Future NZ defence policy?

[Cadredave]

yeah probably is a cost thing, usually is with our government, although US sent over a C-17 to take the SAS wagons to Astan could have done a similar thing for the PRT. Also could be a good run for the troubled Canterbury(again another waste of what it was intended for), ideal job -drop off, pick up, job done, purchase justified.
Yes however probably too little too late as surely must be pulling out or downsizing soon, I know guys already back from their second deployment and cannot be possibly staying there forever, running out of qualified pers to send and having negative affect on retention to constantly deploy.

Gidday RegR had a brief from the CA and a whole lot of senior offr from development branch a couple of weeks ago, during Q&A he was asked why the armoured pinz have not been deployed to Astan due to the IEDs, his answer was the armoured pinz is not designed for blast it was designed to withstand kinetic forces ie 7.62mm Armoured piecing rounds, as such it would not stand up to the blast effects of a IED, left me and a few other people gobsmacked with that answer. brought back a quote from the 80s "Your equipment is brought from the cheapest bidder"

 

[RegR]

that is probably why everyone else seems to be moving away from smaller veh for armour and onto larger meatier MRAP type vehicles for the better all round protection. even yanks looking at better protection then armoured hummvees.
Still though I think any form of protections better then nothing, its like saying i wont wear my helmet and body armour as il probably stand on a mine anyway.
Maybe our aussie brothers could lend us a few of their bushmasters, they seem to be taking a hammering with the dutch from IEDs and pax surviving. The way things are going its only a matter of time with our boys and the hiluxs and that would be a sad day indeed.
Does not surprise me in the least about the cheapest bidder thing, probably assumed rocks and machetes would be the most dangerous situation the pinnys would encounter.

 

[RegR]

that is probably why everyone else seems to be moving away from smaller veh for armour and onto larger meatier MRAP type vehicles for the better all round protection. even yanks looking at better protection then armoured hummvees.
Still though I think any form of protections better then nothing, its like saying i wont wear my helmet and body armour as il probably stand on a mine anyway.
Maybe our aussie brothers could lend us a few of their bushmasters, they seem to be taking a hammering with the dutch from IEDs and pax surviving, better overprotected then underprotected. The way things are going its only a matter of time with our boys and the hiluxs and that would be a sad day indeed.
Does not surprise me in the least about the cheapest bidder thing, probably assumed rocks and machetes would be the most dangerous situation the pinnys would encounter.

 

[recce.k1]

yeah probably is a cost thing, usually is with our government, although US sent over a C-17 to take the SAS wagons to Astan could have done a similar thing for the PRT. Also could be a good run for the troubled Canterbury(again another waste of what it was intended for), ideal job -drop off, pick up, job done, purchase justified.
Yes however probably too little too late as surely must be pulling out or downsizing soon, I know guys already back from their second deployment and cannot be possibly staying there forever, running out of qualified pers to send and having negative affect on retention to constantly deploy.

There's also another aspect to this issue of leasing US vehicles for the NZ PRT in AStan v not bringing over the NZ Pinz's etc. Which is another reason for the lease being a good thing, that of simplified logistics/support.

Perhaps the question shouldn't be "why weren't the Pinz's sent over?" but "why aren't we buying common equipment with the US (and Australia), for logisitics/support reasons (be that Hummers or Bushmasters at the time a few years ago)? For again, when NZ deploys to a "hotter" area, it is pretty much working with the US (and Australia), like any other time over the last 50-60 years etc.


Therefore looking forward, as per the recent comments in the "121 Land-Overlander Tender" thread by yourself and C'dave, if the Army were to be asking for new generation protected vehicles for operations, let's be getting what the US (and Aust) will be getting etc. This might also apply to QAMR when the lose their LAV's.

Sure, on the other hand, perhaps for NZSAS there may be better reasons to stick with what the UK SASR are using/getting instead, as I assume the operational & logistical/support will be more UK orientated than US.

Keep the Pinz's for ops in Timor and Solomons, where the threats are bullets worse case, but perhaps NZ needs another class of vehicle for more demanding ops. Alas Labour's (Defmin Burton's) ideal of one class of vehicle, has been shown up as deficient.

 

[RegR]

Yes you are probably right, especially if what Dave was saying about AT dis-continueing our pinz models line, as this would put a strain on spare parts and army would not be able to afford having assets spread half way around the world.

Also agree we should have purchased vehs more in common with our immediate partners (although UK uses pinz, maybe not our model though) and especially Aus. Which shows in the Unimog for example as we use each others mogs in Timor and Sollies and if need be would probably be able to share parts if needed.

The governments idea of trying to base multiple roles on a single platform was also abit of an unrealistic dream due to the wide and varying scenarios our forces seem to be in at the moment, ie national vs Sollies vs Astan.

Defence may need to bite the bullet sometime though and use what they chose as all it will take is a kiwi die from an IED in a civilian 4x4 on ops and the taxpayer will be in an uproar over why they see the armour rolling down SH1 and at displays but not protecting our people over seas. if kiwis were to die, even to be injured, the public would react better knowing at least they had the best protection available(at the time) and if the logistics trail cost abit more due to bad equipment choices prior, then so be it.

 

[recce.k1]

Regarding ied protection issues, as per the British Army thread currently and this article states "These include a hull redesign to significantly increase protection against mines and roadside bombs, longer range fuel tanks, weapon modifications, the inclusion of electronic counter measures equipment and other changes".

1. Does the current NZ PRT environment warrant such a vehicle? Probably not?

But under constant assessment. What if ieds became a bigger issue? The correct answer might be, yes. The practical answer might be, ??.

2. Also but ieds could be dime a dozen, potentially anywhere (in the future)?

Should or would the NZ Army need some of these to upskill on for future threats? Starting with interoperability with other nations etc.

3. Price seems to be about NZ $3m/piece. Hypothetically if warranted, how many? 20 @ 60m NZ? Deploy up to 10 to support a Coy? (Leaves 10 for training etc).

Do NZDF & MoD approach a "wait and see" effort with the UK's efforts, but if so when does NZ Defence and Govt start taking this seriously to fit with time frames etc?

Politically, wouldn't NZ Defence and Govt want to be seen as proactive and addressing the needs if its countries servicemen and women on modern deployments, when (or before) the first ied casuality happens? Rather than have the public witness a media and opposition frenzy? What's the cost of political damage (long term i.e. election) that could result from any possible fallout versus being seen to be minimising the risk by being proactive i.e have been/are doing something about it?

4. If QAMR are losing Lavs to 1RNZIR (Cav), would they be better of with these Warthogs, rather than what's proposed? 2/1 RNZIR appear to be the preferred infantry for new deployments, perhaps they operate with a range of vehicles from the sturdy Pinz's to these hardened ATV's (or another)?

5. And/or could it be having a Lav battalion could mean that NZ could swap from PRT/infantry operations to urban patrol operations, thus regenerating 2/1 RNZIR?

Or do we need a different model? Instead of the heavy Lav investment, would the NZ Army of the future have limited numbers of a range of APC type vehicles? With the Lavs forming another form of battle taxi role with the other types - and with a dozen or two being allocated to the Army Reserve (TF) for their training (recruitment and retention)? NZ's operations are multi-faceted and that's even at the low end compared to other nations, but we can work with others more effectively when necessary at the very least etc.

 

[Cadredave]

4. If QAMR are losing Lavs to 1RNZIR (Cav), would they be better of with these Warthogs, rather than what's proposed? 2/1 RNZIR appear to be the preferred infantry for new deployments, perhaps they operate with a range of vehicles from the sturdy Pinz's to these hardened ATV's (or another)?

Both Infantry Bn have resposibility to provide protection to the PRT, 1RNZIR is operating in this manner, 1 x Coy in the PRT V Coy, 1 x Coy maintaing Cav training W Coy & 1 x Coy regenerating at the moment A Coy, as for 2/1 they are currently doing the same however maintaining the light role only. they take over in the new year for the PRT, Timor & Solomons will remain with Arty & Engrs with Army reserve top up.

5. And/or could it be having a Lav battalion could mean that NZ could swap from PRT/infantry operations to urban patrol operations, thus regenerating 2/1 RNZIR?

No both Bn are consentrating on there core tasks only, 1RNZIR Cav & 2/1 Light no change but if the PRT need immediate reinforcing it will be provided by the high readiness Coy from 2/1 at this stage Cav will not be deployed yet this was a decision made due to the elections time will tell if National are serious. There is alot that is happening behind the scenes in Army that I cant & wont publish on this site until it has been reported in either the Army news or local news papers but what is happening is very exciting but will take time to implement.

 

[RegR]

Yes I believe NZ needs to aqquire these capabilities now and begin becoming proficient in their use and operation, would'nt hurt and things such as IEDs will never go away, if anything seems to be the way of the future so will escalate. I think any situation that requires body armour and kevlar helmets as standard obviously warrants vehicles to match. Better to have the procedures and equipment in place now(or at least in the advanced planning process) while it is 'quiet', then be complacent and wait for something major to happen. Quickly purchaseing equipment or adjusting tactics to suit is all well and good but prior pre-paredness saves lives.

Although Bamyan is a relatively calm province now and is seen as a success in terms of progress, the wrong people would then see this as a prime area to challenge and undermine. If i was the government at the time I would not want any possible trouble on my watch and would therefore be taking every available precaution nesscessary to minmise or even avoid it.

Yes the whole army does not require these vehicles as is with LAV, when are we ever going to send both BNs away at once (never) thus requireing both to be fitted out for, as what was first envisaged. just enough to cover operational using + training + spares(not every man and his dog getting one). Its a waste of money and that money could have been better spent aqquireing other platforms suited to other operations, ie NZLAV deemed inapropriate for Afghan due to size so smaller option needed in its place. LAV will have its place and use just this is not it.

So the high readiness coy went to 2/1 permanently or is it at rotation system? would rather have seen it seperate to the Bns and more aligned to SF personally, ala Ranger company . would have also given the pinz SOVs to them if SAS was to get the supacat HMT and give QAMR a bushmaster type vehicle. was it a manning issue or too much effort to raise another company size group within army?

 

[Cadredave]

So the high readiness coy went to 2/1 permanently or is it at rotation system? would rather have seen it seperate to the Bns and more aligned to SF personally, ala Ranger company . would have also given the pinz SOVs to them if SAS was to get the supacat HMT and give QAMR a bushmaster type vehicle. was it a manning issue or too much effort to raise another company size group within army?

[/QUOTE]

No only 2/1 are to stand up a high readiness Coy as the skill sets for 1RNZIR are different, a Commando Coy is still in the pipe line so I see this Coy more as a intrim measure, as for me I would give the SOV to both recon Pls as QAMR is still training in the meadium recon role as of yet no vehicle has been identified to replace the LAVs in QA so it looks like the SOV will be based in the south for a while yet.

 

[RegR]

Thanks Dave, either way sounds like an interesting time ahead for the infantry with some good kit/capabilities coming online. look forward to hearing more.

 

[Lucasnz]

No only 2/1 are to stand up a high readiness Coy as the skill sets for 1RNZIR are different, a Commando Coy is still in the pipe line so I see this Coy more as a intrim measure, as for me I would give the SOV to both recon Pls as QAMR is still training in the meadium recon role as of yet no vehicle has been identified to replace the LAVs in QA so it looks like the SOV will be based in the south for a while yet.

I thought QAMR were to be the army's third battalion (Man Group), equipped with on at least 1 sqn of LAV's and that the Waikato Mounted were to take over the Medium recon role. I'm assuming that the ready reaction co is based at Burnham - if so that defies logic, given the means to deploy them are located at Auckland. I would have though Papakura would have been a better option. Is it just me or is the army changing for the sake of change or does it actually have a vision for the future. Anyway my 2 cents worth, but I'd be interested to here when these changes took place.

 

[Navor86]

I do not know whether this suggestion was made in this thread or in another,but it was stated that a smaller more elite NZ Army would appeal more to young Kiwis to join.
But arnet the current Forces the bare minimum and any further reduction would lead to weakening of NZ in general?
And with the new Goverment could there be changes in structure?So far their defence publication states nothing more than"We look at it and act in regards of current commitment"(My words)

 

[RegR]

I think if the army got any smaller it would find it very difficult to support operations for any great length of time as is the case now and would definitely rule out any repeat of Interfet type missions (Battalion group size) as trying to rotate, train and rest without the numbers would have a detrimental effect on personnel. It would mean non op specific training would be benched, pers would be constantly deploying(or prepareing to) and family relations would be strained.
There are many soldiers serving who join purely for trips and do not mind heading away alot but also other soldiers with families who also have other commitments to take care of. creating the High Readiness Coy as a more elite force would give the more eager soldiers something to look too and provide the first to deploy unit in any situation(that does not warrant SAS), and if the mission was to extend then the battalions would step in as usual. first into ops are usually stepping into the unknown so the extra training(and possibly kit) provided to this unit would make it alot easier and by the time regular infantry takes over all the groundwork is laid for a smooth transition.