Moving Forward with Maximizing New Zealands Defense Force Assets

[Wooki]

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

waylander...where's my translation?

Politics is exactly what the issue is here. How much does NZ want to be a part of the UN? If it just reverts to SUV's and ATV's then they may as well pack up the office in NYC. I can send them a cracker box.

There is another item that NZ could/would be useful and that is medicine.

I still do believe they should be the Military lead in the Pacific as they are the major Pacific Islander nation and as such the AAV/EFV idea of WJ's strikes a chord with me.

Then it is really just a case of how best they can help international operations.

Army:
Light armor,
Fire Support,
Engineering,
Logistics,
Medicine,
Intel

Navy:
EEZ patrol
Logistics

Air Force:
Logistics
Maritime Surveillance

I can't really see any others.


Pumas are a nice bit of kit too

cheers

W

 

[Waylander]

Öhm, translation?

 

[Wooki]

Öhm, translation?

Yes,
For this link

http://waffen-der-welt.alices-world.de/armour/artil/d_us_fscv.html

 

[Whiskyjack]

There is another item that NZ could/would be useful and that is medicine.

I still do believe they should be the Military lead in the Pacific as they are the major Pacific Islander nation and as such the AAV/EFV idea of WJ's strikes a chord with me.

Then it is really just a case of how best they can help international operations.

Army:
Light armor,
Fire Support,
Engineering,
Logistics,
Medicine,
Intel

Navy:
EEZ patrol
Logistics

Air Force:
Logistics
Maritime Surveillance

I can't really see any others.


Pumas are a nice bit of kit too

cheers

W

I basically agree with Wookie, but will add two more capabilities based on the most likely conventional threats to NZ sovereignty:

1. AF/Navy: ASW capability
2. Navy: MCM

If I were a country of moderate capability (with even 2-3 subs) and wanted to contain/blockade NZ, even a threat of Subs and mines could cripple the NZ economy.

 

[KH-12]

Am I correct in that currently the RNZN Seasprites have no ASW capability to speak of and are basically limited to anti-surface operations ?

 

[Todjaeger]

I basically agree with Wookie, but will add two more capabilities based on the most likely conventional threats to NZ sovereignty:

1. AF/Navy: ASW capability
2. Navy: MCM

If I were a country of moderate capability (with even 2-3 subs) and wanted to contain/blockade NZ, even a threat of Subs and mines could cripple the NZ economy.

I found that I rather like the Canadian Kingston MCDV for it's dual patrol/MCM roles. If a containerized weapon system (SF300, anyone?) were added with a towed sonar as an option, that could cover ASW. As well as upgrades to the Anzacs and Seasprites of course. Not sure that ASW upgrades for the P-3 would be worthwhile. From what I've heard from a friend of mine (ex-USN) the ability of an MPA to detect a modern sub isn't that great.

 

[Waylander]

Aaah, I see.

Do you need the whole text?

 

[Todjaeger]

Aaah, I see.

Do you need the whole text?

Would appreciate it, since all I get when I click the link is access denied. Not to mention my deutch ist nicht sehr gut...

 

[Waylander]

I think the link is broken. I had to find the text manually.
Maybe tomorrow or on saturday I have the time to translate it.

 

[Wooki]

I think the link is broken. I had to find the text manually.
Maybe tomorrow or on saturday I have the time to translate it.

It is?

Well, as they say "a picture tells a thousand words"

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=712&stc=1&d=1158885814

cheers

W

 

[Todjaeger]

Three questions occurred to me, not so much maximizing the NZDF but wondering about the current status.

1. What is the state of NZDF warstocks? In a different thread it was mentioned that until fairly recently, the ADF had very low warstocks for artillery shells, AShM, etc. and that much of the munitions they did have, weren't serviceable. What state is the NZDF in?

2. Per the NZ Army website, the plan is to phase out the 84mm Carl Gustav by the end of this year and have it replaced by the Javelin. Granted, the Javelin is a better system, would the Carl Gustav be worth retaining for simple, direct fire needs? This pertains to question #1 since I don't know the shelf life of a Carl Gustav round, how many NZ has, or how old they are. If NZ has a number that are still serviceable, I would think keeping the CG around would make more sense then buying the unguided version of Javelin.

3. And now for something completely different. What is the operational status of the HMNZS Endeavour? I remember reading about a joint RAN/RNZN exercise maybe 18 months ago, where it broke down repeatedly and had to be taken in tow. Have any mechanical issues been resolved, or is the RNZN starting looking for a replacement? A fleet oiler would be a critical piece of any naval logistics train.

 

[Big-E]

A fleet oiler? What would they need that for? I'm sure Australia will be happy to fuel her ships for any duel action. Otherwise I can't imagine them leaving the EEZ.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Three questions occurred to me, not so much maximizing the NZDF but wondering about the current status.

1. What is the state of NZDF warstocks? In a different thread it was mentioned that until fairly recently, the ADF had very low warstocks for artillery shells, AShM, etc. and that much of the munitions they did have, weren't serviceable. What state is the NZDF in?

2. Per the NZ Army website, the plan is to phase out the 84mm Carl Gustav by the end of this year and have it replaced by the Javelin. Granted, the Javelin is a better system, would the Carl Gustav be worth retaining for simple, direct fire needs? This pertains to question #1 since I don't know the shelf life of a Carl Gustav round, how many NZ has, or how old they are. If NZ has a number that are still serviceable, I would think keeping the CG around would make more sense then buying the unguided version of Javelin.

3. And now for something completely different. What is the operational status of the HMNZS Endeavour? I remember reading about a joint RAN/RNZN exercise maybe 18 months ago, where it broke down repeatedly and had to be taken in tow. Have any mechanical issues been resolved, or is the RNZN starting looking for a replacement? A fleet oiler would be a critical piece of any naval logistics train.

1. There is a project in place at the moment that covers additional warstocks, but as a rule I don't think they would be kept at a high level, for ops outside the region the NZDF would plug into an allies supply chain and pay as they go. For inside the region the chance of a conflict that would exhaust war stocks, in a time frame where more could not be bought, is very low IMO
2. I was a bit surprised regarding the statement that the CG RCL was being phased out as well. Some things spring to mind, it may be moved to the reserves or they may mean that it is being phased out as the main anti armour weapon, in which case it may be moved to a more general support role. On the other hand it may just go as well.
3. No plans to replace the Endeavour that I am aware of it is 18 years old, but is considered an asset in the region where the RAN only operates 2. Was also an important asset during East Timor in 1999.

 

[Todjaeger]

This was the thread that got me wondering on warstocks.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4524&page=5

I agree. There are too many capability gaps within our forces to be worried about maintaining such a separate niche capability. If Indonesia ever developed the capability to seriously threaten Australia we'll need the US's help anyway. Our war reserve stockpiling policy (based on funding issues alone) means that we have virtually zero warstocks of munitions in Australia as it is not Government policy to maintain a large warstock of munitions for our defence. (Because this would cost a lot of money).

As an example, at one point not too many years ago, the only stocks of Harpoon missiles in our entire Country were those equipping our FFG frigates.

If RAAF had needed Harpoon missiles to conduct a maritime shipping strike, the missiles would have had to be removed from the FFG's, converted to the air-launched configuration, shipped to which ever RAAF base the strike was to be launched from and loaded onto the aircraft, assuming someone could actually be found who was qualified to employ the weapon, as there were no training stocks...

To put this into perspective, the defence of our Country is based upon our ability to control our maritime approaches and yet we have no stocks of the primary weapon designed for this mission!!!

Another example of our weaknesses is the fact that we do not produce 155mm artillery ammunition in this Country at all and have to import every single round. Our Politicians and defence chiefs then in their wisdom allowed our ammunition stocks to run so low that we had to "break into" our "critical" warstock simply to maintain peacetime qualification levels on our primary artillery systems.

At one point there were Gunners within 8/12 Medium Regiment that had not fired 1 single round of ammunition from their M198 155mm guns in nearly 2 years.

As for the CG, it mentioned being replaced by the Javelin, not being shunted over to the reserves. I'd prefer if possible to keep it, since there are something like twice the number of CG launchers compared to the Javelin.

With the Endeavour, was it just that one exercise where it ran into mechanical difficulties? Or is the vessel just sort of wearing out? Given the NZ area of interest, a fleet oiler/replenishment ship is needed given the vast ranges. Now with the Westralia decommissioned and the Sirius (sp? DMO site is down, not able to check) is being fitted out, there are only two support vessels between the RAN and RNZN. Hence the interest in the availability of the Endeavour.

 

[Sea Toby]

The Endeavour is 18 years old, even a brand new ship can throw a propeller, or have other propulsion problems. The Endeavour was designed to last 30 years, and there is no apparent reason why she won't. New Zealand bought her cheaply from a South Korean shiyard, and she can be replaced with another cheap South Korean replenishment ship easily. Whenever New Zealand's frigates deploy further abroad than Australia, she is usually tagging along.

As I recall New Zealand bought the Endeavour for $50 million in NZ dollars in the late 1980s. She could probably be replaced for less than $70 million in NZ dollars today. Keep this in mind, the Anzac class ESSM upgrade is expected to cost over $300 million in NZ dollars, the most expensive item on the LTDP that has not been approved by the government. A South Korean built small replenishment ship is not a budget breaker.

On the other hand when it becomes time to replace the Hercules and Orions in 10-15 years, New Zealand will be facing an expensive order. I suspect the Hercules replacement alone will run over $1 billion in NZ dollars, and the Orion replacements will run as much. Depending upon the NZ dollar, the Hercules replacement could run up to $2 billion if the A-400 wins the order.

New Zealand's defence forces are aware of a future supply line. New Zealand usually acquires equipment that have also been bought by their closest allies. It is useful to be able to acquire parts from Australian, American, and British supply lines and sources. New Zealand also attempts to order its equipment more off the shelf, maintaining interoperational equipment.

 

[RubiconNZ]

Yeah

The Endeavour is 18 years old, even a brand new ship can throw a propeller, or have other propulsion problems. The Charles De Gaulle is a great example of this


On the other hand when it becomes time to replace the Hercules and Orions in 10-15 years, New Zealand will be facing an expensive order. I suspect the Hercules replacement alone will run over $1 billion in NZ dollars, and the Orion replacements will run as much. Depending upon the NZ dollar, the Hercules replacement could run up to $2 billion if the A-400 wins the order.

The A400 sounds great but what is Take Landing space requirments, if it is the same as a C130 however if it is more well then theres a problem, Lift for NZ is focused for the Pacific so obviously the more remote landing sites have serious length issues. If this was so then RNZAF would need IMO 4 A400 and 3-4 C-27 Spartans, So I would much more like to see 8 C130 Js which would/should be same price offering similar capability, with 2 or 3 KC versions.

Orions MUST be replaced with at least a matching capability so I think the MMA in number of 3 or 4, and half a dozen Med range UAVs. This is a must have basic nescessary capability for NZ, and really is unegotiable in my books. Plus half a dozen Med range UAVs for multi use as a supplement of the MMA as you would be loosing about 1 aircrafts, the RNZAF has had one Orion in Upgrade basically for the nearly the last 10 years so its no biggie.

 

[Aussie Digger]

This was the thread that got me wondering on warstocks.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4524&page=5



As for the CG, it mentioned being replaced by the Javelin, not being shunted over to the reserves. I'd prefer if possible to keep it, since there are something like twice the number of CG launchers compared to the Javelin.

I agree. The "Charlie G" is an excellent, yet relatively simple weapon to operate. The Australian Army is retaining the weapon despite it's relatively "large" Javelin ATGW order (in excess of 100x launchers) and in fact is introducing the weapon (Charlie G) at platoon level, with the "maneuvre support teams" we will be introducing shortly within our infantry battalions.

I'd recommend the same for NZ as the ammunition fired by the Charlie G is relatively un-sophisticated (being un-guided and therefore relatively cheap) yet is remaining in-service with a number of close NZ allies including Australia, Singapore and the UK (to the best of my knowledge).

The weapon, IMHO is probably best used in a fire support role, as it is relatively short ranged (around 500 m's is it's maximum effective range) and it's available warheads whilst powerful are not the most effective anti-tank warheads around, yet are VERY effective for anti-bunker tasks and anything short of the most modern heavily armoured vehicles.

These weapons could perhaps be brought down to a "company level" fire support section and used alongside the MAG-58 7.62mm GPMG to provide greater fire support for each infantry company. The MAG-58 I understand, will be replaced by the 40mm AGL when this project proceeds, at battalion level...

 

[RubiconNZ]

Agl

These weapons could perhaps be brought down to a "company level" fire support section and used alongside the MAG-58 7.62mm GPMG to provide greater fire support for each infantry company. The MAG-58 I understand, will be replaced by the 40mm AGL when this project proceeds, at battalion level...

What do you think the story is with the AGL, I feel this sounds like a bit of a cop out: This project has been deferred until 2008 as there is no system that is satisfactory to the New Zealand Army. Ministry of Defence will continue to monitor developments in the industry. www.defence.govt.nz

Does anybody have any comment on the capabilities of the AGL, the only one I know of is the MK 19 and that for all most general purposes seems rather effective, plus it has been intergrated on just about any vehicle under the sun so....

Additionally what kind of fire control are they looking for? is that the issue

Comments would be great.

 

[Aussie Digger]

What do you think the story is with the AGL, I feel this sounds like a bit of a cop out: This project has been deferred until 2008 as there is no system that is satisfactory to the New Zealand Army. Ministry of Defence will continue to monitor developments in the industry. www.defence.govt.nz

Does anybody have any comment on the capabilities of the AGL, the only one I know of is the MK 19 and that for all most general purposes seems rather effective, plus it has been intergrated on just about any vehicle under the sun so....

Additionally what kind of fire control are they looking for? is that the issue

Comments would be great.

Sounds to me like 2 possibilities: 1. (And the most likely) the Politicians are whinging about the cost of a new and "offensive" military capability or 2.) NZ are waiting for a new capability like the M-307 25mm grenade launcher / 12.7mm HMG...

 

[RubiconNZ]

Cheers

Sounds to me like 2 possibilities: 1. (And the most likely) the Politicians are whinging about the cost of a new and "offensive" military capability ...

Yeah Im afraid I would agree

or 2.) NZ are waiting for a new capability like the M-307 25mm grenade launcher / 12.7mm HMG...

Oh thats a much better system indeed, thermobaric rounds, much more manportable and transportable... for those who like me until a minute ago were oblivious to the M-307:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m307.htm