Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

Passionate and interesting discussions everyone.
Will likely drift around some on this post, but still hopefully on point for a lot that's been said above.

From a couple of weeks back...
Video of Aotearoa in Antartica.
On face value what a great ship.
Looks like a highly effective vessel for NZ. Perhaps there should be 2? Really, really hope that video and others similar made it to all prime time news outlets across NZ. Got to be positives for recruitment across the forces.
Congratulations to the designers of such a ship.

Todjaeger, thanks for your post from about that time, if not earlier on the significance of proper 'fit for purpose' ship design. Appreciate you taking the time.
Your comments re NZ and AU gov choosing to diminish military funding, my wording there, following the end of the Cold War etc were interesting.
The more I looked the more murky it becomes it seems, which does not instil confidence in gov leadership.
An example that this continues today could be that we are still awaiting a frigate choice at this late stage.
Looks like an unfortunate mindset across all the Anglosphere.

Just as a point of interest looking back some.
At the end of WW2 NZ apparently
(everything today needs to be apparently, possibly, maybe, as you can't really trust anything)....
At the end of WW2 NZ apparently,
had 1000 combat aircraft in the pacific theatre and over 1300 across the world. NZ was also negotiating for 320 P51 when the war ended.
There were around 60 ships of various class/size in the navy.
Population of NZ then, less than 1.8mill.
No doubt our other Anglo nations had similar relevant capacity.

Now we quibble over 2 frigates or 3,
4 P8 or 6. Etc
But, here we are.

The Q and A video on nzdf thread, God defend NZ was very interesting and revealed some of the dynamics going on in the background.
As a wider view I think we are at a place where we are in the greatest time of military change, possibly ever, as it is more than a single event.
More than the invention of the tank, or plane, or jet, rocket, satellite etc.
in many ways it is more like a reinvention of all those combined at the same time.

The effects are dramatic really.
Eg, Ukraine war shows a mid power, with off the shelf cheap drones 3 years ago could turn a major military power.
Today those are now many more drones are far more advanced. Ukraine has effectively halted the Russian advance, diminished/neutralised the Russian Black Sea fleet with drone and missiles. They are significantly damaging the Russian oil infrastructure.
This oil supply decline is adding to the decline of oil supply caused by the Iran war and the Hormuz disaster.

USA fleet seems to sit outside the range of Irans drones and missiles etc.
Worlds most powerful nation many times greater than Iran is held at distance. Hormuz still not yet open after many weeks and the energy effects across the world are and will be significant. Talk of possible fuel rations in Australia in August etc.
This is important.

Point with this is it highlights change in warfare. Questions the strength or viability of conventional navy make up, yet they are a very significant part of power projection and national security.

Frigate replacement 10 years away.
That's rather a long time, yet on the other side it will pass in moments.
The Ukraine and Iran war with drones and missile swarms has changed the battlefield on land, air and sea in 3 years. What will it look like in 10?
What will be the makeup of fighting fleets?

Does NZ need blue water fleet?
Absolutely.
How many hulls to service the needs of NZ area of responsibility?
What kind of hulls are needed.?
What supports pacific islands?
Should there be 10 opv types with 10 fully armed P8?
Or like for like as we have?
Is an ACF really needed?
If so how about 5 B1 Lancers?
Is type 31 a more flexible multi role/drone capable ship, more adaptable to the constant changes in the kit of warfare than Mogami.?
Mogami, a great ship, which seems to be more of a higher level conventional frigate. Will it be capable of an easy update or rather complex?
But then the Japanese could also push the updates through rather quickly.
What do you think?

Who is a likely real threat to NZ and South Pacific?
Is China the main one?
I'm of the opinion that China is likely to pivot more north now for a time and push up into eastern Russia.
Russia couldn't stop them.
It will be interesting to see.
Also the continuing demographics of significant population decline in China is becoming a huge problem for them.
South Pacific may be a straw less inviting at the moment for them perhaps?

Does NZ have the capacity to build more of its own military capability?
The NZDF thread interview highlighted a lot of significant work being done in NZ with rockets, satellites and the Syos company with their advancing technologies.
Looks like they are also doing some significant work with RN. Will that add into a Babcock deal?
Is that technology also going Japans way? Be surprised if it wasn't.

The NZDF interveiw brought to mind the shipping company established in insignificant NZ in 1875 that grew to become what was known as the southern octopus with its routes reaching to America among others.
People who had a vision and got on with it.
So can NZ rise to the occasion of what's needed ahead?
Yes I think it can, there is no doubt!
Question to ask though, does it want to?

recce.k1 said:

Pre-Budget announcement today, for the RNZN funding has been set aside to acquire long endurance ISR USV's for operating across the SW Pacific (more Bluebottles or something else?) and a polar capable UAS to operate from the surface vessels to strengthen maritime domain awareness.

Amongst other funding announcements were further pay and condition increases for personnel to better align with the private sector and mention of re-establishing some trades (which weren't specified).

Minister of Defence Chris Penk announces $1.6b investment for ageing maritime fleet and drones

Chris Penk said the government would invest in drone systems, ship maintenance, and work to replace an ageing naval fleet.

www.rnz.co.nz

Click to expand...

Good news, but what do others think about Bluebottles? Great endurance but seems to me to be very much a rather passive ISR capability which at a cruising speed of 2-6 knots can be easily outrun. Maybe it's more about the network of ISR systems where satelites or a aerial system (manned or otherwise) can be deployed to take over from Bluebottle if the latter can't keep up!?!

WRT a polar capable UAS ....the article states basically that it/they will be deployed from HMNZS Aotearoa but it's sobering to remember that vessel hasn't actually spent much time down that way & is AIUI only expected to do an Antartic run every 2nd summer. We defo need that SOPV ...and aerial capability in between RNZN deployments if satellites aren't available.

Gibbo said:

WRT a polar capable UAS ....the article states basically that it/they will be deployed from HMNZS Aotearoa but it's sobering to remember that vessel hasn't actually spent much time down that way & is AIUI only expected to do an Antartic run every 2nd summer. We defo need that SOPV ...and aerial capability in between RNZN deployments if satellites aren't available.

Click to expand...

It was reported in my paper that the navy was assembling a case for Cabbinet to get a second Aotearoa as she has been very successful in all of her roles and they think a backup is required. In the case of an SOPV the second Aotearoa could perform this role when not required for the primary role and still have a valuable role in the event of conflict that we become involved in, a dedicated SOPV as envissaged would be of limited use in the event of conflict. A second or original Aotearoa would be a more stable platform in the the southern ocean for drone or helecopter operations than any other ship we have.

K in Oz said:

Who is a likely real threat to NZ and South Pacific?
Is China the main one?
I'm of the opinion that China is likely to pivot more north now for a time and push up into eastern Russia.
Russia couldn't stop them.
It will be interesting to see.
Also the continuing demographics of significant population decline in China is becoming a huge problem for them.
South Pacific may be a straw less inviting at the moment for them perhaps?

Click to expand...

TBH continued thought on threats to NZ/the S. Pacific is IMO exhibiting continued 'sea blindness' because it tends to manifest as concern about who could take direct action towards NZ/the S. Pacific with that action happening in those regions. The absolute reality is quite a bit different, in that situations well away from NZ/the S. Pacific can and currently do threaten NZ.

Take the world petroleum supply chain and market as a major example. The ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, coupled with the Iran-Israel-US conflict have had a very negative impact upon both the costs and availability of petroleum and petroleum products, with refined fuels being just one of the petroleum products. The conflicts, especially with the impact on shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, has caused significant reductions in the ready availability of refined product in NZ, as well as the costs for what is available. Even though the Strait of Hormuz is some 14,000 km away from Auckland, the security situation there and in the Persian Gulf has made itself felt in NZ's largest city.

Globally, things could end up getting even worse given the negative impact on the world's fossil fuel-based fertilizer supply, which will then cause second and/or third order and later effects. If people think the fuel prices are a problem now, imagine how it might be if there is worldwide food supply insecurity following reduced plantings and/or crop failures because needed fertilizers were not available in sufficient quantities.

If NZ were to continue to focus solely on the areas in and around NZ and S. Pacific islands, then NZ would be setting itself up for having to deal with whatever comes about as a result of those conflict areas, without having really done anything to try and mitigate the impact on the world generally, or NZ specifically. All whilst NZ's ability to respond (via fuel supply chain problems impacting NZ directly) could become diminished.

I also tend to look at mainland China's interests in the S. Pacific a bit differently. My reading of things is that the PRC has some interest in access to natural resources available in the S. Pacific, but mostly the interest has more to due with being able to position forces if/when needed to counter/contain the US. One must remember that China imports some 70% of it's raw petroleum and domestic production and reserves are insufficient to meet these needs. This, coupled with the SLOC used to for much of the Chinese petroleum imports, means that China wants to exert as much control as possible over this vital SLOC and that by being able to base forces outside the immediate SLOC but between where the SLOC is and where potentially hostile forces could originate from, China could potentially buy time should another country like the US attempt to halt the flow of petroleum to China.

In that there are some potentially interesting (and uncomfortable) parallels to Imperial Japan's campaign in SE Asia and the S. Pacific at the start of WWII.

I think NZ should have a surveillance system set place for NZ and Pacific. Should create a surveillance base that would work in partnership with Fiji Navy . As NZ Navy has crew shortage base IPV in Suva with joint crew from both Navies . Then base a B350 with its surveillance equipment. For NZ purchase 3 sea guardian drones to complement the P-8 aircraft for long range surveillance. For Coastal surveillance increase the B350 aircraft to 6 , three for training/ transport and 3 for Surveillance/Rescue and increase Bluebottles and use satellite and OPV for patrol.

Gibbo said:

Good news, but what do others think about Bluebottles? Great endurance but seems to me to be very much a rather passive ISR capability which at a cruising speed of 2-6 knots can be easily outrun. Maybe it's more about the network of ISR systems where satelites or a aerial system (manned or otherwise) can be deployed to take over from Bluebottle if the latter can't keep up!?!

Click to expand...

Yes fully agree, but I guess if they are selected then that helps to provide a persistent and scalable capability that can remain on station for months at a time and help contribute to the wider common operating picture (i.e. with other aerial or satellite systems etc)?

It would also align with Australia increasing their fleet size and according to this article they have had some positive experiences.

“It provides persistent surface and sub-surface surveillance, can carry payloads and operates as part of a teamed, integrated maritime force,” the release added.

Australian Minister for Defence Industry Pat Conroy called the Bluebottle a formidable asset during a media conference announcing the acquisition, adding that the existing fleet has demonstrated an ability to stay on station for an average of 75 days with the longest deployment being over six months on station.

“We’re also exploring the potential for them to deploy drones and have armed packages to provide kinetic solutions,” he added.

Click to expand...

And according to the RAN's CN.

Speaking at the same media conference as Conroy, Australian navy chief Vice Admiral Mark Hammond added that the Bluebottle was an extremely durable asset, noting that “these things have remained on station as the cyclones have rolled through, and they’ve remained operational.”

He also revealed that the RAN will continue testing the USV to explore its future potential, including working with other manned and unmanned platforms.

Click to expand...

Wonder if any thought has been given to creating a joint ANZ common operating picture, or do both nations run into sovereignty issues in terms of control, data and data security? If so, surely in these geo-political challenging times and with both nations cooperating to protect their near regions it would be to their advantage?

Perhaps if an isolated and closed system could be developed, other nations such as Fiji could be a recipient of some of this data (aligning with what Warhawk is noting)?

I agree with your points Todjaeger.

Would China rule the world if they could? Absolutely and yesterday would be better than tomorrow for them I suspect.
Yes we must all be aware of that and prepare.
When 055 sailed around Australia last year there was a bit of consternation, but what if there had been 4?
Yes this region does need far more hull and airborne surveillance and presence.

With reference to China looking north into Russia... there are huge flows of oil going into China through the ESPO and others and expecting it to continue because as you say they have need of it.
If Russia is happy to build more pipelines for them then China will happily accept.
But Russia has a lot of landmass once belonging to China and not that long ago. If China sees a weakened Russia and opportunity to right a past injustice I think they will go for it.
So yes energy supplies and returned lands are I think going to be a little higher on the mind of China at this time, but I don't think they will go to sleep on the rest of the world.