Moving Forward with Maximizing New Zealands Defense Force Assets

[Aussie Digger]

Would a mix of something like 4 CV90 & 2 M113 per platoon be considered a viable option? I can see a need for platoon strength patrols/deployments needing fire support, but not to the degree of an attached M1 or two per platoon. That I would have done at company/troop or battalion/squadron level. (This is directed at AD for the ADF deployments)

Would a 76mm (3in) gun be able to be mounted on a LAV chassis without causing the recoil problems found with a 105mm gun? I'm thinking in terms of a gun like was found on the Saladin Armoured Cars, that sort of thing.

I'm not sure ADF would be keen on that idea. Again you would need at least 3x M113's to carry the infantry sections, so the split would have to be at least 3 and 3. The obvious difficulty would be the increased support levels required for multiple vehicles within a single platoon.

The M1 has been specifically chosen to provide additional fire support for the infantry battalions and the way ADF operates on deployments is by forming task specific packages for operations, which it calls "task forces". The task force is sized appropriately to the threat level and required tasks for the force. ADF "paper" strength is used to mix and match force elements. It is rare for an entire ADF unit to deploy on an operation these days.

Any deployment of M1's means they would be integrated into "battlegroups". The size of the M1 deployment would be based on the threat level in the theatre to be deployed to. As such, a battlegroup of whatever sized formation (from a company group based force as is used in Iraq at present) would have an appropriate sized tank force attached to it. At company level a tank troop would probably be attached. If an entire infantry battalion were to be deployed a tank Squadron would probably be attached.

As such the idea of ANOTHER vehicle to provide additional fire support would be unlikely to be looked upon favourably. At best an M113 variant with greater calibre weapons would be the best we could hope for if it was chosen...

 

[Wooki]

I agree, but the armour protection levels for the M113As3/4 upgrade was actually the best feature OF the vehicle in my opinion. The "base" armour protection was being rasied to be able to defeat 14.5mm/12.7mm AP rounds. Additional modular applique armour kits were also to be provided to protect against up to 30mm AP and "light" anti-armour weapons.

From the Australian Army's POV with it's traditional light infantry focus, this plus a bit of firepower is exactly what the Australian Army needs. The 2 major wars being fought by the West today, Iraq and Afghanistan, are, by and large, light infantry or light motorised infantry wars with heavily armoured forces largely relegated to "support roles".

Now it's dangerous to equip a future force in light of previous experience and present experience, which is why many people in Australia (myself included) think that an "armoured taxi" with a bit more firepower is exactly what we need. Our operations will always require us to deploy full sized infantry sections from our armoured vehicles. Very few if any IFV's can do this, as the large stabilised turrets mounting medium calibre weapons, multiple GPMG's and often anti-armour weapons, which typify modern IFV's simply take up too much space.

As a perfect example of this in the Australian context; the ASLAV-25, (equipped with 2 man turret and 25mm Bushmaster cannon, co-ax MAG-58 7.62mm GPMG and flex MAG-58) shares the same basic vehicle dimensions as the ASLAV-PC (fitted with Kongsberg Protector "remote weapon station" with 12.7mm gun or Mk 19 40mm AGL). Yet the ASLAV-25 can only carry 6x troops in the troop compartment whereas the ASLAV-PC can carry 10x.

A troop capacity of 7 (as carried by M2A3 Bradley and Warrior IFV) or 8 as (carried by CV-90) is insufficient to carry an Australian infantry section. In addition to which our infantry platoons are about to be enhanced with the addition of "maneuvre support teams", which are teams organised to operate heavy weapons and embedded within the platoons. As such the size of our platoons is likely to increase to 45-55 troops per platoon. If an IFV with it's greater firepower but less carrying capacity were to be chosen, 7 - 8 IFV's would be required per platoon, as opposed to 5-6 APC's, a VERY expensive exercise...

To summarise, what Australia therefore truly needs, is an armoured personal carrier with the capacity to carry a full section, with armour protection similar to that of modern IFV's and firepower comparable to that of IFV's but without the large turret system normally employed on such IFV's. A practical example of this, indicates a remote weapon station, fitted with a cannon and preferrably a co-ax 7.62mm GPMG could be the ideal solution.

The M113AS3/4 if it could be sorted out quickly, but with an RWS fitted with a medium calibre cannon would go a long way to achieving this IMHO...

Well for starters re: the bradley: a troop capacity of 7 is wacko. I know it says 7 but my 3 year old could hardly fit through the space between the turret and the bulkhead (the passage going towards the driver) where this 7th guy is supposed to sit. Six plus one jockey, eh?

What's the actual size of the new Aussie section? I would guess nine. Eight chews through too much ammo and 12 would get a bit disorganized (My best guess).

So presuming its nine fully armored with some heavy weapons as well to provide "manoeuvre and suppression" (300 pounds each man); Ideally I would split them up into 2 vehicles. One APC and one IFV. So right there is a good reason for NZ to go with the CV90 series to support Australian operations. But then again you have the M1A1 for that, right?

Would a mix of something like 4 CV90 & 2 M113 per platoon be considered a viable option? I can see a need for platoon strength patrols/deployments needing fire support, but not to the degree of an attached M1 or two per platoon. That I would have done at company/troop or battalion/squadron level. (This is directed at AD for the ADF deployments)...

Logistics

The question keeps coming back to logistics.

We've discussed 3 items here that all have different logistical problems

1) commonality- mimic the equipment of the allies you are going to work with (LAV-25, Bionix, etc)
2) modify a type to make it perform better, but still have some commonality (MGS)
3) An alien type to try and achieve better operational performance (CV90 and others)

Well, I think you can't achieve No.1 as NZ has more than 1 ally. So if you are working with an ally that doesn't have your equipment you are back to No.3. But having said that, Australia is NZ's closest neighbor and there are a lot of traditional ties between the two. You would expect the two to work with each other more often.

No.2 has its own problems. Yes you can modify the MGS, but to make it worth while you need a longer production run and the benefits for the "NZLAV-PC" (if there is such a beasty) would maybe be an extra man, + 3 at best if they can make a horizontal engine that can fit under the floor (This could be great, but you must ask "is it worth it?" The answer is yes if you can kick in international commercial sales of technology developed for the power plant. Things like portable generators, recreational boating, etc.).

No.3 requires you to create the logistical infrastructure to support it. But if you can do this, then you have achieved maximum flexibility.

I think No.3 is the go, and I'll tell you why;

1) Just because it is the harder option to achieve, doesn't mean you cannot do it. Accountants and logisticians all vie for option 1 because it is the easy way out. But it has inherent inefficiencies like relying on your allies' logistical infrastructure to support your troops. And as I pointed out before, you have to weight yourself with one ally as opposed to another, which decreases your flexibility of operations.

One of the points in discussing this, is how to maximize the NZDF impact upon international operations and that means flexibility.

2) The purchase of the MRV is already a step towards creating an independent logistical infrastructure. But logistical supply doesn't stop at the beach.

3) This is exactly the problem of emergency management systems in 2000 where we had to create the infrastructure for the system to work and there are lots of clever, COTS solutions to that problem that can be applied here.

An example;(Using the common foot soldier)

a) Communications: Off the bat you need everyone (including computers) to be able to communicate with each other to establish a logistical chain. (and I guess operational functionality but thats another topic). To do that you use a hardwired "software radio" of the type that was used in the 80's for mine rescue. Its a 16 channel 1U box with multiple cell phone and sat com connection that costs 5K USD. You put this puppy in node positions, like on your troop transporter (LAV, IFV, MRV)

b) A wearable server. One of the things about wearable servers ( Land Warrior and the like) is that they are not actually being used 100% all the time. Which is a pain, as if you are going to lug this thing around between your shoulder blades, you want it to be useful. Well you can. You can do simple things like place a (silent) contact in the ammo pouch of a soldier and when he removes the clip, the computer can register it and send the information (3bits of data) back down the pipe to his IFV(via a frequency of your choice), which then sends it via daisy chain or satcom to NZDF HQ or your MRV offshore. In other words the Logistician knows the soldier needs another clip before the soldier has loaded it (near real time).

c) UAVs or AUUAVs to be exact. Take one largish VTOL UAV and turn it into an Autonomous Utility UAV sitting on the deck of the MRV or supply base. Make it dedicated to serving the NZDF components. It knows the location of the NZDF unit ( a designated supply drop off point) and can fly said clip and other stuff to that point and drop it off. If you used an unmanned Ground Vehicle, heck it could trundle all the way to the soldier and tap him on the shoulder and hand him the clip. But to me UGVs are still developmental.

It is much easier to take an AUUAV and drop off supplies at something large like a vehicle or a pre designated point. Cost of the Autonomous and self flying components of the UAV? 10K at most. Its been done (5 or 6 years ago) and in Australia no less with a self flying helo. So you can have an uneducated pilot (farmer, plumber, grunt) pilot this thing in, or have it transit between waypoints alone. The major cost in this system is the vehicles themselves. IIRC I read NZ has a pretty nice VTOL UAV that would be great for this.

d) To make all this work, everything, everything has to be barcoded. Sounds easy, but that is a huge and expensive (100's of millions for the USA) task unto itself, which most modern armies are trying to do now, but I haven't heard if one has actually succeeded yet.

So there is your low risk "final mile" solution to the logistical problem of using an uncommon piece of equipment.

Its low risk (integrated COTS and known tech) and cheap with regard to the IT hardware and software as it uses SCADA-like radio tech that you have on every remote sensing station on the planet. Its seamless, non invasive and most importantly it will keep the guys supplied. In fact the highest risk item would probably be the cargo release mechanism on the AUUAV. It needs to be perfect.

Last word on logistics. It doesn't have to stop with land assets, You could do same for future Australian JSF pilot and have a mission tanker UAV sent out to him/her before he realizes he or she is running out of gas.

Back to the CV90 or "The tracked Vs Wheeled Debate"

I would like to point out that in determining a strategy for New Zealand's Defense Force, the NZDF has the luxury that new track technologies are in the pipeline. This is a big plus, as lighter tracks mean faster vehicles and this is basically why the Stryker FOV came into existence in the first place. It beat out United Defense largely because their proposal ( essentially a modified M113...Sound familiar?? )was tracked and could not obtain the road speed that the Stryker could.

Well, that doesn't have to be the case anymore, particularly with segmented band-track that Soucy (spelling?) of Canada (through BAe) have recently received DoD developmental funding for. This is the same company that made the SEP band-track, and the makers of the SEP are the same division of BAe that make the CV90.

Meaning that (if all goes well) you will see new technologies come to market that can increase a tracked vehicle's speed by 10 to 16 km/h, as is.

So Australia's choice to go with the M113AS3/4 may not look so bad after all in 3 or 4 years time when they might be able to retrofit the new, lighter track to the AS3/4 FOV to increase performance.

Likewise, the option to go with a CV90 chassis is more attractive for the NZDF, provided you get the logistics right.

The advantage of the large gun on the CV90120-T is that it can go places an M1 can't and that will be particularly important in mountainous terrain, jungle or areas with little or no infrastructure to support the big tank river crossings (The latter of course meaning light weight bridges and then that just means the light tank will get there before an M1 would. Of course the M1 could do it, but it might take a little longer waiting for bridges, etc, before you got in position).

76mm gun

Last, with reference to the 76mm, the answer is yes. But there are better smaller caliber rapid fire guns made now then what is currently floating around in the 76mm caliber range. e.g. Oto Melara 60/70, BushmasterIII 35/50, Bushmaster 30/40, etc.

If you went with something like the HitFist turret (ugh I hate turrets) with 2 integral TOW missile launchers (Much better choice then Javelin IMHO, as it is cheap) then you have a great Fire Support Vehicle that can dish out a little surprise or 2 of its own when encountering hardened bunkers or the unlikely face off with a Tier 1 MBT.

The other thing about smaller calibers is that you can make a RWS , and that is golden. A RWS is far superior to a manned turret as not only does it open up space, but it increases survivability by reducing the vehicle's silhouette.

Sorry for the novel.

Cheers :cheers

W

 

[Aussie Digger]

Well for starters re: the bradley: a troop capacity of 7 is wacko. I know it says 7 but my 3 year old could hardly fit through the space between the turret and the bulkhead (the passage going towards the driver) where this 7th guy is supposed to sit. Six plus one jockey, eh?

What's the actual size of the new Aussie section? I would guess nine. Eight chews through too much ammo and 12 would get a bit disorganized (My best guess).

So presuming its nine fully armored with some heavy weapons as well to provide "manoeuvre and suppression" (300 pounds each man); Ideally I would split them up into 2 vehicles. One APC and one IFV. So right there is a good reason for NZ to go with the CV90 series to support Australian operations. But then again you have the M1A1 for that, right?

The advantage of the large gun on the CV90120-T is that it can go places an M1 can't and that will be particularly important in mountainous terrain, jungle or areas with little or no infrastructure to support the big tank river crossings (The latter of course meaning light weight bridges and then that just means the light tank will get there before an M1 would. Of course the M1 could do it, but it might take a little longer waiting for bridges, etc, before you got in position).

The other thing about smaller calibers is that you can make a RWS , and that is golden. A RWS is far superior to a manned turret as not only does it open up space, but it increases survivability by reducing the vehicle's silhouette.

Sorry for the novel.

Cheers :cheers

W

Yes, the Aussie infantry section is comprised of 9 soldiers. In the mech infantry battalions this is increased as the driver and the crew commander of the vehicle obviously do not dismount for assaults etc.

The 9 soldiers who comprise the "dismount section" if you will, can be accomodated by a single M113AS3/4, which is why it is looked upon favourably and why I suggested an RWS like the Rafael RCWS-30 "Sampson" with a 30mm auto-cannon and 7.62mm co-ax, would be my preferred option.

The only problem with RWS is the fact that the gunner/crew commander has to leave the vehicle to reload or clear a stoppage with the weapon system. With a dual cannon/co-ax mount however this problem should be manageable with the other weapon operating until the crew commander can safely clear the stoppage on the particular weapon that has stopped operating.

The lightened track you mentioned would also be greatly looked upon. The days of "bashing" track might even be over!!!

The mech inf section does carry additional Carl Gustav 84mm RCL's (1x per section I believe) though otherwise they are equipped identically to any other Aust infantry section.

With respect to the CV-90/120 it is certainly no "lightweight" itself. The PC variant weighs in at 26t and the CV-90/120 weighs in at about 28t. Quite a bit lighter than an M1, but then it lacks the armour protection and ammunition storage capacity of the M1.

The Australian Army has also invested quite heavily in bridging capability as well as combat engineering capability of late, particularly in relation to bulldozers with new D7/D9 series dozers purchased for Australia as well as a project to acquire new Israeli styled "armoured bulldozers". As such the mobility of our M1's should not be too greatly hindered within our region...

 

[Todjaeger]

With the light track mentioned, is that a rubberized track? I've been hearing about a new track that doesn't tear up macadam, from what I was told, it causes less wear on the road than normal tires do. Just wondering if it's the same thing or whether what I heard about was completely different.

Regarding the (possible) upgrades for LAV using the 2 stroke engine, etc. I was more interested in reducing weight than internal volume. By reducing the weight, it might (I say again, Might) allow the addition of enough applique armour so the vehicle could be more survivalable.

With logistics, I agree, these are key. One thing to do might be to check a list of forces that NZ is most likely to work in partnership with. Australia is an obvious one, Malaysia and Singapore as well. With that done then checks could be made for commonality of consumables could be done at least. Things like ammo, fuel, lubricants, etc. Regarding the idea of a VTOL UAV ferrying supplies between a ship or depot to forward troops, I'm not so sure about this. I see two potential problems in terms of delivery. UAVs from what I understand are more vulnerable to being shot down, and this could create a problem if troops become accustomed to a "Pizza delivery, 30min or less" situation where they are automatically resupplied. The second potential problem I have is that would a UAV be able to deliver enough ammo on a drop to make it economical? Would there be 1 UAV per squad, platoon, company, etc? Depending on the payload and reliability, it is possible that there could need to be a large logistical tail to support the delivery system for the supplies.

We've discussed 3 items here that all have different logistical problems

1) commonality- mimic the equipment of the allies you are going to work with (LAV-25, Bionix, etc)
2) modify a type to make it perform better, but still have some commonality (MGS)
3) An alien type to try and achieve better operational performance (CV90 and others)

No.3 requires you to create the logistical infrastructure to support it. But if you can do this, then you have achieved maximum flexibility.

I think No.3 is the go, and I'll tell you why;

1) Just because it is the harder option to achieve, doesn't mean you cannot do it. Accountants and logisticians all vie for option 1 because it is the easy way out. But it has inherent inefficiencies like relying on your allies' logistical infrastructure to support your troops. And as I pointed out before, you have to weight yourself with one ally as opposed to another, which decreases your flexibility of operations.

One of the points in discussing this, is how to maximize the NZDF impact upon international operations and that means flexibility.


Back to the CV90 or "The tracked Vs Wheeled Debate"

I would like to point out that in determining a strategy for New Zealand's Defense Force, the NZDF has the luxury that new track technologies are in the pipeline. This is a big plus, as lighter tracks mean faster vehicles and this is basically why the Stryker FOV came into existence in the first place. It beat out United Defense largely because their proposal ( essentially a modified M113...Sound familiar?? )was tracked and could not obtain the road speed that the Stryker could.

Well, that doesn't have to be the case anymore, particularly with segmented band-track that Soucy (spelling?) of Canada (through BAe) have recently received DoD developmental funding for. This is the same company that made the SEP band-track, and the makers of the SEP are the same division of BAe that make the CV90.

Likewise, the option to go with a CV90 chassis is more attractive for the NZDF, provided you get the logistics right.

The advantage of the large gun on the CV90120-T is that it can go places an M1 can't and that will be particularly important in mountainous terrain, jungle or areas with little or no infrastructure to support the big tank river crossings (The latter of course meaning light weight bridges and then that just means the light tank will get there before an M1 would. Of course the M1 could do it, but it might take a little longer waiting for bridges, etc, before you got in position).

Cheers :cheers

W

Regarding tracked vehicles, yes, I would like to see NZ reintroduce tracks. After all, as has been mentioned wheels are great on roads but there can be problems going off road with them. Incidentally, is the offroad performance of a LAV better or worse than a Military Unimog or a Pinzergauer (spelling?)

If NZ does go back to a tracked, or partially tracked force, then the CV90 family would serve them quite well. Especially if the adaptions like the 2-stroke engine and fiberglass flexor plates could be used. Perhaps in two versions, an APC version with a 25mm RWS (to maintain ammo commonality with anyone using a Bushmaster) and then a 105mm or 120mm version. Space saved (assuming it is possible) with a horizontal engine in the floor might allow more troops to be carried so that an APC version could have a full section, and additional space in the MGS version could carry more ammo. Both vehicles would presumably have more up armouring options than a LAV or most other wheeled vehices. Not to mention with the engine in the floor, that can serve as additional "armour" vs. mines.

Now we can debate the merits of a 105mm vs. 120mm gun on a light tank

 

[Todjaeger]

RNZAF transport assets

Thought I'd bring up changes that might make the most out of the RNZAF transport aircraft.

With the current 5 C-130H Hercules in service, I'm wondering if they should be replaced. On some other threads there has been mention of SLEP and/or upgrades to keep the aircraft in service, but I have to seriously wonder how long a 41 year old aircraft can be operated safely and economically.

What I think might a good idea is to replace the C-130Hs with KC-130J. These would be new airframes that would also give the RNZAF some AAR capability. Such a force multiplier would be of use to the NZDF and could also be made available for use by allies. This I think would be very welcome.

Other possibilities would be to see if NZ is able to acquire A330 MRTT like the RAAF is, perhaps as an add-on to the RAAF order? This idea I'm not sure of the viability. In checking the RNZAF site, the current air transport, Boeing 757-200 appears to have been added in 2003, but they don't appear to be new aircraft.

The changeover from the Huey to the NH-90 makes sense, though it's too early (pricewise) to tell if that's a good move.

Any thoughts on NZ possibly wanting or needing a rough field STOL transport?

 

[Wooki]

Thought I'd bring up changes that might make the most out of the RNZAF transport aircraft.

With the current 5 C-130H Hercules in service, I'm wondering if they should be replaced. On some other threads there has been mention of SLEP and/or upgrades to keep the aircraft in service, but I have to seriously wonder how long a 41 year old aircraft can be operated safely and economically.

What I think might a good idea is to replace the C-130Hs with KC-130J. These would be new airframes that would also give the RNZAF some AAR capability. Such a force multiplier would be of use to the NZDF and could also be made available for use by allies. This I think would be very welcome.

Other possibilities would be to see if NZ is able to acquire A330 MRTT like the RAAF is, perhaps as an add-on to the RAAF order? This idea I'm not sure of the viability. In checking the RNZAF site, the current air transport, Boeing 757-200 appears to have been added in 2003, but they don't appear to be new aircraft.

The changeover from the Huey to the NH-90 makes sense, though it's too early (pricewise) to tell if that's a good move.

Any thoughts on NZ possibly wanting or needing a rough field STOL transport?

Well, the funny thing about aircraft, is that the age is normally a reflection of when it was first purchased. It would be interesting to know if anything on the aircraft was original. I used to go for a bit of jolly in a Hughes 500D which was "30 years old" but nothing (except the cyclic on the aircraft) was older then 10 years.

Bit like your favorite axe that has gone through 2 blades and 7 handles, but is still the same axe.

The C130 H and KC130 J models have different carrying capacities. KC 130J is less IIRC, so it depends on what the NZDF want to do with it.

I better go

Cheers

W

 

[Aussie Digger]

Well, the funny thing about aircraft, is that the age is normally a reflection of when it was first purchased. It would be interesting to know if anything on the aircraft was original. I used to go for a bit of jolly in a Hughes 500D which was "30 years old" but nothing (except the cyclic on the aircraft) was older then 10 years.

Bit like your favorite axe that has gone through 2 blades and 7 handles, but is still the same axe.

The C130 H and KC130 J models have different carrying capacities. KC 130J is less IIRC, so it depends on what the NZDF want to do with it.

I better go

Cheers

W

People often say that the -30 variant of C-130's offer less carrying capacity, however I've heard that this is completely un-true. The problem with the C-130 is that it's lift capacity exceeds the amount of room it has in it's cargo hold, to store cargo.

The -30 variant was specifically designed to alleviate this. It can't actually lift more than the normal C-130 variants "on paper" but in practice can lift far greater and more useful loads than the standard variant, due to the additional room in it's cargo hold.

Anyhoo, in my opinion, NZ should be attempting to acquire A400M to increase it's airlift capacity and cancel it's C-130H upgrade program. The fighter force was retired ostensibly (according to the NZ Government) to increase available funds for it's surveillance and airlift capacity, yet the RNZAF has not benefitted from these additional funds, having received no additional capacity in either it's airlift OR surveillance assets...

A buy of a TUAV system for Army and A400M for RNZAF to deliver additional airlift and possibly A2A refuelling capacity would go a long way to justifying the NZ Government's original reasoning...

 

[Whiskyjack]

I have read the previous posts with great interest.

I completely agree that the NZDF needs increased lift in both sea and air terms. A LO/LO ship that allows the NZDF to deploy where there is no real port infrastructure is essential in both military and civil terms (NZ is prone to earthquakes and the Pacific is prone to cyclones). Agree with AD regarding the A400M as well, the one difference is that I would continue with the upgrade of the C-130s and look at replacing them with A400Ms in the 2016-2018 timeframe, where the A400M should be in production and been flying for at least 8 years, this reduces any potential risk.

Going forward I would like to see tactical and maritime surveillance UAVs looked at (gee I bet no one ever thought I would say that!), with the P3s replaced with 3-4 P8s late into the next decade.

The one area I am not so sure on is the Army. While I like the CV90, I can’t realistically see it in the NZDF, for the following reasons:

1. The LAVIII is already in service and new
2. The CV90 is heavier and more expensive to operate
3. IMHO it does not fit the NZDF in a broad capacity that is needed.

In regards to my third point above. The NZDF will undoubtedly operate in a coalition force at some stage in the future. However its main tasking will be in the South East Asia/South Pacific area with operations that will range from basic Peace Keeping to Peace Making. 80%-90% of these deployments IMO will be in conjunction with the ADF. It is also an important point that the Army will lead these deployments with the RNZN and RNZAF deploying them there and providing VERY important ISTAR capabilities.

The army then IMO needs to be configured to operate in a usual capacity at a company group level of 200-250 and at most a battalion group level of 1,000-1,400. Where my thinking differs slightly from a lot of current thinking is that the NZDF needs to be able to deploy in a fast manner that leaves a potential enemy in the region in no doubt that they do not want to mess with the them. Given that the region that they will predominately be operating in and deploying from is maritime in nature, the one piece of equipment I would be looking at is 20-25 Amphibious Assault Vehicles (AAV), as the cheap option or the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicles (EFV).

IMO the AAV will be adequate for the South Pacific, the EFV would allow for operating in amore hostile environment with coalition forces. I would keep the LAVIIIs as they would enable the NZDF to operate with mobile forces and in the case of more high level threat environments the NZDF would most likely provide flank or rear area protection. If some people reading this think this is a easy out option relying on allies to do the fighting I would think again. In Iraq in 2003 some of the heaviest fighting took place once the main forces rolled through and the support forces were attacked.

Happy to see any comments.

 

[Todjaeger]

I have read the previous posts with great interest.

I completely agree that the NZDF needs increased lift in both sea and air terms. A LO/LO ship that allows the NZDF to deploy where there is no real port infrastructure is essential in both military and civil terms (NZ is prone to earthquakes and the Pacific is prone to cyclones). Agree with AD regarding the A400M as well, the one difference is that I would continue with the upgrade of the C-130s and look at replacing them with A400Ms in the 2016-2018 timeframe, where the A400M should be in production and been flying for at least 8 years, this reduces any potential risk.

Going forward I would like to see tactical and maritime surveillance UAVs looked at (gee I bet no one ever thought I would say that!), with the P3s replaced with 3-4 P8s late into the next decade.

The army then IMO needs to be configured to operate in a usual capacity at a company group level of 200-250 and at most a battalion group level of 1,000-1,400. Where my thinking differs slightly from a lot of current thinking is that the NZDF needs to be able to deploy in a fast manner that leaves a potential enemy in the region in no doubt that they do not want to mess with the them. Given that the region that they will predominately be operating in and deploying from is maritime in nature, the one piece of equipment I would be looking at is 20-25 Amphibious Assault Vehicles (AAV), as the cheap option or the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicles (EFV).

IMO the AAV will be adequate for the South Pacific, the EFV would allow for operating in amore hostile environment with coalition forces. I would keep the LAVIIIs as they would enable the NZDF to operate with mobile forces and in the case of more high level threat environments the NZDF would most likely provide flank or rear area protection. If some people reading this think this is a easy out option relying on allies to do the fighting I would think again. In Iraq in 2003 some of the heaviest fighting took place once the main forces rolled through and the support forces were attacked.

Happy to see any comments.

About the AAV, do they require a well deck to deploy from a ship? I don't know enough about how they can operate. If they don't need a well deck to operate, then I'd say that could be a good choice. Assuming the new vehicle being developed for the USMC is used that could provide equal or greater firepower than the LAV, similar protection and an amphib.

For the MPA role, yeah I think the Orion's days are numbered. No so sure about the P-8, would NZ interested in a 737 sized MPA? Would Dash-8 Q300's like are used by the Aussie Coastwatch be better? The Coastwatch aircraft are unarmed but if the RNZAF armed them, I believe that must be cheaper than the P-8s will end up costing.

I'll be back later with more

 

[Whiskyjack]

About the AAV, do they require a well deck to deploy from a ship? I don't know enough about how they can operate. If they don't need a well deck to operate, then I'd say that could be a good choice. Assuming the new vehicle being developed for the USMC is used that could provide equal or greater firepower than the LAV, similar protection and an amphib.

For the MPA role, yeah I think the Orion's days are numbered. No so sure about the P-8, would NZ interested in a 737 sized MPA? Would Dash-8 Q300's like are used by the Aussie Coastwatch be better? The Coastwatch aircraft are unarmed but if the RNZAF armed them, I believe that must be cheaper than the P-8s will end up costing.

I'll be back later with more

I think a smaller number of P8s would be beter for the simple reason that NZ operates in a very large area with Antartica to the South and the to the North. Together with UAVs, NZ needs something that has range and persistance.

 

[Waylander]

Nice discussion.

First I do not really understand how a light tank (CV90120, MGS, etc.) fits into a small army like the NZ one.
These vehicles are very specialised and are "just" needed for heavy fire support and hunter jobs against enemy mechanized forces.
These vehicles pin down resources which could be used for more APCs and IFVs.

In terms of IFVs I also really like the CV9040 which would suit the NZ with some modifications.
Put an ATGM system on it which should also be able to fire dumb rounds like the new round which is in developing process for the Javelin.
This gives you a vehicle which is able to give good support fire against infantry and vehicles up to light tanks with its 40mm and also has the ability to counter enemy heavy armor and blow holes into every wall the 40mm is not able to penetrate with some shots.
Such a vehicle should give you enough firepower and flexibility for peacekeeping operations even if they are getting hot while having not the right but at least the ability to transport infantry under armor protection.
A light tank would for example not be really usefull during riots like in Kosovo where every armor protected seat is heavily needed.
Having all these capabilities combined in one vehicle instead of two would also drop the overall numbers of vehicles which need to be deployed.

As for mortar support I would also go for AMOS (BTW, why a one tube AMOS?). Same vehicle familiy, direct fire ability and also much needed during peacekeeping operations is the ability to fire a huge amount of smoke and illuminating rounds.
If you don't need the direct fire ability of a mortar system you could also go for the 120mm mortar on Wiesel 2 chassis. It is small, light, easy to maintain, cheap to operate, protected against small arms and has good terrain movement capabilities.

In terms of money a wheeled vehicle is for sure better and you could put these capabilities also onto a Phirana chassis but there you have to make a decision between operating efficiency and better terrain movement, protection, a stable fire plattform for the mortar system.

 

[KH-12]

I think the range and speed of the Q300's would be limiting for anything other than patrolling out to the 200 EEZ and even then it would be a stretch depending on where they are based, deploying to Antartica or the PI would require the additional capabilities of a P8 type airframe. Also any future deployment in support of UN sanctioned (or otherwise) activities would probably be better served by a more capable airframe.

I think we will see the Orions soldier on until 2020 which is 10 years after the last aircraft has completed its update process.

 

[Wooki]

Where we are

I think we have had a really good conversation to date and I would like to thank everybody for contributing (including ST as I think the photos were great).

From what I read our collective suggestions are at:

1) Tracked cargo handling equipment for the MRV
2) A number of LAVIIIs equipped with Medium Caliber (30mm +) RWS for support fires
3) An emphasis on Logistics
4) A burgeoning agreement on force multiplication strategies

Modest, but good thoughts all round.

We're still out on a big gun, tracked vehicles and haven't touched infantry, Arty, etc,etc yet, so plenty to talk about.

Anything I missed?

People often say that the -30 variant of C-130's offer less carrying capacity, however I've heard that this is completely un-true. The problem with the C-130 is that it's lift capacity exceeds the amount of room it has in it's cargo hold, to store cargo.

The -30 variant was specifically designed to alleviate this. It can't actually lift more than the normal C-130 variants "on paper" but in practice can lift far greater and more useful loads than the standard variant, due to the additional room in it's cargo hold.

Anyhoo, in my opinion, NZ should be attempting to acquire A400M to increase it's airlift capacity and cancel it's C-130H upgrade program. The fighter force was retired ostensibly (according to the NZ Government) to increase available funds for it's surveillance and airlift capacity, yet the RNZAF has not benefitted from these additional funds, having received no additional capacity in either it's airlift OR surveillance assets...

A buy of a TUAV system for Army and A400M for RNZAF to deliver additional airlift and possibly A2A refuelling capacity would go a long way to justifying the NZ Government's original reasoning...

Not an expert on the C130 and don't pretend to be, other than putting stuff into it. All the LM publications I have suggest that the C130J series cannot lift as much as the C130H model but have longer range and are more fuel efficient. The KC model has exactly the same lift capacity as non KC models as far as I can tell. Reading vendor pamphlets and note books is the sum of my knowledge.

Will write more on the A400

Cheers

W

PS: Just saw the EFV idea...Nice

 

[Todjaeger]

Not an expert on the C130 and don't pretend to be, other than putting stuff into it. All the LM publications I have suggest that the C130J series cannot lift as much as the C130H model but have longer range and are more fuel efficient. The KC model has exactly the same lift capacity as non KC models as far as I can tell. Reading vendor pamphlets and note books is the sum of my knowledge.

Will write more on the A400

Cheers

W

Just checked one of my aircraft guides, the C-130J (not the J-30 variant) does have a published cargo capacity of approx. 883lb (401 kg) lower the the C-130H, not a significant difference in my book.

If NZ were to go with the A400M, then I'd say Whiskyjack's idea would be the way to go. Right now the A400M seems a little too "up in the air" since there seems to be changes in the config. effecting fuel capacity, range, etc. All that, as well as any design teething issues should be resolved by waiting to 2016-2018. Whatever is chosen to replace the C-130H (if anything is) should have an AAR as an available option. One thing NZ might consider is the purchase of a few (4-6) CH-47. The lift capacity would be a boon to the NZDF and allies, and with a low speed AAR ability, would be able to fly between NZ & Australia, of many of the South Pacific islands. Also, anyone know the age/availability of the 757-200s and if they too, could be made into MRTT?

As for an MPA, I checked the Q300, the stock commercial version has a range of roughly 1/3rd that of the P-3, so that might not fit the bill. Now that I think about it, I think Coastwatch just uses the Q300 to check vessels of interest picked up by SECAR or JORN. The RNZAF might want to partner with the RAAF if going in to purchase P-8s.

What are people's thoughts on 105mm towed artillery? My knowledge of work on 105mm artillery systems is sadly deficient, so I don't know if guided or velocity enchanced munitions are even available. With that said, should NZ switch to a 155mm system, and if so, should it be vehicle mounted or remain a towed field piece? The primary advantage of a towed piece to my thinking, is that it can be transported by helicopter. Given that according to current plans, NZ is only expecting to have around 8 transport helicopters, I'm not sure that NZ would be making using of that advantage. Something to ponder at least.

With regards to infantry weapons/support, I would like to see NZ purchase more Javelin launchers. Currently there are 12 pairs of launchers, including for training, leaving perhaps 10 pairs available to deploy with units. If NZ has a number of deployments in different areas, or some very large deployments, troops might find themselves without an AT capability, especially if there are operational loses. I feel a similar situation exists with the Mistral SAM, being only 12 launchers in the inventory, and that perhaps more should be ordered as well.

 

[Wooki]

Tanks

On a tangential note, do you think a similar set of upgrades could be applied to the Australian M113 program? Or the NZ M113 which have been decommissioned (assuming they were mothballed and are still in good enough condition). Reactivation of the M113 could allow NZ to restart a tracked armour program. I also would see less problems emerging if there were logistics for two different deployed tracked vehicles, as opposed to a wheeled vehicle with a tracked vehicle deployed alongside it.

Missed this. It might be a good idea to wait until the M113-AS3/4 bugs are sorted out and then ask Tenix to upgrade some of the Kiwi M113's. It would make the project cheaper for the Australians too. I think the main problem with the M113 is the high CofG. I would definitely go with a RWS because of this, or even the old KMW/FMC(Now BAE) Sturm panzer based on the M113 chassis http://waffen-der-welt.alices-world.de/armour/artil/d_us_fscv.html

Waylander can translate as my German is flunky :whip . If I'm not mistaken it looks like it has some swimming stats?

Interesting concept anyway.

With the light track mentioned, is that a rubberized track? I've been hearing about a new track that doesn't tear up macadam, from what I was told, it causes less wear on the road than normal tires do. Just wondering if it's the same thing or whether what I heard about was completely different.

Regarding the (possible) upgrades for LAV using the 2 stroke engine, etc. I was more interested in reducing weight than internal volume. By reducing the weight, it might (I say again, Might) allow the addition of enough applique armour so the vehicle could be more survivalable.

Regarding tracked vehicles, yes, I would like to see NZ reintroduce tracks. After all, as has been mentioned wheels are great on roads but there can be problems going off road with them. Incidentally, is the offroad performance of a LAV better or worse than a Military Unimog or a Pinzergauer (spelling?)

If NZ does go back to a tracked, or partially tracked force, then the CV90 family would serve them quite well. Especially if the adaptions like the 2-stroke engine and fiberglass flexor plates could be used. Perhaps in two versions, an APC version with a 25mm RWS (to maintain ammo commonality with anyone using a Bushmaster) and then a 105mm or 120mm version. Space saved (assuming it is possible) with a horizontal engine in the floor might allow more troops to be carried so that an APC version could have a full section, and additional space in the MGS version could carry more ammo. Both vehicles would presumably have more up armouring options than a LAV or most other wheeled vehices. Not to mention with the engine in the floor, that can serve as additional "armour" vs. mines.

Now we can debate the merits of a 105mm vs. 120mm gun on a light tank

I have read the previous posts with great interest.

I completely agree that the NZDF needs increased lift in both sea and air terms. A LO/LO ship that allows the NZDF to deploy where there is no real port infrastructure is essential in both military and civil terms (NZ is prone to earthquakes and the Pacific is prone to cyclones). Agree with AD regarding the A400M as well, the one difference is that I would continue with the upgrade of the C-130s and look at replacing them with A400Ms in the 2016-2018 timeframe, where the A400M should be in production and been flying for at least 8 years, this reduces any potential risk.

Going forward I would like to see tactical and maritime surveillance UAVs looked at (gee I bet no one ever thought I would say that!), with the P3s replaced with 3-4 P8s late into the next decade.

The one area I am not so sure on is the Army. While I like the CV90, I can’t realistically see it in the NZDF, for the following reasons:

1. The LAVIII is already in service and new
2. The CV90 is heavier and more expensive to operate
3. IMHO it does not fit the NZDF in a broad capacity that is needed.

In regards to my third point above. The NZDF will undoubtedly operate in a coalition force at some stage in the future. However its main tasking will be in the South East Asia/South Pacific area with operations that will range from basic Peace Keeping to Peace Making. 80%-90% of these deployments IMO will be in conjunction with the ADF. It is also an important point that the Army will lead these deployments with the RNZN and RNZAF deploying them there and providing VERY important ISTAR capabilities.

The army then IMO needs to be configured to operate in a usual capacity at a company group level of 200-250 and at most a battalion group level of 1,000-1,400. Where my thinking differs slightly from a lot of current thinking is that the NZDF needs to be able to deploy in a fast manner that leaves a potential enemy in the region in no doubt that they do not want to mess with the them. Given that the region that they will predominately be operating in and deploying from is maritime in nature, the one piece of equipment I would be looking at is 20-25 Amphibious Assault Vehicles (AAV), as the cheap option or the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicles (EFV).

IMO the AAV will be adequate for the South Pacific, the EFV would allow for operating in amore hostile environment with coalition forces. I would keep the LAVIIIs as they would enable the NZDF to operate with mobile forces and in the case of more high level threat environments the NZDF would most likely provide flank or rear area protection. If some people reading this think this is a easy out option relying on allies to do the fighting I would think again. In Iraq in 2003 some of the heaviest fighting took place once the main forces rolled through and the support forces were attacked.

Happy to see any comments.

Yes, its rubber track, but its segmented so you can repair and maintain it better than a complete band-track. And yes you can drive on roads with the rubber tracks, but then again you can do that with an M1 as it has rubber pads, right?

I think the Pinzergauer has the advantage over the LAVIII in off-road capability, but I could be wrong.

Modding the CV90 IFV? Now there is a thought. I think Mace Engineering has a unique capability which is barely surviving in NZ. It would make a lot of sense to replace the power plants across the board with an omnivorous pivotal engine.

If you took the EFV for instance and used a pivotal engine instead of the ones it already has you would save a lot of weight which means the Kiwi EFV could use less Titanium to make the weight budget and hence lower the platform cost from 12.3 million USD per unit, to something like 10 million USD per unit. Or you could go the other way and just carry more cargo, up armor or go faster : )

The MK44 Bushmaster is one I short listed as a Support Fires weapon as extensive studies have been made regarding the HE characteristics of the 30mm and 40mm calibers of this weapon. The 40mm has a significant advantage over the 30mm (nearly double), so I would go with that barrel change.

About the AAV, do they require a well deck to deploy from a ship? I don't know enough about how they can operate. If they don't need a well deck to operate, then I'd say that could be a good choice. Assuming the new vehicle being developed for the USMC is used that could provide equal or greater firepower than the LAV, similar protection and an amphib.

IIRC the EFV has around 25+% reserve buoyancy, so it should be able to handle a drop of ≤1 meter into the ocean so long as there is no cavitation from the MRV's wake. As the stern ramp is designed to load a landing craft anyway, you might be able to get it into the water as is. I'm not privy to the weight loading specs of the ramp, so, if it were a problem, just design a new ramp to allow the put in (and out) of an EFV.

The acquisition of the EFV would make NZ the third nation in the world with an independent armor-ship-to-shore capability (USMC, Taiwan and NZ) and that is just the sort of impact that you need in maximizing NZDF assets.

Something Australia (for one) is sorely lacking.

Nice discussion.

First I do not really understand how a light tank (CV90120, MGS, etc.) fits into a small army like the NZ one.
These vehicles are very specialised and are "just" needed for heavy fire support and hunter jobs against enemy mechanized forces.
These vehicles pin down resources which could be used for more APCs and IFVs.

In terms of IFVs I also really like the CV9040 which would suit the NZ with some modifications.
Put an ATGM system on it which should also be able to fire dumb rounds like the new round which is in developing process for the Javelin.
This gives you a vehicle which is able to give good support fire against infantry and vehicles up to light tanks with its 40mm and also has the ability to counter enemy heavy armor and blow holes into every wall the 40mm is not able to penetrate with some shots.
Such a vehicle should give you enough firepower and flexibility for peacekeeping operations even if they are getting hot while having not the right but at least the ability to transport infantry under armor protection.
A light tank would for example not be really usefull during riots like in Kosovo where every armor protected seat is heavily needed.
Having all these capabilities combined in one vehicle instead of two would also drop the overall numbers of vehicles which need to be deployed.

As for mortar support I would also go for AMOS (BTW, why a one tube AMOS?). Same vehicle familiy, direct fire ability and also much needed during peacekeeping operations is the ability to fire a huge amount of smoke and illuminating rounds.
If you don't need the direct fire ability of a mortar system you could also go for the 120mm mortar on Wiesel 2 chassis. It is small, light, easy to maintain, cheap to operate, protected against small arms and has good terrain movement capabilities.

In terms of money a wheeled vehicle is for sure better and you could put these capabilities also onto a Phirana chassis but there you have to make a decision between operating efficiency and better terrain movement, protection, a stable fire plattform for the mortar system.

Well, the other point I was thinking about, is why do you need a big gun? Really?

I was thinking more along the lines of intimidation in a peace making role. The shock factor of seeing a tank roll up the street and all that. You could probably achieve same effect with a force of EFV's arriving en masse on an Island nation's shores and if you want to make it look more impressive weld a stove pipe to it. But inland the EFV is not a good AFV. Its slow and has little protection.

Both AMOS systems claim direct fire, but I haven't seen any sights for it. The single barrel as it takes up less space and the recoil wouldn't be so hard on the chassis with the reduced rate of fire from a single barrel, that is all.

I agree, the AMOS system is very, very nice and would be my preference over an MGS.

Finally, cost...To put it in perspective a Baz 3 Merkava MBT would cost around 3 million USD and you can disgorge 7 troops from it if need be. Actually, I thought it was 5 but everyone keeps telling me 7 (???). So with regard to armor, there is always the thought "If you are going to do it, do it properly." The real question is what Whiskey Jack raised. Where do you expect to fight?

I would imagine it will be predominately Africa and Asia.

I still think a lighter weight tank to attach to allied units is a valid force multiplier. A smaller tank also has a smaller logistical footprint whichever way you cut it, making it easier to attach to other units.

Last word on the LOLO

It would make a lot of sense if one of the floating pontoon hatches on the LOLO was actually a small LCAC. Hovercraft make great icebreakers for one and two you can use it to rapidly deploy stuff (like LAV IIIs) over reefs and beaches.

If you went with that, then it would probably be best to consider a forward accommodation, to facilitate helo ops from the rest of the deck (as you couldn't stack hatches)

cheers

W

 

[Waylander]

But do you really think a CV90120 is much more impressive than a CV9040 with ATGM?
I do not think that it makes much difference.
For me there are no capabilities a light tank gives you for peacekeeping missions which could not be substituted by other vehicles. Especially for small armys this should be a major factor.

As to Merk III. I heard that 5 persons with full combat equipment is the maximum. And to achieve this the Merk has to give up most of its reserve ammo.
This is really just an emergency solution.

 

[Wooki]

But do you really think a CV90120 is much more impressive than a CV9040 with ATGM?
I do not think that it makes much difference.
For me there are no capabilities a light tank gives you for peacekeeping missions which could not be substituted by other vehicles. Especially for small armys this should be a major factor.

As to Merk III. I heard that 5 persons with full combat equipment is the maximum. And to achieve this the Merk has to give up most of its reserve ammo.
This is really just an emergency solution.

No, I don't. But I would prefer the 60/70 Oto Melara with TOW (TOW because it is cheaper than Javelin). I think the CV90120-T is valid if you are looking for an M1A1 and can't get it because there are not enough to go around. E.g. attaching to a light infantry unit.

For urban ops, I think the AMOS is better to support infantry in the Fire Support role than a 120mm, 105 mm. Less gun blast and very effective at reducing hardened positions. In fact I think an 80 to 90mm mortar would be the ideal.

Re; The Merk Bz III. If we go with heavy armor, than I think this is the most versatile platform. Five soldiers is great and I would be using that more often than not. Besides, the main gun used on an MBT in Urban environments is the MG. The reason I mentioned the Merk III is the cost and again it could be substantially improved with NZ tech. I suppose NZ could look at snapping up AS1 Leos and give them a rework with the Ruag 120 CTG and new armor kits if they wanted Armor.

NZ industry in the Engine department (Mace engineering) and in the VTOL UAV department is world class and needs a leg up and I think it wise that the NZDF consider ways in which to do this. [Just FYI, I am more or less a competitor to Mace But I can see the potential capability as plain as dog balls]

oh, for the CV90 fans (Of which I will include AD, as I think he is a closet CV90 fan), found some photos.

http://www.deagel.com/img/lib/1h9714.jpg
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/cv90/images/cv90_2.jpg
http://www.deagel.com/img/lib/1h9707.jpg
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/cv90/images/cv90_3.jpg
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/cv90/images/cv90_9.jpg
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/cv90/images/cv90_1.jpg
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/cv90/images/cv90_8.jpg
http://www.deagel.com/img/lib/1h8315.jpg
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/cv90/images/cv90_6.jpg
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/cv90/images/cv90_5.jpg

cheers

W

 

[Aussie Digger]

Tanks


Missed this. It might be a good idea to wait until the M113-AS3/4 bugs are sorted out and then ask Tenix to upgrade some of the Kiwi M113's. It would make the project cheaper for the Australians too. I think the main problem with the M113 is the high CofG. I would definitely go with a RWS because of this, or even the old KMW/FMC(Now BAE) Sturm panzer based on the M113 chassis http://waffen-der-welt.alices-world.de/armour/artil/d_us_fscv.html

Actually the main problem with the M113 is the contractor (Tenix) insisting the brake system not be "changed" from it's current setup, just fitted with enlarged rotors etc, AGAINST the advice of the sub-contractor (an un-specified German company), who (co-incidentally or perhaps not so) has performed thousands of successful M113 upgrades, whereas Tenix has yet to perform 1... The upgraded brake system approved by Tenix has not been up to the job and now it has to be fixed.

Another problem is that NEITHER company decided to inform the DMO that the brake setup was stuffed and the project was just about to enter LRIP before the vehicle failed some tests...

If a Protector RWS or similar were to be fitted to the vehicle, it would actually RAISE the CofG, given it's weight and height. I therefore don't think that's a big problem at all...

Btw, I AM a closet CV-90 fan, but I'm MORE of a fan of the German Puma IFV and if I could choose the ADF's next IFV, Puma would win hands down...

 

[Waylander]

For bigger countrys like Australia the Puma would fit but for smaller countrys like NZ it is overkill despite its mine/IED and all around RPG protection which fits well into peacekeeping operations.

 

[Aussie Digger]

For bigger countrys like Australia the Puma would fit but for smaller countrys like NZ it is overkill despite its mine/IED and all around RPG protection which fits well into peacekeeping operations.

True, despite it's usefulness I VERY much doubt we'll see NZ operate a tracked armoured vehicle in the near future. LAVIII's will be about it. If the leftie's stay in power long enough, THEY might not even be replaced and NZ will have to do with Pinzgauer's or whatever 4WD's they decide are appropriate for love (ops, I mean peace) making... :finger