Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
kiwi in exile
Well-Known Member
Enough Tinkering: NZDF must make drones the main effort
The question is no longer whether drones will shape future conflict. The question is whether New Zealand intends to participate in that future – or be left behind, writes former New Zealand Army officer Graeme Doull.
I posted a similar article by this author about a month ago. I agree with his overall sentiment. NZ is appears to be slow on adopting unmanned systems (in addition to frigate replacemet etc). As a means to gain relativly cheap persistent, ranged deployable ISR and deterrent in the mairtime domain quicklly and affordably. Our neighbours are building soverign capability re this in sydney.
The question is no longer whether drones will shape future conflict. The question is whether New Zealand intends to participate in that future – or be left behind, writes former New Zealand Army officer Graeme Doull.
I posted a similar article by this author about a month ago. I agree with his overall sentiment. NZ is appears to be slow on adopting unmanned systems (in addition to frigate replacemet etc). As a means to gain relativly cheap persistent, ranged deployable ISR and deterrent in the mairtime domain quicklly and affordably. Our neighbours are building soverign capability re this in sydney.
I understand that codes of conduct define and distinguish NZDF. And I also commend (insert rank here) Graeme Doull retired and others for taking a public stand but current serving senior sirs need to put there foot down. They need to do that so that the greener ranks have more responsibility and leadership. NZDF don't participate in multinational training exercises like they should be. NZDF once prided themselves on never having to impose on host nations particularly in our neck of the woods because they're all poor and it should hurt because New Zealand has no fucking right to plead poverty.
A simple (hopefully not dumb) question to those with the knowledge, if NZ were to also select Mogami would it be possible to do a joint 3rd frigate with the RAN? So, two 100% RNZN frigates and a third frigate that would be pooled with RAN available to each navy (to be crewed as their own) to cover when other frigates were in maintenance? Just trying to think outside the box in terms of how a cash strapped NZ could achieve an effective combat force of 2 available frigates without the full cost of a minimum three frigate purchase and further cement interoperability with our trans-Tasman cousins.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
An interesting idea for exploration. But my view is we can afford a third Frigate ourselves (at the very least i.e. should be at least four to maintain the rule of three plus provision for one being out of service during major upgrades).
However if history is to be a guide (WW2 & post war 1950-60's when we had both Light Cruisers and Frigates) then, ideally, we also need another higher end platform capable of dealing with wider area defence and specialisation. So I would like to see your suggestion explored by Govt/Defence for at least one AWD or T26 Hunter, that could be part of a wider Australasian interoperable fleet (probably with a late 2030's or 2040's timeline). We could never likely afford a complete fleet (of at least 3-4 such vessels plus 3-4 Frigates for regional defence) but we could likely afford a contribution. Like how we contributed to the Admiralty's plans for wider SE Asia and Pacific defence in the past. It would be a boon for recruiting i.e. the RNZN's "A Team" to aspire to for posting.
Would it happen? Probably not. Should it happen? Seems logical for the times we are now facing. Otherwise if not, then what else instead?
Nighthawk.NZ
Well-Known Member
My point of view is, we can not afford to have less than 4...
From this side of the Tasman - no.
kiwi in exile
Well-Known Member
protection-of-merchant-shipping-top-of-agenda-during-wargames-in-auckland/
NZDF/RNZN hosting a relevant 'desktop' exercise. Would be great to see a brief report on this- strategic vulnerabilities assessment etc.
NZDF/RNZN hosting a relevant 'desktop' exercise. Would be great to see a brief report on this- strategic vulnerabilities assessment etc.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Govt feature article on the progress on the RNZN maritime fleet renewal.
insidegovernment.co.nz
On the maritime fleet renewal programme itself the DefMin states:
On the Frigate replacements themselves the DefMin states:
OTOH with the Australian Govt selecting the Mogami this then "triggers" the need for NZ to assess this as an credible option as part of ANZ defence cooperation. It also provides a number of attractions such as interoperability (with our nearest ally) and servicing efficiencies over the life time of the vessels.
The issue possibly then becomes, what are the acquisition and life costs, and benefits, of acquiring the Mogami ex-Japan, like the first three being built for the RAN (assuming the MHI can accommodate a follow on order for NZ in a timely manner that also suits its own needs to supply the JMSDF)?
Versus the acquisition and life costs, and benefits of an Australian build (just putting aside the later build timelines for a moment*) as surely the RNZN would prefer to operate a vessel that may have Australianisation modifications and be fully interoperable as part of the wider RAN build of eight?
*(Hypothetically as an exercise perhaps could be overcome by ordering two Japanese built Mogami's as batch 1, then ordering a follow on batch 2 order (eg another two) from the Australian build for later in the 2030's? The downside of this may be having two different variants, like the RAN will face, however the RAN have the advantage of a greater number of Australian built batch 2's in the future to mitigate this, i.e. their earlier Japanese built batch 1's could be taken out of service one-at-a-time and be upgraded to the same batch 2 standard mid-life, whereas for NZ with smaller fleet numbers it will have a greater impact on fleet availability ... but that's where having say 4 vessels rather than 3 as the bare minimum provides a degree of mitigation). : )
Anyway noting that Australia has only recently placed the orders for the first 3 Japanese built Mogami's (meaning that details have now been firmed up) but is still working through the process with MHI for the Australian build meaning that information picture is not yet complete enough for NZ's needs to advance its final business case ... possibly explains the delays we are seeing with NZ selecting its preferred Frigate replacement option, be that T31/AH140 or Mogami, and that is why a deadline has now been provided of late 2027. (As perhaps some reassurance has been provided Aust-to-NZ on project finalisation)?
Govt progresses plan to replace ageing frigate fleet - Inside Government NZ
The Government is progressing work to replace the Royal New Zealand Navy’s ageing frigate fleet as part of broader efforts to strengthen New Zealand’s Defence capability, Defence Minister, Chris Penk, has announced. New Zealand’s primary maritime combat capability is currently delivered through...
insidegovernment.co.nz
On the maritime fleet renewal programme itself the DefMin states:
So looks like the functionality that Manawanui provided will be replaced in some form.
On the Frigate replacements themselves the DefMin states:
I'll come back to the highlighted parts, but first in an interview with The Post the DefMin states:
For what it's worth, my perspective is that Defence probably have a fair understanding of the cost and service arrangements of the T31/AH140 (as Babcock have been communicating their product with Defence and NZ industry over the last few years) and may now be awaiting for it to enter sea trials with the RN to gain further insights into the type's introduction into service. This option does provide interoperability, albeit over a longer distance. OTOH if the UK Govt does go-ahead and base T31's in the Indo-Pacific (replacing the River batch 2's) then further synergies could result.
OTOH with the Australian Govt selecting the Mogami this then "triggers" the need for NZ to assess this as an credible option as part of ANZ defence cooperation. It also provides a number of attractions such as interoperability (with our nearest ally) and servicing efficiencies over the life time of the vessels.
The issue possibly then becomes, what are the acquisition and life costs, and benefits, of acquiring the Mogami ex-Japan, like the first three being built for the RAN (assuming the MHI can accommodate a follow on order for NZ in a timely manner that also suits its own needs to supply the JMSDF)?
Versus the acquisition and life costs, and benefits of an Australian build (just putting aside the later build timelines for a moment*) as surely the RNZN would prefer to operate a vessel that may have Australianisation modifications and be fully interoperable as part of the wider RAN build of eight?
*(Hypothetically as an exercise perhaps could be overcome by ordering two Japanese built Mogami's as batch 1, then ordering a follow on batch 2 order (eg another two) from the Australian build for later in the 2030's? The downside of this may be having two different variants, like the RAN will face, however the RAN have the advantage of a greater number of Australian built batch 2's in the future to mitigate this, i.e. their earlier Japanese built batch 1's could be taken out of service one-at-a-time and be upgraded to the same batch 2 standard mid-life, whereas for NZ with smaller fleet numbers it will have a greater impact on fleet availability ... but that's where having say 4 vessels rather than 3 as the bare minimum provides a degree of mitigation). : )
Anyway noting that Australia has only recently placed the orders for the first 3 Japanese built Mogami's (meaning that details have now been firmed up) but is still working through the process with MHI for the Australian build meaning that information picture is not yet complete enough for NZ's needs to advance its final business case ... possibly explains the delays we are seeing with NZ selecting its preferred Frigate replacement option, be that T31/AH140 or Mogami, and that is why a deadline has now been provided of late 2027. (As perhaps some reassurance has been provided Aust-to-NZ on project finalisation)?
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
DefMin indicates "there is potential to increase the number of frigates the nation purchases".
www.taipeitimes.com
I think it is fair to say the new DefMin has his finger on the pulse!
And that a decision could be made earlier than the end of 2027 nominated deadline.
NZ seeks to expand navy, citing rising global tensions - Taipei Times
Bringing Taiwan to the World and the World to Taiwan
www.taipeitimes.com
That is good news. Realistically a minimum of 3, preferably 4 frigates is what RNZN should have as its minimum. That fourth means you can still continuously deploy a frigate, even while upgrades and improvements are going on. It gives you a much better more viable crew pool for entire fleet.
The ships allow minimum manning, so during non-combat operations, or supporting training etc, they could operate with very minimal crew, so if NZ can look past the mere acquisition cost (on Mogami, that is 40 years to write off, but even 30 years, its still a good investment), the man power savings with modern ships like Mogami or Type 31 are considerable that 3 or 4 ship fleet are no longer flights of fancy, but realistic with the same/near same manpower as the two current ships. You are creating a more sustainable navy, with proper career prospects, reliable capability etc.
The Mogami in particular is build around operating as a base and operating alongside drones. But like most drone deployments, its still a work in progress.
I don't think that will be a major concern with Mogami, modifications are likely to be pretty common across the fleet, or bolt on/software/munition type differences. Even if you kept original Japanese gear, the Japanese are operating a fleet of a dozen, upgrades will actually happen, be de-risked, and could occur in AU (which should have full manufacturer support) or JP (or depending on the type NZ). I doubt we will see the same evolution that we saw with the Anzacs where Australia's end point was completely different, and were high risk, right to the limit, compromise, type upgrades.
Hunter/Type 26? They are bigger, complex projects and platforms with their own challenges, more than just money, in time and risk. Honestly, at this stage getting 4 Mogami/Type31 would be a magical super-winning dream for NZ. I think Navy/Defence/Industry should rally around that cause. With something like an Australian Fitout Mogami, you are at basically destroyer levels of capability. Even if NZ wanted some extra capability, probably integrate that onto a Mogami/type 31 rather than a whole new platform. Does NZ need more than 32vls of SM2/SM6/quad pack ESSM blkII/TLAM (maybe LRASM/PAC-3)/ Type 07 ASROC/ NSM/Type17 asm/SeaRAM, 5" and then embarked (armed?) UUV/UAV/USV drones? MH60R?
Really the hunters key growth capability is in munitions like SM-3 which require Aegis, CEC, huge powerful radars etc. And you are then talking $10m usd+ a shot, and making decisions about orbitals, and can only fire it with more than two or three ships networked together. And premium elite anti-sub hull capability. Its likely over its lifetime Mogami will see similar tech be developed anyway.
If NZ wants a specific big ship, then I would look at building stronger amphibious capability with something perhaps more flat-topish perhaps with a dock. That is probably more regionally practical and important and has massive humanitarian potential while still being extremely useful launching armed drones and providing presence.
I don't know if NZ is up for that conversation. Turning its entire defence force into a more mobile amphibious capability. But I think that would provide the kind of prestige NZ may be looking for - while still being very capable. Even in high intensity operations.
TBH a Hobart class while very capable, isn't quite the same statement as a Canberra class. The Prime minister of Fiji isn't going to be running to the top of the nearest mountain to see a destroyer turn up. But they absolutely do when Canberra turns up after the country has been wiped flat from natural disaster. I think this is going to be way more useful for NZ and the region it is in.
Portuguese have a new LPD, with a crew of 48, flat top, dock, multiple helo spots. Able to carry vehicles, and up to 200 people. But mostly operate as a drone carrier. Something like this might be ideal operating alongside the Mogami class, as it can deploy many more drones.
Portugal builds Europe's first dedicated drone carrier, D João II
Portugal's new drone carrier, D João II, will challenge traditional aircraft carriers, offering high flexibility and lower costs. Built by Damen for €132 million, it can switch mission profiles within a week.
www.euronews.com
“Australianisation” in the Mogami is supposed to be limited to Mk 41 and its weapons, and the SLT. In addition, I imagine it will probably need Aust crypto, and it is possible the MH60 has differing support requirements to the 60K; plus changes to platform systems interfaces to enable them to be used by English speakers. Some of those are forced because the Japanese will not, as yet, allow export of actual weapons - so an NZ version would, I suspect, look very, very similar if not identical.
I expect it to be pretty minimal. The project will be quite busy with local production and risk avoidance will mean minimal changes.
MH60 to 60K should be pretty minimal, they are same basic helo. Australia is more interested in US weapons anyway, so it doesn't really matter if its US sourced or local Japanese manufacture. Ideally, we would make it locally in Australia. But mk45 5" local made isn't going to happen. ESSM/SM6 etc, maybe, munitions for the 5" ok.. NSM possibly eventually.
Japan could certainly put together a very attractive package, and Australia is operating 3 Japanese built ships, so sourcing really won't matter. We aren't Europe, we won't be making 15 different versions. They will be the same ship.
Mogami strength would be the fact that Japan is going to build 12 for herself very quickly (ontop of the 12 already, with Australia getting a total of ~11. So that's already a fleet of 23, if NZ orders 4, it could be getting up to say 30 ships of the enhanced type and over 40 of the total mogami class design. That is a sizeable fleet, efficiency, upgrades, logistics, training can all be enhanced. The day NZ signs on the line they can start training future crews on the existing Mogami's. Deployment, maintainence etc could be done at any of the operators sites. NZ offers a clearly far away secure port.
Japan Australia NZ collaborations and ops could be very collaborative going forward. No one is going to care if Japan and NZ have ops together off the coast of NZ. NZ is in fact an ideal partner for Japan from some points of view.
The UK, is also there, the type 31 would allow for migrations of UK sailors to NZ. Which isn't to be understated, but that can happen anyway. In fact AU/NZ can totally support a similar pathway with Mogami specifically to take sailors in from other navies. Some of the equipment is going to common to both fleets, or close enough its not a deal breaker. With virtualised ships, simulations, etc its easier than ever before.
MH60 to 60K should be pretty minimal, they are same basic helo. Australia is more interested in US weapons anyway, so it doesn't really matter if its US sourced or local Japanese manufacture. Ideally, we would make it locally in Australia. But mk45 5" local made isn't going to happen. ESSM/SM6 etc, maybe, munitions for the 5" ok.. NSM possibly eventually.
Japan could certainly put together a very attractive package, and Australia is operating 3 Japanese built ships, so sourcing really won't matter. We aren't Europe, we won't be making 15 different versions. They will be the same ship.
Mogami strength would be the fact that Japan is going to build 12 for herself very quickly (ontop of the 12 already, with Australia getting a total of ~11. So that's already a fleet of 23, if NZ orders 4, it could be getting up to say 30 ships of the enhanced type and over 40 of the total mogami class design. That is a sizeable fleet, efficiency, upgrades, logistics, training can all be enhanced. The day NZ signs on the line they can start training future crews on the existing Mogami's. Deployment, maintainence etc could be done at any of the operators sites. NZ offers a clearly far away secure port.
Japan Australia NZ collaborations and ops could be very collaborative going forward. No one is going to care if Japan and NZ have ops together off the coast of NZ. NZ is in fact an ideal partner for Japan from some points of view.
The UK, is also there, the type 31 would allow for migrations of UK sailors to NZ. Which isn't to be understated, but that can happen anyway. In fact AU/NZ can totally support a similar pathway with Mogami specifically to take sailors in from other navies. Some of the equipment is going to common to both fleets, or close enough its not a deal breaker. With virtualised ships, simulations, etc its easier than ever before.
Not forgetting that the government of the day didn't stay with the Skyhawk replacements so this 3-4 frigate navy should be 5-6 frigates. With bipartisan support for the aspirational 2% Opex budget as well as a Capex spending track above the operations budget 2x Type 31 and 3x mogami + ghost shark or whatever drones is within budget parameters by my guestimate. Well within. On paper it looks like NZDF overall could double in personal numbers alone.
Not likely, during the 1980-90 period personal numbers were about 12000 on anaverage budget of 2.5% gdp. At the time we had far more equipment to use like 4 frigates with a crew of 260 each, a strike wing with mainance facilities totalling about 500+ people etc. Personel are the bigest cost and what would you use them for even if you could get them.
I resonally would like to see the return of the balanced force of the 80's and 90's with changed for modern warfare.This however is going to cost a lot more than 2%gdp to establish, more like 3% and when established dropping to 2.5%. A dream not likely to happen unless something dramatic happens.
Buying a mixed fleet of T31s and Mogamis would be stupid, quite frankly, for any size Navy NZ could conceivably afford. It would be an operational, logistical and training nightmare, at the very least. Pick one or the other (either a good choice) and stick with it.
Those numbers would be fine if NZDF didn't have to change the way they operate. NZDF were using the same radios from Vietnam. Look mate NZDF is changing the way they operate. A lot of people claim automation reduces manpower pressure or whatever. Hydraulics and airlines those can be automated but a single use robot, there's no spare parts division at Bunnings.
On a 2:1 ratio assuming 5 frigates because 5 is the minimum plus the 2-3 LHDs mind you and auxiliary crew and now UUVs etc. Easily 3000-4000 personal just for navy.
Last edited:
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Concur on your overall writeup. On these points of "extra capability" potentially, I think there may also be a need at the other end of the spectrum i.e. that of improved point self-defence against small surface and slow moving aerial threats (also drone swarms nowadays), judging by how the RNZN/RAN ANZAC's are fitted with up to eight .50cal crew served/rws mini-typhoon MG's.
So wondering about the possible options to fit a couple of extra larger caliber guns (eg MSI/Bofors 30-40mm) in addition to some standard .50cal/12.5mm rws/crew served, or even a second CIWS fore (Phalanx or SeaRam)? T31 has the advantage of a b-turret position/magazine. Mogami though built for stealth appears to have some MG positions atop (I think, looking at some videos), but anything larger (eg MSI/Bofors 30-40mm) may not be in the design let alone top-weight issues. Be interested to find out what Japan and the RAN's thinking on point-defence is on these matters.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Is there any confirmation on changes to the CMS (and radar systems) between the Japan and Australian builds? I seem to recall there was much discussion on such matters on the RAN thread in the past, but unclear what the Aus Govt have stipulated since.