH there could have been NZDF interest in some entire airframes but no political backing (funding) at this point in time until the defence review/future force structure is completed. Again, timing is everything.

Regardless of the outcome it is curious that NZDF appears interested in a larger helo transport fleet ...

Can‘t imagine the price and sustainment costs of 28 and 26 year old, thrashed out ANZAC frigates, being any more attractive to NZ…

HMAS ANZAC has sailed more than 750m miles and is thoroughly shagged. Arunta hasn’t sailed as far, but isn’t in much better shape…
Apples and oranges here (helos and ships). RNZN needs to increase its combat fleet to a sustainable operational level (and that's RNZN thinking not just me). The idea of acquiring ex-RAN ANZAC's have been mooted before by the Aus Govt (admittedly a long time ago now - how time flies).

Interesting that the Aus Govt were going to upgrade them all via a life extension program (including TransCap). RNZN ANZAC's are currently having their engines replaced again and internal corrosion addressed so perhaps could have also addressed any second hand acquistion concerns?

Anyway this is all a moot point now as the Aus Govt has decided to keep them for spare parts which seems to be the logical outcome to sustain the wider (and increasingly older) RAN fleet.

The question for NZ now is what (new builds) are to replace the RNZN ANZAC's and I'm not sure whether all of the proposed RAN Tier 2 solutions, whilst perfectly reasonable in an Australian context, are entirely suitable for NZ's own strategic needs?

Suggest RNZN needs something "Tier 1.5" (with added flexibility eg mission bays and TEU container carrying ability and increased point/counter UAV defence ... A140 perhaps, with Mk41 VLS flexibility & complimented by seaceptor) or ideally, if funding allows, its own variation of a Tier 1/Tier 1.5 (allied deployment support) and Tier 2 (patrol and presence) mix. In other words, back to the original post war fleet configuration ...
 

Wombat000

Well-Known Member
I’m curious as to what are “NZs Strategic needs?”.
do they live in an alternate universe, where the exact same influences that effect Aust suddenly do not effect NZ?

does the world think that cos they’re placed at the end of a long supply line, they have a different requirement to secure their SLOCs and EEZs, that somehow dont relate to Australia?

or does everyone just think that NZ deserves a free pass and they aren’t really actually required to field a relevant capability anyway, because everyone will do it for them?
 

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
I’m curious as to what are “NZs Strategic needs?”.
do they live in an alternate universe, where the exact same influences that effect Aust suddenly do not effect NZ?

does the world think that cos they’re placed at the end of a long supply line, they have a different requirement to secure their SLOCs and EEZs, that somehow dont relate to Australia?

or does everyone just think that NZ deserves a free pass and they aren’t really actually required to field a relevant capability anyway, because everyone will do it for them?
Australia's strategic needs are pretty much the same as NZ's.

Accordingly the Aus Govt would not be daft enough to commit the RAN to an all Tier 2 fleet.

That's what I'm getting at in relation to the RNZN.

Well if you had bothered to read my post properly.

To be clearer the RNZN needs at the very least the larger Mogami or something else altogether like the A140 in terms of capability and multi-role flexibility (and with its larger hull for Southern Ocean operations). Or something better/larger i.e. T26/Constellation. Or ideally a hi/lo mix.
 
Last edited:

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
With all due respect to the RNZN, and I trained with one of their CNs, they have always operated what the RAN would have considered Tier 2; Lochs vs. Battles/Darings, T12 vs Darings/Charles F Adams, Anzacs VS CF Adams/FFG7s/F100s. So it would be nothing new; and might well be the appropriate and most importantly, affordable option.
 

RegR

Well-Known Member
I’m curious as to what are “NZs Strategic needs?”.
do they live in an alternate universe, where the exact same influences that effect Aust suddenly do not effect NZ?

does the world think that cos they’re placed at the end of a long supply line, they have a different requirement to secure their SLOCs and EEZs, that somehow dont relate to Australia?

or does everyone just think that NZ deserves a free pass and they aren’t really actually required to field a relevant capability anyway, because everyone will do it for them?
A free pass from what exactly? And what is everyone doing for NZ out of interest?? I'm actually interested.
 
Top