Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[Rob c]

I know the Mogami is not confirmed yet, but I wonder if it's worth NZ considering buying a Mogami as the OPV replacement as well, in a "fitted for, but not with" configuration . The very lower crew size for the fully speced version means the OPV version would need even less crew- No missiles, just a few guns. It'd have exceptional range, outstanding logistics savings. In case this sounds ridiculous, just consider China already uses 10,000 ton "Coast Guard ships", and this would allow NZ to bolster naval firepower relatively quickly. eg 3 Evolved Mogami, 3 OPV versions of Evolved Mogami.

My personal view on fitted for but not with is that if you don't have the the gear to fit quickly in the time of crises it is a waste of time. While the evolved Mogami seems to be the logical choice getting 3 plus 3 opvs past treasury is is very unlikely. I would think that currently, getting 3 of anything past treasury is a long shot. with the T31 type being quoted as significantly cheaper this may be the option we are stuck with and only 2 due to treasury,
A friend of mine who was part of the ANZAC team has told m of the struggles they had with treasury to get anything fitted to them as treasury tried to get just about everything they could deleted including the gas turbines on the bases that the turbine was only needed to go fast and they only had to go fast a small percentage of the time. The reality is that treasury has huge influence and very little knowledge or common sense when it comes to defence.

 

[Nudge]

My personal view on fitted for but not with is that if you don't have the the gear to fit quickly in the time of crises it is a waste of time. While the evolved Mogami seems to be the logical choice getting 3 plus 3 opvs past treasury is is very unlikely. I would think that currently, getting 3 of anything past treasury is a long shot. with the T31 type being quoted as significantly cheaper this may be the option we are stuck with and only 2 due to treasury,
A friend of mine who was part of the ANZAC team has told m of the struggles they had with treasury to get anything fitted to them as treasury tried to get just about everything they could deleted including the gas turbines on the bases that the turbine was only needed to go fast and they only had to go fast a small percentage of the time. The reality is that treasury has huge influence and very little knowledge or common sense when it comes to defence.

I'm sure the NZ Treasury used exactly the same logic and vetoed any expensive air-conditioning in any Treasury offices in Wellington or Auckland right? I mean it must be a small percentage of summer days that need any AC anyway in lovey NZ, right?

For that matter, it's only a small percentage of people that need to go to the bathroom in any workday, so why not cut those from their offices as well?

I am constantly astounded to hear of the influence that treasury and finance has over a nation's defence.

 

[Warhawk]

I like new Hyundai Industries new OPV being built for Phillipines navy Rajah Sulayman-class

 

[SamB]

Getting Navy back upto 3000 personal just to crew a like for like replacement is going to be a tough gig for whoever is responsible for managing a sometimes 1.9-2% budget. Not forgetting NZDF has to operate in both the Southern and Pacific Oceans. The C4 and DEPP 2025 will enable interoperability with partners. That leaves NZDF with two Australian built multi purpose fridges and two Southern Ocean OPVs. Perhaps when NZDF has built upto a 2% budget discussions can be made about expanding out to a 3% budget in about 15 years but things ain't going to get cheaper.

But if the OPVs are far enough south the general purpose frigates could put up a screen further north. It's just way to complex for OPVs in the Pacific.

 

[Rob c]

Getting Navy back upto 3000 personal just to crew a like for like replacement is going to be a tough gig for whoever is responsible for managing a sometimes 1.9-2% budget.

The navy has never been at 3000 personel or anything close to that number in peace time. The problem is not the numbers, but the lack of qualifies and experienced personel to fill the more complicated roles required in a modern armed service, in other words the problem is retention. Back in 2011 the white paper identified that the 6 to 16 year service group needed additional salary or conditions to ensure their retention, instead of moving in this direction the Key government made the conditions worse and removed previous positive conditions. No following government has made a serious attempt to reverse the slide.
For reference the navy was about 2400-2500 in 1960 and crewed one cruiser 530 men, 4 frigates 160 crew each, 2 minesweepers 100, plus a survey vessel and some other vessels including 2 frigates and 2 mine sweepers in reserve requiring maintenance crews, some of the ships would have been in refit, but still a significant crew demand was achieved.

 

[76mmGuns]

My personal view on fitted for but not with is that if you don't have the the gear to fit quickly in the time of crises it is a waste of time. While the evolved Mogami seems to be the logical choice getting 3 plus 3 opvs past treasury is is very unlikely. I would think that currently, getting 3 of anything past treasury is a long shot. with the T31 type being quoted as significantly cheaper this may be the option we are stuck with and only 2 due to treasury,
A friend of mine who was part of the ANZAC team has told m of the struggles they had with treasury to get anything fitted to them as treasury tried to get just about everything they could deleted including the gas turbines on the bases that the turbine was only needed to go fast and they only had to go fast a small percentage of the time. The reality is that treasury has huge influence and very little knowledge or common sense when it comes to defence.

Then would 2 Mogami+ 2 Mogami "OPV's" - fitted but not with and downgraded sensors be worth it? Treasury would love the logistics savings, no?

 

[Rob c]

Then would 2 Mogami+ 2 Mogami "OPV's" - fitted but not with and downgraded sensors be worth it? Treasury would love the logistics savings, no?

More likely hey would say " If you don't need sensors for two, scrub the sensors for the other two. Using de-sensored frigates for OPV's would be seen as overly expensive as frigates are built to warship standards and OPV's to cheaper Lloyds standards to sav money.

 

[SamB]

Te Kaha and Te Mana have served their purpose well. They were a choice that retreated from New Zealand's constitutional obligations. With only two frigates the RNZ Navy is on a maintenance and training cycle. By maintaining a like for like replacement of 5 different ship classes while personal numbers are capped at 2500 ensures burnout no matter how qualified they maybe. A larger pool of personal would reduce burnout of a smaller pool of personal having to cover 5 different ship classes that will be on constant deployment.

Our number one ally Australia is stretched. If we don't have the guts to patrol our own EEZ other less altruistic motives will be keen to fill the vacuum.

To provide anything less than 3000 navy personnel is to ensure that New Zealand's sovereignty exists only on paper.

 

[Rob c]

By maintaining a like for like replacement of 5 different ship classes while personal numbers are capped at 2500 ensures burnout no matter how qualified they maybe. A larger pool of personal would reduce burnout of a smaller pool of personal having to cover 5 different ship classes that will be on constant deployment.

The theory of burnout was not a problem in the 1950's and 1960's when up to 40% of the navy could be at sea at once and at times this was in a combat situation. So why is burnout a problem now when less than 20% can be at sea at once and often it is less than 10% of personel. This 3000 man navy does not stack up when it has never existed in peace time before and the replacement ships are likely to have significantly smaller crews than the current fleet. for instance a Morgami has 90 compared with an ANZAC's 160.
The real problem is retention as 10 to11% of personel are leaving annually, this needs to come down to 6% which was the traditional figure pre 2000. this means you get far more value out of your people due to their experience and aquired knowledge and it cuts training costs as you don't have to train as many.
I have some long term ex navy friends who served in tech roles and have never reported burnout.

 

[OldTex]

Why do people join the Navy? To go to sea, be challenged and see the world (or part of it) at no expense!

If only 20% of the personnel are at sea at most then burnout is not the problem. The problem is that the personnel are bored and don't feel valued and the reason they joined the navy is not being satisfied (see the opening paragraph) why accept low pay and poor conditions to be stuck behind a desk when in civvy street they would be paid more, not get stuffed around as much to do less work. That is why retention is a problem!

 

[SamB]

Would it be possible or even desirable to transfer all of Australia's Anzacs to RNZN?

 

[Warhawk]

Would it be possible or even desirable to transfer all of Australia's Anzacs to RNZN?

No Australian Anzacs being run harder (worn) and ready started to retire frigates than NZ frigates.

 

[SamB]

No Australian Anzacs being run harder (worn) and ready started to retire frigates than NZ frigates.

Arguably we'd have spares.

Perhaps I should rephrase my question. Instead of buying two modern frigates. Could a program be developed for the same fixed price that would enable two Anzacs on constant deployment.

Nothing to date indicates that the world we find ourselves in is in the same state as the world when Te Kaha and Te Mana was selected for. And if you don't like a 3000 personal navy then you're not going to like a 4000 one. A regional presence has to be the priority.

 

[recce.k1]

The real problem is retention as 10 to11% of personel are leaving annually, this needs to come down to 6% which was the traditional figure pre 2000. this means you get far more value out of your people due to their experience and aquired knowledge and it cuts training costs as you don't have to train as many.

Good news, retention continues to improve. As of 2025 (30 April), the RNZN attrition rate was 5.8%.

(RNZAF 6.9%, Army 7.8%).

 

[Todjaeger]

Arguably we'd have spares.

Perhaps I should rephrase my question. Instead of buying two modern frigates. Could a program be developed for the same fixed price that would enable two Anzacs on constant deployment.

Nothing to date indicates that the world we find ourselves in is in the same state as the world when Te Kaha and Te Mana was selected for. And if you don't like a 3000 personal navy then you're not going to like a 4000 one. A regional presence has to be the priority.

The RAN ANZAC-class frigates which have already started getting retired are in part getting decommissioned to serve as a potential source of parts to keep the rest of the RAN ANZAC-class frigates in service for the time being.

Now, without even getting into the ages of the different specific frigates, one needs to remember that the RAN and RNZN ANZAC-class frigates are no longer the same frigates and have been significantly different for some time. The CMS in te RNZN frigates is now based upon the LockMart Canada's CMS330, not the 9LV originally fitted and still used in the RAN frigates. The two types of frigates, despite originally having been the same class, now have different sensor and armament fitouts which as substantially different. It is likely that at least some of the internals are different between the two navies, and possibly even more than before following some of the modification work to fit the new mast to the RAN frigates with CEA FAR fitted. IIRC, due to how that increased the topweight, ballasting had to be added to the hulls of the RAN frigates to counter the topweight increases, resulting in the RAN frigates riding lower in the water and having an increase in draught.

Some of the results in the divergence in class fitout between the navies is that Kiwi sailors used to serving aboard RNZN frigates cannot just automatically switch over to a RAN or ex-RAN ANZAC-class fitout. Making it even worse IMO is that with the change in numerous systems, it would take additional time for Kiwi sailors to get trained up to operate ex-RAN systems, meaning the old frigates would be even older before the RNZN could likely get service out of them, and that was if such training were to start today.

There is also the matter of the RAN needing to keep some of the ANZAC-class frigates because their replacements are not yet ready to take over.

When looking at everything as a whole, I just do not see it as feasible for the RNZN to get RAN ANZAC-class frigates.

 

[Rob c]

Nothing to date indicates that the world we find ourselves in is in the same state as the world when Te Kaha and Te Mana was selected for. And if you don't like a 3000 personal navy then you're not going to like a 4000 one. A regional presence has to be the priority.

It must be remembered that personnel costs are the armed forces biggest single budget cost and the more you spend on personnel the less is available for equipment and as been pointed above there is no point in having large numbers of personnel if you don't have something productive in their selected calling for them to do. Even a 50% increase in the number of ships (which the current government would not pay for)would not justify a 3000 man navy.

 

[Rob c]

Good news, retention continues to improve. As of 2025 (30 April), the RNZN attrition rate was 5.8%.

(RNZAF 6.9%, Army 7.8%).

Good news, but I suspect that the current unemployment figures may have contributed

 

[SamB]

Poverty has never been a valid argument for not re-arming Navy and military generally and probably a driving force for doing so. I understand that New Zealand doesn't have an economy that can sustain 3 frigates just that 3 won't cut it. But I get what is being said. To much sea blindness.

 

[spoz]

The Australian Anzacs are approaching the end of their lives; as indeed are the Kiwis. As ships get to and past the 30 year point the cost of their maintenance, and the time which needs to be devoted to it, increases dramatically - they are classic examples of the bathtub curve. There would be absolutely no point in NZ taking over clapped out Australian Anzacs, even if they were compatible in CMS, weapons and sensors which, as noted above, they are not.

 

[Cadredave]

I know the Mogami is not confirmed yet, but I wonder if it's worth NZ considering buying a Mogami as the OPV replacement as well, in a "fitted for, but not with" configuration . The very lower crew size for the fully speced version means the OPV version would need even less crew- No missiles, just a few guns. It'd have exceptional range, outstanding logistics savings. In case this sounds ridiculous, just consider China already uses 10,000 ton "Coast Guard ships", and this would allow NZ to bolster naval firepower relatively quickly. eg 3 Evolved Mogami, 3 OPV versions of Evolved Mogami.

If memory serves me this is exactly what we use to have with a four Frigate Navy, one deployed, one returning, one in maintenance and the fourth training/fisheries duties, those WW2 sea going Officers knew exactly the minimum required for our Country.