Written By:
- Date published:
2:40 pm, October 31st, 2025 - 22 comments
Categories: AUKUS, australian politics, China, defence, Disarmament, Japan, nuclear war, Pacific, Peace, war -
Tags:
Article reposted from Scoop: Gordon Campbell
Like the Americans, maybe we should be re-naming our Ministry of Defence as the Ministry of War. The new frigates New Zealand is about to buy (to replace its ANZAC frigates) will have a vastly greater operational range and be capable of carrying Tomahawk Cruise missiles, amongst other lethal weaponry. At great expense, we’re equipping our navy and air force to help our allies carry out an air/sea attack upon China, which also happens to be the main market for our exports. To be clear, we’re not investing in equipment designed to defend the New Zealand homeland, or our exclusive economic zone.
Let’s back up for a bit. What kind of frigates are we about to buy? We are set to purchase at least two of the upgraded Japanese Mogami-class frigates that Australia selected in early August as being the ideal replacement vessel for its own ANZAC frigates. Ever desirous of being able to play with the big boys, we’re about to do the same. From October 20 to October 22, our military chiefs were in Tokyo, engaging in talks with the Japanese military about the terms of purchase and delivery :
Japan’s Kyodo News reports that the Government of New Zealand has expressed interest in acquiring a variant of the Mogami-class stealth frigates currently in service with the Japan Maritime Self-Defence Force (JMSDF). Wellington’s expression of interest in the ships was confirmed by Rear Admiral Garin Golding, Chief of the Royal New Zealand Navy, in a recent meeting with Japanese Defence Minister Gen Nakatani in Tokyo.
Here’s a nearly 5 minute AI-assisted YouTube video with the same news story, plus additional information. How much will these ships cost our government – which is forever claiming that money is really, really tight, and that alas, the cupboard is bare whenever it is being asked to boost spending on social needs.
As the influential Diplomat website reports, Japan’s defence budget for fiscal year 2025 stated that the basic construction cost per improved Mogami-class vessel was 105 billion yen, or $NZ 1.194 billion. That basic unit cost to us may well be higher, since we will be paying either Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) in Japan, or the Henderson shipyards in Western Australia to build the ships for us.
Since we’re buying at least two, that means the construction cost alone will be circa $2.5- $3 billion. That’s before you get to the really expensive part: each ship’s self-defence and offensive weapon systems, the anti-submarine capacity, the arrays of Cruise missiles and additional surface to-ship/surface to air missiles, and a 32 cell vertical missile launch (VLS) capacity. Here’s how the Japanese Defense Ministry has itemised the array of add-ons, all of which come with a price tag:
The Japanese Defense Ministry said the improved Mogami will be fitted with longer-range missiles, upgraded multifunction radars and sensors, enhanced anti-submarine capabilities, and improved capabilities for various maritime operations. Specifically, the ship-launched, improved version of the Type 12 Surface-to-Ship Missile and the new ship-to-air guided missile will be equipped on the improved Mogami. The number of Mk.41 vertical launching system (VLS) cells, which serve as missile launchers, will also be doubled from 16 on the Mogami class to 32 on the upgraded Mogami. The upgraded Mogami will be closer to a missile frigate.
With luck, the fully kitted out version will cost (not quite) double the basic construction cost, but a conservative estimate would still put the final tab for New Zealand’s two ships at between $6-8 billion dollars. The mind boggles at the social and industrial transformation that such a massive investment could deliver here at home, if even only a fraction of that money was being spent on social needs.
The Mogami frigates have a 30 knot top speed, necessary if our ships are to be able to keep up with the US carrier fleets. The operational range of our frigates will have been nearly doubled – to 10,000 nautical miles from the current ANZAC frigates 6,000 nautical miles maximum. This extended range will enhance the potential uses of these ships as lethal platforms in the force projection scenarios being envisaged by our allies. Meaning: we are arming ourselves to do battle with China within or near China’s homeland, not ours. These are offensive weapons, in all senses of the word.
So why did Australia choose the Mogami, a decision that left us with little choice but to follow suit, given that inter-operability is such a driving motive? Two answers were provided to The Diplomat team by Sumomo Sayako, director of the International Cooperation Division in the Equipment Policy Department at the Japanese Ministry of Defense’s Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Agency :
Sumomo pointed out that the improved Mogami-class can be used for 40 years, compared to the usual 30 years, and that it can be operated by only 90 people, whereas a conventional destroyer requires more than 150 people to operate.
That last fact must have been music to the ears of a New Zealand Navy beset with staff recruitment and retention problems. The current frigates (HMNZS Te Kaha or HMNZS Te Mana) require up to 178 personnel in all, not counting the handful of flight personnel when helicopters are involved. The Mogami delivers high tech detection and communications systems, enhanced weaponry and – apparently – fewer actual sailors.
Buying Japanese also locks Japan even more closely into US-led alliances in the Asia-Pacific region. Japan is already part of the Quad regional security grouping alongside the US, Australia, and India. Japan is also expected to join AUKUS – which may soon become JAUKUS – if that deeply troubled pact ever finally gets off the ground.
Just where New Zealand’s ships will feature in the already long Mogami construction queue has yet to be seen, but the timing is likely to be a tight squeeze. The working life of our current ANZAC frigates is set to expire in 2035, which is now barely 10 years away. Mitstubishi is set to build the first three Australian Navy frigates by 2032 – the first one is (ambitiously) supposed to be ready for delivery in 2029 – and then the next eight of Australia’s fleet of eleven Mogami frigates will be built in Western Australia.
Will New Zealand be fitted in at the tail end of that long queue ? Creating jobs for Australians has always a key aspect of our defence relationship with Canberra. Reportedly, Australia’s shipbuilding capacity is already behind schedule. So, will Japanese shipyards have to come to our rescue? Either way, getting those frigates done and delivered by 2035 is going to involve a tight deadline.
Finally, let’s talk about priorities. Nicola Willis claimed that New Zealand could afford only a Toyota Corolla version of the Cook Strait ferries. Yet lo and behold, she seems more than happy to bankroll a Ferrari for the Defence forces ! All up, these two new frigates are going to end up costing nearly double the highest estimated price tag for those much-criticised iRex ferries. Go figure.
Footnote One: Deliberately this time, I haven’t addressed AUKUS, which is plagued with shipyard delivery problems. To date, the two US shipyards building the Virginia-class nuclear submarines essential to AUKUS have never achieved anything like the annual production rates required to meet the needs of the US Navy, let alone having the capacity to provide extra subs for the Australans in the timeframe that Canberra needs. (To meet US Navy needs, the US shipyards need to be building 2.0 subs per year. To have an excess able to meet Australia’s needs, the shipyards would need to be building 2.3 a year. Yet those US shipyards have never exceeded 1.2 Virginia-class nuclear subs built per annum. AUKUS is simply not a practical concept.
This shipbuilding conflict between US vs Australian naval needs lies at the heart of the US review of AUKUS being conducted by top Pentagon adviser Elbridge Colby. (He’s the son of William Colby, the Cold War chieftain of the CIA.) The Colby review is due before year’s end.
With Donald Trump, US needs will always prevail. Australia’s refusal to guarantee that it would go to war over a Chinese invasion of Taiwan also will not help Australia’s bid for submarine prioritisation. That could explain why during his recent meeting with Aussie PM Anthony Albanese, Trump went out of his way to signal that there is no need for AUKUS, since the US enjoys such overwhelming military superiority over China, and – according to Trump – this unequal military power balance isn’t going to change any time soon.
To give chapter and verse on that key point…Here again, is the key exchange on AUKUS that took place at the Albanese White House press conference. At 11.18 in the question time after meeting Albanese this exchange occurred:
Q. Mr President, your Secretary of War Peter Hegseth..warned about the potential likelihood or threat of President Xi ordering an invasion of Taiwan.. Do you see AUKUS as a deterrent to China in the Indo-Pacific?
President Trump: “Yeah I do, I think it is, but I don’t think we’re going to need it. I think we’ll be just fine with China. China doesn’t want to do that. First of all, the United States is the strongest military power in the world by far, its not even close, not even close. We have the best equipment, we have the best of everything, and nobody’s going to mess with that. And I don’t see that at all with President Xi, I think we’re going to get along very well as it pertains to Taiwan and others. Now that doesn’t mean its not the apple of his eye, because probably it is, but I don’t see anything happening.”
Meaning: The US believes it can go it alone against China in the Pacific, in the unlikely event that a need to do so should ever arise. If we buy these frigates, New Zealand will be trailing along behind, with no guarantee that our vastly expensive efforts to curry favour with the Trump White House will ever be acknowledged, let alone reciprocated.
So no one is denying our frigates need replacing.
No one is denying the basic need for Australasian interoperability.
No one is denying we're sweating the assets as long as we can.
And the last thing NZ needs is another IREX reversal in Defence terms.
Just take a big inhale into a paper bag Mr Campbell and let the negotiating, specifying and procuring teams do their job
Smaller crew size, long life (40 years) and vastly greater operational range.
Is this a promotion?
We do have a rather large territorial area and a problem with keeping ships at sea because of crewing.
So the only issue is military kit?
But why New Zealand want to attach China ? What is the conflict between them ?? China is providing the country with almost all goods needed ?
I think we can guarantee China that we would not attack their mainland or its other recognised territory. Nor any of its military in their territorial waters.
But we would have questions about their military having a presence in the South Pacific.
We have a large fishing/economic zone.
China and other have fishing fleets. China is world leading at seabed mining.
https://cdn.theoutlawocean.com/investigations/china/pdf/publications/new-zealand-listener–exclusive-international-investigation-exposes-chinas-world-dominating-fishing-tactics.pdf
There is also our membership of the South Pacific Forum and relationship responsibility to some of the islands (these are ones that are not UN members)
Thus need for a transport aid/hospital ship.
We also need to have oversight of nuclear weapons activity – given it is a nuclear free zone. Detection and possible engagement – depending on the wider circumstance.
Given out lack of maritime shipping, we also need naval capacity off coast in an emergency.
We are a trade dependent nation, so there is involvement in UNCLOS matters – this includes ASEAN concerns.
I will reply much more in depth over the next few days providing I don't lost power as we are expecting major super cell Storm event across Sth East Queensland.
We are unlikely to use the Australian Shipyards if we opted for the Mogami frigates? As the Australian Shipyards will cost 2.5 times more than building them in Japan. If we used the ANZAC Frigate build for example, it cost us $1B for 2 Australia built Frigates fitted for but not with. Had we got the same Frigate built in Germany? We would got 3 Frigates fitted with all the bells & whistles or 5 Frigates fitted for but not with!
The Mogami Frigates are definitely not the Ferrari model of Frigates, that goes to the British Type 26 Frigates & the USN Constellation Frigate if it ever gets built as that project is so way behind schedule it's not funny.
The Mogami Class Frigate, is actually middle of road as are the Sth Korea, the German French, Italian Frigates.
The Badcock design & built Type31 Frigate currently being built by Badcock is your Corolla Frigate which is based on the high capable Danish Stanflex Frigate called Absalon Class Frigate. Which in my opinion a better fit for the RNZN, especially if NZ Manufacturers build all the Stanflex Modules.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absalon-class_frigate
What Gordon Campbell fails to understand as well?
That NZ is Maritime Nation, ie our economy that's generates this country's wealth is still an export reliant economy which heavily relies on Overseas Merchant Shipping (as the NZMN is almost gone the way of Moa) having Freedom of Navigation IAW with the UNCLOS.
One of NZ's Main Core vulnerabilities is it's Sea Lanes of Communications which are vulnerable to Maritime indirection if War/Conflict breaks out in the Asian/ Pacific Region. The best and most efficient/ effective to sink those Big Box Carrying Ships (Container Ships) is using Submarines, followed by Sea Mines and lastly Anti Ship Missiles which is the least effective way to sink ships btw.
If NZ be it Allied with our more traditional partners or adopts Armed Neutrality (which requires its own essay) then the RNZN & RNZAF will be required to undertake ASW (Anti Submarine Warfare) to Protect, to Defend, to Deny and to Secure NZ's SLOC's.
The last time the RNZN conducted publicly known ASW Operations was during INTERFET a Chap7 Peace Enforcement Stabilisation Mission & the follow up UN Peacekeeping Misson to Timor Leste in 99-03.
The Type 12 Frigate HMNZS Canterbury detected one the TNI's Type 209 German built U Boats twice, once during the Over the Beach Landing in Suai which btw turned into a complete shit fight and lucky for NZ the TNI Army didn't have the stomach to oppose the Landing. The other time was later off Dili Harbour, when the Australian Frigate had to duck off the Timor Leste enclave in West Timor as the TNI/ TNI backed Militia was causing mischief for the Australian 3RAR Infantry Battalion Group which cause a bit of a flap back in Dili when Canterbury started to chase the TNI U Boat again. Note: I was then a member of the RAAF's 2AFDS which was based around Dili Airport & other parts of downtown Dili.
We also during WW2 German DKM Merchant Raiders & U Boats based out of Singer's conducted activated Maritime denial Operations which did sink a number of NZ & Empire Flagged Merchant Shipping. The Japanese used it's I Boats (Submarines) for Recon by launching Planes over Auckland Wellington Harbours for further I Boat Operations which didn't eventuate due for a number of reasons mainly because of the IJN High Command Politics who believe the Battleship was still the primary offensive Wpn for Naval Operations in the Pacific.
Having Frigates in the RNZN Fleet allows the NZDF to undertake NZG objectives IAW with NZG Defence Policy Statements and fulfil UN Peacekeeping/ Peace Enforcement Chapters 1 to 7 and the Article 51 the right to Self Defence of the UN Charter aka the Korean War when NZ deployed a number of Frigates to support the Joint Commonwealth Naval Task Force under a UN Flag.
While it is likely they will go with inter-operability (Mogami).
There is still a case for one of the frigates being of the Absalon-class – because it can be quickly concerted into a transport or hospital ship (back up to the main transport ship).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absalon-class_frigate
Yes the Danish Absalon Frigate/ Type 31 Frigate has a lot going for it.
Especially when you look at the recent RNZN ANZAC Frigate upgrade, as there is alot of similarities between the RNZN ANZAC & the Absalon/ Badcock design RN Type 31 Frigate from the CMS (Combat Management/ Mission System to the various WPN fit outs to the all important Hanger Facilities & Helicopter Deck which is rated up a CH-47 Chinook/ RN Merlin helicopter's. Which means the RNZAF NH90's can operate from and can be safely stored in the Hanger where the maintainers can carry out servicing on the NH90's which is near impossible on the ANZAC's.
Now coupled with the various Stanflex Modules that the Absalon/ Babcock design Type 31, you can have a very useful ship!
At the expense of a more capable purpose built like the Mogami type Frigates which are designed to undertake one primary & a couple of secondary, whereas the Absalon/ Badcock design Type 31 is what we would call in the trade a "Jack of all trades, but master of none" at the expense of a more Warlike fighting Frigate like the Mogami type Frigates etc.
But as I've said the Absalon Babcock design Type 31 Frigate gives the RNZN/NZDF & NZG the "Utility of Force".
For example we could in theory not only replace the ANZAC Frigate with Absalon/ Type 31 Frigates, but actually the OPV's & the Hydrographic/ Dive Support with the Absalon/ Type 31 Frigate by using the various Stanflex Modules as will a common hill & therefore a basic common crew with the same Training Tactics & Procedures (TTP's) or SOP's in old money.
Where the atm, the RNZN has about 5-6 different ships with each having its own set of TTP's & Maintenance program which not means not only Training/ Skills but a maintenance nightmare let alone the ongoing budget issues of trying to manage a very diverse fleet of Ships.
What does this like on paper for the RNZN all important Concepts of Operations if use the Absalon/ Babcock design Type 31 Frigate?
3 Warlike Frigates to replace the ANZAC's
4-5 for Non Warlike/ Constabulary/Ocean Patrol Vessel Roles to support the our Sth Pacific Partners, NZ's EEZ/ NZ's SAR requirements under the UNCLOS and HADR.
And Finally 1-2 for Littoral Operations aka Hydrographic & Dive Support.
By having a common hull & utilising all the Stanflex Modules. We could potentially in theory be looking at a 35% to 50% saving within the RNZN Budget which would allow the RNZN to invest in other essential Naval Capabilities like a proper Landing Ships & Mine Counter Measures ships for the RNZNVR for Habour Force Protection & Patrolling the 12mile limit & or Unmanned Sea Vehicles/ whatever the current jargon is for USV's?
This is a terminally stupid take.
Nothing more than a stringboard masquerading as insight that attempts to link even a serious debate over military procurement to everybody’s favourite bugbear: Trump. And one that ignores the fact that countries that are not the USA also have agency, including New Zealand.
There is a genuine debate to be had over what military capabilities New Zealand will need into the future. And it certainly would seem obvious that investing in our naval capacity would be wise. Especially if a reduced crew size would let us have four or even five hulls, which would allow us to have two ships on station and a third spare for surge capacity.
But earnest handwringing and moral outrage are no substitute for actual policy. Hope is not a strategy.
Investing in a modest but potent naval force achieves several things:
a) It gives us the ability to protect the integrity of our EEZ and sovereign borders. Fisheries, customs, biosecurity, and the whole panoply of day-to-day sovereign duties that actually matter to New Zealanders.
b) It makes us a major player in the South Pacific, which gives us more agency, not less. Influence in the region comes from presence, capacity, and reliability: not from pious speeches about independence.
c) It allows us interoperability with our allies and makes us a partner worth defending, not a burden to be dropped. Deterrence and diplomacy are reciprocal: if we want others to take our security seriously, we have to take our own contribution seriously too.
d) A more capable surface fleet improves deterrence and presence. Sovereignty is often enforced by visibility. More hulls, more patrol days, more capacity to respond.
e) It provides flexible options for non-war tasks: disaster relief, search and rescue, scientific support, humanitarian missions, and enforcement tasks that require seagoing platforms rather than diplomatic words.
f) Lower crew numbers per hull can be a force multiplier. If modern designs mean fewer sailors are needed, that can translate into more hulls for a similar running cost. And more hulls mean redundancy, surge capacity, and continuous presence without burning out our limited manpower pool.
g) Finally, procurement is technical and long-term. Critiques that boil complex defence planning down to moral outrage or easy geopolitical scapegoating do the country a disservice.
If you want better policy, engage with costs, lifecycle maintenance, crewing models, mission sets, rules of engagement, civil–military priorities, and parliamentary oversight.
Not dumb, reflexive Twitter-level hot takes.
So yes: challenge and scrutinise procurement decisions. Ask hard questions about cost, timing, and mission fit. But don’t pretend that shouting “Ministry of War!” or blaming Trump is a substitute for a structured, evidence-based policy conversation about what New Zealand needs to protect its interests.
Already a lot of good comments here pointing out Mr Campbells lack of insight, but to add to them I would just say that if you are going to try and tear down and criticise a decision, you at least need to propose a solution of your own to the problem. The ANZAC class frigates are already well last their used by date, and unless you have the unbelievably naive opinion of "we don't need a defence force" then some form of replacement is going to have to be chosen for the very aged ANZACS. the Mogami, as others have already stated, are by no means the Ferrari of the frigate world, and the fact you are trying to paint them as such just shows that you either don't really know what you're talking about, or you are being deliberately disingenuous just to manufacture your point.
If you want to be taken seriously as a "socio-political commentator" then you really need to actually have a well informed opinion. Looking up numbers on a data sheet doesn't actually mean you really understand what those numbers mean.
NZ has had chronically low defence spending for many years, and the old "imagine what we could have spent that money on" argument really ignores the fact that government departments have budgets, and defence is operating within that, still quite modest budget.
There’s criticism and there’s constructive criticism; where’s your “solution of your own to the problem”?
As per usual with N.Z.D.F. equipment acquisitions, there are most probably cheaper and just as reliable versions to be found elsewhere.
When Labour acquired the 105 Canadian LAVIII's in 2000 or thereabouts, there were questions from N.Z.F. M.P. Ron Mark who was later Minister of Defence (2017-2020), about whether we really needed them. All modern armies have some armour, but whether we could have spent that $660-ish million on better is a good question.
Now – assuming what I've heard is more than rumour – do we really need a couple of Japanese built frigates for $2 billion or can we actually get a better deal with that money somewhere else. More "bang for buck" as Mark Burton once said. If we're going to spend that much, it better be good!
Rob,
The ANZAC is going to depend on the all important Manpower issues facing the RNZN atm given what happened to the Hydrographic/Dive Support Ship.
The Mogami Class along with Sth Korean & the Type 31 Frigates are quite suitable for the NZG & NZDF needs. If $2B NZD rumoured to the Budget?
Then we could in theory get 3 possibly 4 Frigates from Sth Korea or Japan and possibly 4-5 Type 31's built under licence in Sth Korea with Badcock NZ building the Stanflex Modules at Devonport Dockyard as Badcock operates the Dockyard on behalf of the RNZN. The Type 31 Frigate provides the RNZN/NZDF & NZG with utility of force from HADR all the way up to Warlike Operations providing all the Stanflex Modules are built to provide that utility of force.
As for the LAV's and Bushmasters operated by QAMR & WMR atm, I'm unable to comment as the RNZAC Association & the Mounted Rifles Association have SM gag at what's happening atm. This SM gag should be lifted after Cambrai Day or early December.
Quoting that Muppet Burton is probably not the best advice atm given that the Army has to use Civilian aircraft to maintain its JTAC & the RNZAF's FAC capabilities atm.
Given he along with the Labour Alliance Govt disbanded the Air Strike Wing and 14SQN's Macchi's which provided the Advance Phase of Basic Wings Cse and Lead-in Training for the Strike Wing incl Training for Army/SF JTAC's and the RNZAF's FAC.
Watching from Australia, I don't think it's likely nor desirable that Wellington will ultimately buy in to the Mogami programme, though I disagree with the reasons you've laid out as to why not.
Mogami is, for it's cost, an extraordinarily capable and cost efficient platform that would serve the RNZN very well. But this article focusses nearly exclusively on the frigates, which yes, do need to be replaced. But so to does just about everything else in the RNZN except for the supply ship HMNZS Aotearoa. Unless New Zealand is willing to substantially increase its overall defence budget, which seems unlikely, replacing the frigates like for like is simply not practical unless the navy is willing to be reduced to two frigates and a supply ship for the foreseeable future, which it of course isn't and shouldn't be.
Navies do a lot of things, and the New Zealand Navy is no exception, but boiled down it has four absolutely non-negotiable key jobs, all of which can be completed without Mogami:
Mogami only really makes sense as a good fit for job number 4. It's massive overkill for local hegemony and constabulary roles, and I would argue that if too much cash is locked up on two hulls, only one of which is likely going to be available at any given time, then it's actually detrimental to the constabulary role by reducing hull numbers and associated presence.
RNZN should look to acquire two classes of vessel:
Australia is going heavy on firepower, but isn't buying enough support vessels to make best use of that firepower. This combination of ships gives New Zealand a critical role within the alliance, and will add enormously greater value than another couple of Mogamis, while at the same time being more cost efficient and politically palatable to NZ voters.
Simple but brilliant idea.
Support ships would be perfect for NZ AND Australia. You'd need to uparm your P8 aircraft and possibly purchase several Ghost Sharks to give yourself some undersea capability, but supporting Aussie naval forces with ships we refuse to fund ourselves is a great compromise.
The figures all seem quite large to the average kiwi battler but what the author omits is that even if we were to make the ideological decision to forego a Defence Force in its entirety it would only buy us a 10-12% increase in social services. New Zealand’s Defence strategy is based on contributing to international collective security as we have no other affordable or rational choice. Unfortunately, humanity (or the lack thereof) dictates that the weak will be exploited (realism vs idealism) and if we expect like minded nations to come to our aid in times of need we must possess the capacity to lend a hand when it's needed……that's the New Zealand Defence Force both domestically and internationally.
What are the weapons for?
To join a "Coalition of the willing" to invade the facist USA and "bring democracy back"?
We lost our in depth "support ships" when New Zealand gave away our locally crewed and manned merchant fleet.
That capability will never be replicated, under both the main parties policy settings.
And a couple of Navy support ships, and all the other “new toys” will not be enough, when we are inundated with climate refugees..
Everything about this is complete and utter madness.
How come we're not listed here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_without_armed_forces
Did he say the upgraded Mogami class is a Ferrari destroyer? That was the Zumwalt, and the corolla edition is the Hobart. We aren't going there.
Whats this about joining an American invasion of China? Even Trump isn't that stupid (I think) and if he tried to invade Greenland we are on Denmark's side just like we will favour Taiwan. Actually we are supposed to have responsibility for Cook Islands defence, and we need to support any South Pacific nation that we can.
As the only South Pacific nation with ASW capabilities, we have to be careful about diluting those functions. If a Type 31 or Mogami has lower ASW capabilities than we need, then can we contribute to an alliance that is likely to compensate? Thats the tradeoff, when modern subs are becoming harder to detect.
Since frigates arent completely interchangeable things, we have to limit ourselves to designs that have compatible systems and VLS to support what has to be fitted to it. This will likely include retaining our CAMM missiles by fitting into a Mk-41 insert, for example. Also we need to give ourselves suitable choices of future weapons that are supported and used by allies, because eventually they must be replenished. Does Mogami have sufficient power generation for future systems? I'm sure MoD is asking questions like that.
But we can't assume this is a direct replacement. Are 2 frigates (means 1 available at a time) appropriate in an era of increasing risk? Would more multimission emphasis compromise the core ASW capabilities that are still critical for survival if the Pacific areas and shipping routes we are primarily interested in become threatened? 5 frigate sized combatants would seem prudent to allow a spare for attrition, repair, or midlife upgrade. Do 2 of them need to be modular multi-mission? I suggest our population and economy should now justify a bigger navy than when NZ was less than 3.5 million.
We don’t need frigates. Australian ghost sharks, patrol vessels and Landing ships makes much more sense for NZ. We are so poor that buying a 2 billion piece of kit to keep up with the Joneses and then firing one missile every 2-5 years for testing is laughable and pure stupidity.
[Please use only one user handle here and stick to the approved one, thanks – Incognito]
Mod note