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.

 

[Catalina]

I think 4 frigates is a damn good idea, however it cannot be at the expense of the other services...The amount of money and work needed to restore the NZDF to a viable unit is large.

Glad to hear you think 4 frigates is a dammed good idea. We differ on my belief that we don't need to restore a land based continental style military for our maritime nation, I believe we need to overcome decades of gross over spending on the army for oversesa feel good peace keeping purposes, and reprioritize funding towards our Navy to over time create an integrated power projecting naval and marine force that can cover the expanse of the Realm of New Zealand and support our allies in the turbulent seas of our world.

Don't 'restore' for old wars, 'reprioritize' for future wars. I would roll our army into a marine force under the Navy and likewise our Air Force into a Fleet Air Arm under Naval Control. This counters ADMk2's comments about a joint force. Integrated Forces beat joint forces. We are 5 million people and should stop trying to fund a trapped army, and a toothless Air Force.

We should instead prioritize our funding into a single integrated Naval Force. Todjaeger speaks about the lack of cohesion of previous defence policies. An integrated maritime force focused on defending New Zealand and our Pacific region through the protection of sovereignty and sea lines of communication achieves this cohesion. Look at the supreme versatility for example of frigates...

Frigates are multi-domain combat units they fight below, on, and above the sea.

The Improved Mogami frigates our Navy is considering purchasing can reposition 3,000nm in a week and each bring to the fight 157 missiles plus those on the helicopter, (another 8?). They pack more of a punch, where and when is required than any land trapped formation can. In a maritime theater, which is what New Zealand and the South Pacific is, naval combat units literally leave land formations for dead.

The Improved Mogami Class only require 90 sailors. They will be produced both by Japan and our only military ally, Australia. Refits and servicing will be able to done just across the ditch. The threat to NZ, as in all wars, is maritime.

Improved Mogami's are a hell of bag for the buck and if we have to take money from the army for it, go for it. Hundreds of soldiers driving around in New Zealand in flash new vehicles isn't what our nation needs. Its sailors on the sea in ships that integrate perfectly with our Australian ally.

Four Improved Mogami class frigates dramatically increases the flexible defence of New Zealand and our region.

 

[Catalina]

Least We Forget: 23rd October 2024. Communist Chinese Navy surprise appearance just 2 days north of NZ.

Following up from their 25th September 2024 nuclear capable Intercontinental Ballistic Missile test into the South Pacific that stunned the South Pacific a month earlier, the Communist Chinese Party deployed lead elements of its growing battle fleet into Port Vila, Vanautu, just 2 days north of New Zealand.

Packing a whopping 112 antiship and land attack missiles, the CCP sent its massive brand new Type 055 Renhai Class Cruiser Xianyang along with the formidable Type 052D Luyang III Class Destroyer Nanning equipped with 64 antiship and land attack missiles. Each Communist warship is capable of obliterating Ohakea and all our RNZAF aircraft based there in a sudden preemptive Pearl Harbour type strike.

New Zealands only defence against incoming Chinese missiles are the Sea Ceptor surface to air missiles onboard our two Navy frigates HMNZS Te Kaha and HMNZS Te Mana.

New Zealand's most renowned expert on Communist China, and the very real threat its spreading military expansion poses to New Zealand and the South Pacific, Professor Anne-Marie Brady, noted that the recent arrival of the new and advanced PLAN warships in Port Vila Vanuatu took diplomats and analysts by surprise.

The Chinese warships took an unusual route, entering the West Pacific through the Malacca Sea, sailing north of Papua New Guinea, and then entering the Bismarck Sea to reach Port Vila. This path attempts to circumvents Australia’s surface, underwater, and air surveillance in its northwest and northern approaches.

Our Navy is the only force capable of defending New Zealand from the 176 missiles onboard the Xianyang and Nanning.

 

[Rob c]

We should instead prioritize our funding into a single integrated Naval Force.

The problem with this is it leaves you open to attack that bypasses your naval assets either by going around them, whether seabourne or airborne. If for instance, whether by stealth or direct attack an enemy took an airfield, they could simply fly in troops and equipment and there is nothing you could do about it. The simple problem with total reliance on ships is they move to slow(18 x 24 = 432kt/800km) If they are part of an integrated defence system with good air combat and land combat systems they then are very important but on their own, not so much, to easy to isolate. Go back in history to Crete 1941, the Germans sent both sea and airbourne units to invade, the seabourne was destroyed, the airborne succeeded. It is unlikely that our navy would be big enough to stop a seaborne attack assuming it managed to be in the right place at the right time which is not guaranteed.

 

[Wombat000]

Hmmmm, I’m thinkin….
I don’t know why anyone would launch an ‘invasion’ of NZ ?
Perhaps a SF raid, but linking a Crete scenario is unrealistic.

Why would you bother, when you could isolate it remotely from a vantage point along their vast SLOCs.

This is what will actually be required to actually defend NZ, existentially.
And it would be accomplished or at least influenced by the persistence of sea power.
Either NZ takes responsibility for their own security and provides a credible deterrence to make incursions problematic, or they get a friend to do it for them? (Australia has the same problem, just a bigger scale).

It’s hard to provide a meaningful degree of deterrence influence if your assets are too few, and or they are impotent to challenge the threat.

 

[Catalina]

The problem with this is it leaves you open to attack that bypasses your naval assets either by going around them, whether seabourne or airborne..It is unlikely that our navy would be big enough to stop a seaborne attack assuming it managed to be in the right place at the right time which is not guaranteed.

Thats the point Rob, naval assets arent 'bypassed' because the naval assets arent locked in bypassable places like land units are, or chained to airfields that will be taken out in first strikes like aircraft are. Naval units can enter and leave the area of combat they themselves choose, over 3,000nm in a week. Should they be not in place initially, as long as they are within 500nm they could reach the required area in a day. Three or four modern new Improved Mogami class frigates together would require a substantial effort to overcome. NZ had 4 frigates back in the 80s when we were much poorer so it is not unrealistic to push for the same number now when we have Communist Chinese warships operating in the Tasman Sea.

If the British in Crete had been blessed with 4 Improved Mogami Class Frigates, then both the seaborne and airborne invasions would have been stopped. 4 Improved Mogamis can carry 628 anti-air missiles. Sea Ceptors can reach up to 30,000'. If your concern is a Communist Chinese airborne invasion of Auckland airport, frigates operating off Auckland can shoot down the Chinese aircraft, or they can tackle the invasion force, or destroy the follow up supply ships that land forces are so dependent on, or protect our convoys, or prosecute Chinese submarines, or strike at the ports from which follow up Chinese forces are massing. As long as we have warships we have flexible responses and the ability to strike and defend across the AOR as we decide - that's the flexibility a combat navy provides.

Likewise in times of peace the self projecting nature of warships allows for real naval defence diplomacy across our region.

No other military unit provides such positive military options across under, on, and above the sea while being able to both defend themselves and others.

 

[Catalina]

when you could isolate it remotely from a vantage point along their vast SLOCs.

This is what will actually be required to actually defend NZ, existentially.
And it would be accomplished or at least influenced by the persistence of sea power.
Either NZ takes responsibility for their own security and provides a credible deterrence to make incursions problematic, or they get a friend to do it for them? (Australia has the same problem, just a bigger scale).

It’s hard to provide a meaningful degree of deterrence influence if your assets are too few, and or they are impotent to challenge the threat.

Well said Wombat. We are a maritime nation in a maritime environment in a maritime theater dependent upon our SLOC.

On 20th February 2024 Australia announced that it will more than double its number of warships to create the biggest navy since WWII.

NZ's defence needs also to be Seapower focused.

 

[Rob c]

Hmmmm, I’m thinkin….
I don’t know why anyone would launch an ‘invasion’ of NZ ?
Perhaps a SF raid, but linking a Crete scenario is unrealistic.

Just because you don't know does not mean it won't happen.
War is in it's self not logical and so using logic to try to see what will happen does not work. What is the logic of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Russia has everything Ukraine has and more than Ukraine. Why did Hamas attack a concert and start a war, not through logic. Why did Germany attack Crete? coming Know significant resources there for them and not any strategic value.Then there is the Falkland war, who saw that coming and what was the logic. What logic has to do with the reasons for war or if you are to be targeted is very little and saying you cannot see something happening simply says that the future is unknown to us, we are blind to the future so never say something won't happen because you cannot see it.
The Crete item just reinforces what can happen if you leave gaps in your defence

On 20th February 2024 Australia announced that it will more than double its number of warships to create the biggest navy since WWII.

NZ's defence needs also to be Seapower focused.

The also have a powerful RAAF and Army, a fa mo balanced force than us.

reach up to 30,000'. If your concern is a Communist Chinese airborne invasion of Auckland airport, frigates operating off Auckland can shoot down the Chinese aircraft,

Could be Christchurch, Wellington, Ohakea, Napier or were ever.

If the British in Crete had been blessed with 4 Improved Mogami Class Frigates, then both the seaborne and airborne invasions would have been stopped. 4 Improved Mogamis can carry 628 anti-air missiles.

they have to be at the right place at the right time

. Should they be not in place initially, as long as they are within 500nm they could reach the required area in a day

They have to be within that distance and there are no guarantees of this and 24 hrs could easily be too late.
Also you need to factor in that any potential aggressor will take measures to counter what you have and having all your eggs in one basket makes that a lot easier and in the past has been disastrous.

 

[Maranoa]

Thats the point Rob, naval assets arent 'bypassed' because the naval assets arent locked in bypassable places like land units are, or chained to airfields that will be taken out in first strikes like aircraft are. Naval units can enter and leave the area of combat they themselves choose, over 3,000nm in a week. Should they be not in place initially, as long as they are within 500nm they could reach the required area in a day. Three or four modern new Improved Mogami class frigates together would require a substantial effort to overcome. NZ had 4 frigates back in the 80s when we were much poorer so it is not unrealistic to push for the same number now when we have Communist Chinese warships operating in the Tasman Sea.

If the British in Crete had been blessed with 4 Improved Mogami Class Frigates, then both the seaborne and airborne invasions would have been stopped. 4 Improved Mogamis can carry 628 anti-air missiles. Sea Ceptors can reach up to 30,000'. If your concern is a Communist Chinese airborne invasion of Auckland airport, frigates operating off Auckland can shoot down the Chinese aircraft, or they can tackle the invasion force, or destroy the follow up supply ships that land forces are so dependent on, or protect our convoys, or prosecute Chinese submarines, or strike at the ports from which follow up Chinese forces are massing. As long as we have warships we have flexible responses and the ability to strike and defend across the AOR as we decide - that's the flexibility a combat navy provides.

Likewise in times of peace the self projecting nature of warships allows for real naval defence diplomacy across our region.

No other military unit provides such positive military options across under, on, and above the sea while being able to both defend themselves and others.

I love your faith in a few frigates. Naive, but optimistically brave and not at all deterred by reality or surface combatant vulnerability. I would be analysing the reality of surface combatant operations in Ukraine long and hard before I invested too large a percentage of my few defence dollars in surface warships if I controlled defence vote allocations.

 

[ADMk2]

I love your faith in a few frigates. Naive, but optimistically brave and not at all deterred by reality or surface combatant vulnerability. I would be analysing the reality of surface combatant operations in Ukraine long and hard before I invested too large a percentage of my few defence dollars in surface warships if I controlled defence vote allocations.

Not to mention the bold political hit when you need to put troops on the ground, but you can’t because you sacked them all to buy an extra Tier 2 frigate or two…

That’s probably why enthusiastic teenagers don’t make force structure decisions...

 

[spoz]

Or people that don’t see a difference between the Black Sea and the South Pacific.