At the moment NZ govt needs to leave Australia out of the frigate replacement program and look to either Japan or South Korea for their ANZAC replacements. Australia is fully committed to their own replacement needs and will most likely encounter :"teething problems" as they introduce and expand their shipbuilding infrastructure and associated programs. We look to Australia say mid 2045 onwards if it suits both parties. I think we may miss the boat on the arrowhead 140 option as European nation needs will probably take up any available slots.
Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
Perhaps Poland could build some. The Poles are building three for themselves, with two under construction so far, & they seem to be building them from the bottom up. They may be roped in to build for other countries, though, e.g. Denmark (though I think the Danes would like to do as much as possible of the fitting-out themselves). Romania may have capacity to build modules.
Depends on how many you want, & when, I think.
Depends on how many you want, & when, I think.
There's one fitting out, six building, & three named but not yet started building. Total of 10 committed to so far, plus three (or maybe five eventually) for Denmark said to be likely.
On top of that, Sweden's said to be interested in four - but may buy FDI; it's been noised around that Poland may be interested in up to five more; it's been suggested that Indonesia may want more than the two building; Chile's been named as a potential customer (to be customised to Chile's requirements & built locally), replacing assorted secondhand frigates; New Zealand's been proposed as a possible customer, to replace ANZACs. Oh, it goes on & on. You can see where talk of 30 plus comes from.
On top of that, Sweden's said to be interested in four - but may buy FDI; it's been noised around that Poland may be interested in up to five more; it's been suggested that Indonesia may want more than the two building; Chile's been named as a potential customer (to be customised to Chile's requirements & built locally), replacing assorted secondhand frigates; New Zealand's been proposed as a possible customer, to replace ANZACs. Oh, it goes on & on. You can see where talk of 30 plus comes from.
Catalina
Active Member
Gidday Gidday John,
Yes this is an excellent idea.
New Zealand taking on second hand Australian gear would further integrate our Defence Forces and could solve so many problems...
OldTex
Well-Known Member
Except that the RAN probably won't have any "second hand" Evolved Mogami GPFs to help NZ out of their problem. Also given the history with the ANZAC build NZ would not be seen as being 100% reliable
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
See Tod's post outlining the timeframes not being in alignment for both nations eg NZ would want its replacements from the early-mid 2030's / Australia would want to retain the Japanese built new FFM's in the mid/early 2030's and throughout that decade whilst the Australian new FFM's are built as their ANZAC's are retired (let alone any issues arising such as shipbuilding project delays, or Trans-Tasman political considerations as to whether there is any interest, if any).
Defence are well aware of timeframes and will be assessing potential options as part of the Maritime Fleet Renewal Programme.
Since that was written a year or two ago, what I'm wondering now is whether the PLA-N's Tasman Sea excursion (the fact that it can/will repeat this, if not also including operating deeper into other near-by regions) and the highly lethal capabilities of those vessels (which even the DefMin commented on at the time), sees a re-think of what capabilities/counter-capabilities the future RNZN fleet will require?
So for us here, if we think back that the Cold War RNZN Frigate fleets (Loch/Type 12M/I) which were optimised towards ASW (and AAW when we operated Cruisers), that the post-Cold War Frigates (ANZAC) were more patrol/general purpose orientated, then what would be future fleet's capabilities that the RNZN needs to meet Govt objectives (which presumably is evolving compared to the post-Cold War position)?
According to the CN, the Maritime Fleet Renewal programme is now progressing toward a programme business case and "we’re looking at a mix of crewed and uncrewed platforms, including new combat ships, a projection vessel and enhanced patrol capabilities.”
Royal New Zealand Navy outlines modernisation goals | Shephard
The Royal New Zealand Navy (RNZN) has a crunch time coming up as it looks to refresh its fleet before 2040, and prepares to begin operating Sikorsky MH-60R helicopters, although it is at the back of a long ordering queue. A key part of any solution is looking at what neighbouring Australia is...
www.shephardmedia.com
Another recent article outlines some of the challenges facing NZ/Aust/US in the Pacific in terms of countering Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing (IUUF), which connects to potential gray-zone activities.
Countering China's Maritime Insurgency in the South Pacific
[By Jason Lancaster]Guadalcanal, the Coral Sea, Tarawa, New Guinea, and Iron Bottom Sound highlight the strategic location of the South Pacific durin...
maritime-executive.com
Then we have the prosect of an increased Chinese CG presence (worse case could potentially lead to tensions).
So further scenarios we will continue to face in the short-medium term, requiring additional investment, improved coordination, surveillance and training with like-minded partners, reinforced by maritime capabilities that can provide a response or deter escalation. Whilst at the same time balancing dialogue (with any "new" emerging power players) for the greater good of the region, backed up appropriate regulatory frameworks in order to maintain the rule of law (and to not be perceived as weak otherwise be walked over). Challenging times ahead!
recce.k1
I wanted to thank you for providing this additional information on the RNZN Maritime Fleet Renewal Programme. Just a small paper setting the scene for the next 30 years of RNZN. It is certainly interesting times that we live in, be it that this has been telegraphed by multiple channels to NZ Gov and ignored for at least a decade.
A return to a combat capable naval force with some mass, is certainly required for our small maritime nation.
Q. I have always wondered why you have your photo (Greek A-7s)?
I wanted to thank you for providing this additional information on the RNZN Maritime Fleet Renewal Programme. Just a small paper setting the scene for the next 30 years of RNZN. It is certainly interesting times that we live in, be it that this has been telegraphed by multiple channels to NZ Gov and ignored for at least a decade.
A return to a combat capable naval force with some mass, is certainly required for our small maritime nation.
Q. I have always wondered why you have your photo (Greek A-7s)?
The current reality is that under the current government what ever is done will be as little as possible, with little chance of there being any increase in numbers in regard to combat vessels. When they extended the DCP period because as they said it was due to the changing strategic situation, in reality I beleve it was to cut the expenditure and that will be the theme from now on, lots of good words and as little action as possible.
Most NZ polliticans are hard wired to firstly look at what will get them re-elected ahead of what is happening in the world outside of NZ. This means that the potholes in the main street are more important that the long term security of NZ
Most NZ polliticans are hard wired to firstly look at what will get them re-elected ahead of what is happening in the world outside of NZ. This means that the potholes in the main street are more important that the long term security of NZ
Last edited:
We desperately need them for our own navy, hence the "crash" program to acquire them, including in a first for a long time for us, inclusive of an overseas build at least for the first 3.
There is zero chance Australia gives up it's early production slots and certainly not giving up vessels newly commissioned, even to help out an ally, one who just quietly, is not doing anywhere near as much heavy lifting on the defence / security front as Australia is.
If NZ needs new frigates by 2035, then it needs to develop a proper plan to acquire a fleet of new-builds. Hoping some other country will just "provide" theirs (when they, themselves are desperately in need of these vessels) isn't much of a plan...
Giving (virtually) brand new vessels to an ally when they are desperately required by the RAN seems like an "excellent idea" to you does it? What does the RAN do in the meantime, pray tell? Just drive some RHIB's around?
Sail nothing but our 3 AWD's perhaps? These ships are afterall are being acquired to meet the RAN's needs... Why on Earth would they suddenly feel like helping NZ, when we have seen precious little from NZ helping itself in the maritime space?
A few Ghost Sharks wouldn't hurt the capability of the RZNZ one little bit?
Of course they would do very little to assist with the replacement of it's major capabilities, more of a force multiplier really, but relatively cost effective all the same...
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Honestly I am not so sure about that. They might not require much in terms of personnel or resources (OTOH they also might depending on what/where/how NZ would operate them...) but given how 'tight' the NZDF and RNZN already is for personnel and funding, that might be just enough to push the majors into a no longer reachable capability.
Now I am just making up numbers hear, but this is more to illustrate a point and not any claim on what would be needed to operate a capability like Ghost Shark.
Suppose that NZ were to go and order some Ghost Sharks and then stand up a unit and facilities to operate and maintain them. Per the presser, the price per UUV might be ~AUD$100 mil. per, and then NZ might need to spend a bit more coin to ensure that is has the appropriate command and comms facilities to operate the Ghost Shark. I have not been able to find out how many maintainers and operators are needed per Ghost Shark, but IMO it would not be unreasonable to think that several of each would be needed, especially if the UUV is supposed to be able to operate for hours at a time like various HALE or MALE UAV's do. Add in a command structure that the Ghost Shark personnel report to and we might be at 10+ personnel needed per Ghost Shark. Likewise, several Ghost Sharks would likely be needed to ensure that one would be available if/when needed (Rule of Threes or possibly Rule of Fours) and we might now be looking at an acquisition cost over AUD$300 mil. and 30 - 40 personnel. That might not sound like much, but with the RNZN only having ~2,100 regulars... that many people might be enough to keep an OPV or frigate from being able to deploy because not enough technicals are now available for duty aboard ship.
It is unfortunately true that when some of the numbers get as low as those within the RNZN in terms of funding and personnel, it does not take much before the RNZN, NZDF or else gov't have to start making hard decisions about whether to go with 'A' or 'B' because going with both just cannot happen.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Could be wrong but I think the review reports back later this year (or early next)? All that's been stated so far are replacement combatants, projection (read that as sealift(s) and existing AOR), enhanced patrol including Southern Ocean capability (DCP specifically says "Persistent surface and sub-surface surveillance - Investment in uncrewed maritime surveillance capabilities, with consideration given to subsurface systems to complement uncrewed and crewed surface vessels").
With modular options (containerisation, SH Defence Cube etc) both the crewed Patrol and Sealift types will likely have space and accommodation to also embark other supplementary capabilities such as MCM teams, surface and subsurface ISR vessels (and operators) etc.
Whilst acknowledging NZ does have limited budgets compared to other nations, I wonder if any thought is being given to the configuring the future Patrol and Sealift vessels to better assist with surface and subsurface surveillance including sensor and ASW functionality, such as by embarking the MH-60R and therefore having the appropriate supporting systems such as data links, operator terminals, magazines (for ASW munitions), maintenance space etc? (Yes it will require additional specialist personnel that will require training over time and of course the cost of the vessels will be higher to have the supporting technologies built in).
Whilst (as a generalisation) commentators may periodically suggest up-arming these non-combatants (eg fit missile systems), the reality is it's not practical to do so (otherwise it would be a warship with warship levels of cost, technology and specialist crewing requirements etc), however enhancing them for surface and subsurface surveillance (and response) support roles would seem to be a most helpful, practical and affordable capability to have, adding "mass" to the combatants by allowing these supporting vessels to operate in the vast ocean voids closer to home and the immediate region but away from the frontlines (and allowing the combatants are tasked elsewhere closer to the "action" with allies)?
Now if the replacement sealift vessel(s) were to be designed with enough deck space AND twin hangers (or elevators ;-) ) to simultaneously operate two MH-60R's and/or MH-60R + unmanned team capabilities, as well as a well-dock to launch surface/subsurface craft it would allow the sealift vessel(s) to be utilised in a greater range of tasks other than simply amphibious support and transport, which is vital when there is a need but isn't typically an all year round requirement.
A-7D's (more of a nod to SLUF's and the SE Asia camo scheme ... that I used to see when I was a lad i.e. visiting RAAF F-111's, USAF F-4D's from Kadena and of course the A-4K until they went Euro then overall green).
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Cut the expenditure??
The NZG announced in May a $12b funding increase allocation for the next four years.
Assuming recent expenditure overall was say $5b/year ... the increases represent a 60% funding boost (granted probably slightly under 60% because recent expenditure did include some CapEx and depreciation, but nowhere near these new levels).
So if my back of the envelope calculations are correct defence expenditure is jumping immediately from 1% to 1.6% of gdp?
If the pollies stay on target for 2% in what eight years time then that's an additional $20b ($12 + $8b) over four years (2029-2033) using today's 2025 dollar figures.
Govt has said 2% is the floor and could go higher. Kind of hard not to when the world is falling apart and allies are being called on to spend more. Do we not also do the same or do we remain being bludgers?
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Ghost Sharks could be a possibility (or some other undersea capability - the DCP highlights acquiring undersea capabilities). But we do know that the RNZN has followed RAN's lead by acquiring Ocius Technologies Blue Bottle's as well, so if the RNZN continues to follow the RAN then surely it makes sense training wise and logistically to also acquire the same undersea capability as the RAN?
Not withstanding Tod's very pertinent points that RNZN would need to either grow its personnel and skillsets, or take these from somewhere else (diminishing another existing capability).
But, according to the DCP, this is the direction of travel of the RNZN so it's a happening thing. Granted, with a small investment (NZ$100m) planned for 2024-2029 BUT assume this is the walk and crawl stage as the DCP mentions further investment from 2029 onwards and presumably if the walk and crawl works out well then post-2029 will see greater investment in capabilities.
Agree as a cost effective multiplier (and DCP/Defence acknowledge this).
The replacement of our major capabilities can't be minimal as with Australia doing the heavy lifting, anything less will be seen by seen far and wide as a failure. I'm quietly confident as the funding is being provisioned for (and locked in for 2025-2029). But still, we are playing catch up by also needing to backfill understrength capabilities, so more needs to be done once this first tranche of funding is completed, at least though it is being addressed. DefMin has stated Army recruiting training is to double from 2026 (presumably the other Services will also increase) and NZG has budgeted to grow personnel numbers. Attrition has declined to 7% overall, we just need to fill the gaps in which experienced staff resigned and left critical shortages, time and effort is fixing this ...