Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[Rob c]

Here's hoping the NZDF reprioritizes our Navy as our main defence force, shifts funding from our army to our Navy, and goes for four improved Mogamis.

My personal view is the need for a balanced expanded defence force, focusing on one section at the expence of others leaves gaps that an enemy can then use to their advantage and we will never have a navy big enough to cover the area's neccessary.
The ordering of only 5 new helicopters I think signals that there is no expansion being considered at this time.

 

[Todjaeger]

The ordering of only 5 new helicopters I think signals that there is no expansion being considered at this time.

My personal take is more along the lines of lessons from the past have not been learned. IIRC the RNZAF also did a 1:1 replacement for the C-130's...

Such small numbers of platforms might work early in the service life of a platform, but will lead to problems and unavailability for ops well before the end of service life. Penny wise (perhaps, not even sure I would agree with this one), but certainly pound foolish.

 

[StingrayOZ]

My personal view is the need for a balanced expanded defence force, focusing on one section at the expence of others leaves gaps that an enemy can then use to their advantage and we will never have a navy big enough to cover the area's neccessary.
The ordering of only 5 new helicopters I think signals that there is no expansion being considered at this time.

3 Mogami frigates, even just another 3 helicopters (which can still be ordered), would be a worthwhile upgrade for the NZDF. They wouldn't always have to be deployed. If not additional MH60s, then UUV/UAV options which are also valid.

I think another P8, LRASM (just a few housed in country) would also be really useful.

Between Australia and Japan the Mogami design has a huge number of build units. It I think would be a good platform to get into, and not only that, upgrades will happen, you have a choice of manufacturer, local support and mission wise it fits with NZ. It would certainly be the time right now to look at them very closely, maybe benchmark against type 31.

 

[Catalina]

My personal view is the need for a balanced expanded defence force, focusing on one section at the expence of others leaves gaps that an enemy can then use to their advantage and we will never have a navy big enough to cover the area's neccessary.

That's my point Rob. Our current defence force isn't balanced - its way too top army heavy. The army takes 50% more of the defence budget, (32%) than our Navy receives (21%).* For our sea trading maritime nation these proportions should be reversed.

Our Navy is our only force which can simultaneously project power across the realm of New Zealand - while both supplying and defending itself. The convoys upon which our nation depends require naval, not army, escort. Our air force cant defend itself and our army cant project itself, and neither can defend their own supply lines from missile strikes, only our Navy can do all three - project, defend, and self supply.

Naval warfare is fundamentally different from land warfare. The goal is never to statically cover anywhere, it is to use maneuver, even in defence, to be able to concentrate power at a place and time of our choosing across a whole theater. Maritime maneuver massively multiples the power of navies. Warships can move 24 hours a day 7 days week. At 18 knots a naval formation can traverse over 3,000nm in a week. The incredible force multiplier that is HMNZS Aotearoa allows our combat frigates this theater wide striking and defence power with its purpose built capability of refueling our frigates some 14 to 17 times. In Maritime Warfare, which is what the Pacific theater is, our army, stuck in NZ with hundreds of vehicles, doesnt defend us, it drain us.

Two sailors for every soldier, two dollars for our Navy before one for the army.

Four improved Mogami class frigates, with their combined defense missile firepower of 628 missiles provides a real force capable of defence, and thus offense. We have had four frigates before, and we should have them again.

------

2024/25 financial year Departmental output expenses:

$3,681 million for Departmental output expenses comprising of:

$1,168 million for Army (32%)

$1,108 million for Air (30%)

$782 million for Navy (21%)

 

[Wombat000]

I think Army has been prioritised budget-wise, because NZ foreign policy has been passive/humanitarian/peace keeping focused.
Anything deployed will have been judged and weighted by its ‘ground effect’.

It perceived its own sovereignty and national interactive integrity as secure, and would default any anomaly capability requirements to its allies.
- Its allies allowed this attitude to prevail.

The other services were regarded as either enablers to the priority ‘ground effect’ policy or simply catering to Garrison functions.
Hence their lesser budgeted support.

 

[Catalina]

I think Army has been prioritised budget-wise, because NZ foreign policy has been passive/humanitarian/peace keeping focused.
Anything deployed will have been judged and weighted by its ‘ground effect’.

It perceived its own sovereignty and national interactive integrity as secure, and would default any anomaly capability requirements to its allies.
- Its allies allowed this attitude to prevail.

The other services were regarded as either enablers to the priority ‘ground effect’ policy or simply catering to Garrison functions.
Hence their lesser budgeted support.

Yes that is well reasoned Wombat.

In effect due to a now shattered sense of security, our Defence Force morphed away from multidomain combat into more of an overseas HADR force prioritizing the security of others rather than the security of New Zealanders and in doing so hobbled the two most effective legs of defence we need - our Navy and air force.

Now though a new and growing hostile power is on the scene and new ways of thought and preparation are needed.

If that is the case, my calls to reprioritize our Navy over our army are even more valid.

 

[ADMk2]

That's my point Rob. Our current defence force isn't balanced - its way too top army heavy. The army takes 50% more of the defence budget, (32%) than our Navy receives (21%).* For our sea trading maritime nation these proportions should be reversed.

Our Navy is our only force which can simultaneously project power across the realm of New Zealand - while both supplying and defending itself. The convoys upon which our nation depends require naval, not army, escort. Our air force cant defend itself and our army cant project itself, and neither can defend their own supply lines from missile strikes, only our Navy can do all three - project, defend, and self supply.

Naval warfare is fundamentally different from land warfare. The goal is never to statically cover anywhere, it is to use maneuver, even in defence, to be able to concentrate power at a place and time of our choosing across a whole theater. Maritime maneuver massively multiples the power of navies. Warships can move 24 hours a day 7 days week. At 18 knots a naval formation can traverse over 3,000nm in a week. The incredible force multiplier that is HMNZS Aotearoa allows our combat frigates this theater wide striking and defence power with its purpose built capability of refueling our frigates some 14 to 17 times. In Maritime Warfare, which is what the Pacific theater is, our army, stuck in NZ with hundreds of vehicles, doesnt defend us, it drain us.

Two sailors for every soldier, two dollars for our Navy before one for the army.

Four improved Mogami class frigates, with their combined defense missile firepower of 628 missiles provides a real force capable of defence, and thus offense. We have had four frigates before, and we should have them again.

------

2024/25 financial year Departmental output expenses:

$3,681 million for Departmental output expenses comprising of:

$1,168 million for Army (32%)

$1,108 million for Air (30%)

$782 million for Navy (21%)

So much for the joint force, eh?

But seriously, before you get too wrapped up in who should get what, I think you need to understand the basis of those payments.

RNZN is 1/3rd the manpower size of the NZ Army, but currently receives 2/3rds of the funding that Army receives. Comparatively the RNZN per person is already funded significantly better than the NZ Army and your “robbing Peter to pay Paul” approach does absolutely nothing to enhance the joint force, but rather tries to strip bare an Army that is already almost as threadbare as an Army can be and still be called a modern, capable Army, in order to modestly improve the Navy.

The NZDF’s Service‘s problem is not the “ratio” of funding they receive compared to the other services, but rather the overall level of funding they receive.

The NZ Gov needs to do better on this front across all 3 services. Period.

 

[Todjaeger]

The NZ Gov needs to do better on this front across all 3 services. Period.

Slight disagreement here. IMO it should be Exclamation Point, not Period.

One of the frustrating things for me, as an outsider, is that the 'benign strategic environment' that NZ allegedly had is one that many people pointed out problems with, for years. NZ was fortunate in that despite the gutting which Defence went through, nothing catastrophic happened to a degree where the illusion (or delusion, take your pick) of safety was punctured.

Unfortunately, some of the decisionmakers that had occupied positions of power in NZ not only enabled the situation, but actively worked towards breaking the NZDF. I do not now if such efforts were deliberate (and no, I do not put is outside the realm of possibility) but by allowing the entire force to shrink so much, and still insist on NZ being a 'good' international citizen and contributing NZDF personnel to so many UN deployments in the 2000's, the skills and capability shrank further.

I do not recall exactly when it was, but some time in the 2000's NZ had defence personnel scattered across the globe, with a total of ~900 personnel deployed across 27 distinct UN ops. IIRC at the time the number of deployed personnel constituted ~15% of the entirety of the NZDF. In having so many personnel deployed, and having the individual deployments so small, the NZDF began to break because of a lack of unit cohesion as well as difficulties in personnel and units being able to maintain necessary skills. Fortunately gov't seemed to recognize this and starting scaling NZ's participation in UN deployments back circa ~2011, but the damage was done.

 

[Rob c]

That's my point Rob. Our current defence force isn't balanced - its way too top army heavy. The army takes 50% more of the defence budget, (32%) than our Navy receives (21%).* For our sea trading maritime nation these proportions should be reversed.

The DCP clearly said that the first priority of the armed forces is to defend NZ and then the region.
The navy even with more frigates 4 or more cannot do this as it is inevitable they will be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Don't get me wrong I think 4 frigates is a damn good idea, however it cannot be at the expense of the other services. The simple problem is that the governments of the last 35 years have run defence into the ground with chronic underfunding and even if we had more frigates it is unlikely we could even man them due to the personnel shortfall mainly caused by the Key governments reduction to the terms and conditions of service. The amount of money and work needed to restore the NZDF to a viable unit is large and the current government is yet to really move to achieve this.