Moving Forward with Maximizing New Zealands Defense Force Assets

[Sea Toby]

If New Zealand wasn't so isolated I might agree that the C-27 would be a good transport aircraft. The C-27 carries less than half the men of a C-130, and less than a third of the weight of a C-130. A C-27 could make up these shortages in number of sorties if the range is short. Unfortunately, New Zealand is a long distance, even from its neighboring island states to the north, much less northern Australia. Therefore, its my opinion New Zealand will need at least a C-130 or an A-400 for a suitable transport aircraft.

While I can't link this, my understanding is that the Carl Gustav's warheads have reached their expiration date. New Zealand timed its purchase of the Javelins to replace them. Since this has been an asset the army wished to acquire for almost a decade, and this purchase is not a budget breaker, it appears the long wait for acquisition is related to the Carl Gustav's shelf life.

Considering New Zealand's small defence expenditures of the current NZ government, would it acquire a new system before the shelf life of another expired?

 

[RubiconNZ]

If New Zealand wasn't so isolated I might agree that the C-27 would be a good transport aircraft. The C-27 carries less than half the men of a C-130, and less than a third of the weight of a C-130. A C-27 could make up these shortages in number of sorties if the range is short. Unfortunately, New Zealand is a long distance, even from its neighboring island states to the north, much less northern Australia. Therefore, its my opinion New Zealand will need at least a C-130 or an A-400 for a suitable transport aircraft.

I agree its range would be highly prohibitive perhaps disqualifyingly so, I just suggest its purchase mainly as for intra theatre ops, and for diaster relief in country etc, A2A refuellers would assist perhaps in the replacement of the 757's in about 15-20 years, My concearn is sense of overkill with a all A400 fleet as with tghe NH90's, you don't need a NH90 to help rescue someone stuck in a national park as often as you would a Iroquois, if running costs are similar then fine, but you could still be adding additional unessecary wear on a much more expensive aircraft.

 

[Wooki]

If New Zealand wasn't so isolated I might agree that the C-27 would be a good transport aircraft. The C-27 carries less than half the men of a C-130, and less than a third of the weight of a C-130. A C-27 could make up these shortages in number of sorties if the range is short. Unfortunately, New Zealand is a long distance, even from its neighboring island states to the north, much less northern Australia. Therefore, its my opinion New Zealand will need at least a C-130 or an A-400 for a suitable transport aircraft.

While I can't link this, my understanding is that the Carl Gustav's warheads have reached their expiration date. New Zealand timed its purchase of the Javelins to replace them. Since this has been an asset the army wished to acquire for almost a decade, and this purchase is not a budget breaker, it appears the long wait for acquisition is related to the Carl Gustav's shelf life.

Considering New Zealand's small defence expenditures of the current NZ government, would it acquire a new system before the shelf life of another expired?

The C27 is excellent for intra theater operations. I agree, I wouldn't use it for NZ centric operations, but as a part of an allied effort e.g. Afghanistan, it would be invaluable and should be considered just for that reason alone. It could be leased to the Aussies to replace their bou, for instance.

cheers

W

 

[Sea Toby]

While I agree the C-27 will meet Australia's inter theater requirements, New Zealand should never buy equipment that isn't useful for its own defence. Buying an aircraft that don't meet New Zealand's needs and leasing them to Australia is not an answer to New Zealand's airlift needs. New Zealand's capital budget is barely large enough to buy equipment for New Zealand's defence forces.

Any Hercules replacement will have to have significant cargo loading and range to fulfill New Zealand's airlift requirements. Otherwise, the RAAF larger transport planes would have to be offered to airlift a significant amount of RNZAF's airlift needs. Not much of a plus for Australia leasing New Zealand's C-27s.

 

[Todjaeger]

Rather than a C-27J, I think the CH-47 would serve NZ better in areas requiring STOL. The range (for a helicopter) is very good, approx 1k miles and with appropriate assets (like a KC-130) can be refueled in flight. It would also allow interoperability with ADF/UK/US assets, all of which fly versions of the Chinook.

In terms of airlift, the debate of C-130 vs. A400m can't really be answered at this point, since the A400M doesn't have a working prototype yet. What can be done, is to look at the current NZ transports and decide if they can be economically extended until the A400M is in-service long enough for data to be available. Then the debate between the C-130J & A400M could be done. The only caveats I would add are that NZ might be able to join with the ADF and/or Canadian order since both nations are looking at replacing their existing C-130Hs (Canada I think has decided that it needs replacement aircraft in-service by 2008-2010) These orders might be placed before the A400M are even available and could drive the cost per unit down.

As for the CG, I think, given the relatively few Javelin launchers, the NZ army should do something like the planned Australian fire support units. While hopefully there wouldn't be much call on deployments for an anti-armour or hardened structure fire support, if the only thing available it perhaps 2 Javelins, there could be problems.

Does anyone know what the availability of the Endeavour is? While it is true the ship might be designed to serve another 12 years, if it is prone to mechanical failure, it might not be worth keeping that long. Can anyone imagine the French keeping the Charles De Gaule in service if it breaks down on every deployment and needs to be ingloriously towed back to it's home port? Either they would repair/modify it to restore availability, or replace it. If on the other hand, the issues the Endeavour had were a fluke, then I'd say keep it in service, assuming it's a double-hulled tanker unlike the decommissioned Westralia.

 

[Big-E]

Can anyone imagine the French keeping the Charles De Gaule in service if it breaks down on every deployment and needs to be ingloriously towed back to it's home port? Either they would repair/modify it to restore availability, or replace it.

Why not? The Russians do it with Kuznetzov.:rotfl

 

[Wooki]

Why not? The Russians do it with Kuznetzov.:rotfl

Feeling funny today , eh?...

Re: the C27, A400, C130J-30 ie air transport

You need to look at what NZ should be trying to achieve with this capability;
a) If it is to support allied operations than you have to split that into tactical, intra theater and strategic.
b) If it is disaster recovery then it needs to have range to cover the Pacific, yet have good STOL.

So, to eliminate concerns about item (b) you need an aircraft with air refueling capability.

You can get that with every platform mentioned, including the CH-47, although that SF copy costs around 40 million USD IIRC :sick

One that hasn't been mentioned is the AN-70. Which can haul twice the amount a C130J-30 can just as far for less than the cost of 2 C130J-30 units.

The A400 looks great on paper, but Airbus can't even get the A380 into production and that puppy is the life blood of the company.

That is to say IMHO, it carrys more risk than the F35 project that people love to harp on about.

For tactical and intra theater I would go with a mix of fixed wing and rotary, as fixed wing costs less. A suggestion is the C27J and CH47. With precision drop technologies being developed the C27J can do alot of the supply work that would normally require a CH-47. So you could make better use of the CH-47s for in and out operations requiring VTOL and VTOL only. Reduce hours, reduce wear and tear.

For long haul stuff, I would look at the AN70 and C130J-30. The An-70 would look alot better if IAI were involved for modernization and QA. And quite honestly it makes the A400 look like so much hot air in that it has been around for 15 years and the A400 is still a wet dream.

KC versions. Totally agree, but you can KC an ordinary cargo plane using that fuel bladder/hose reel trick the UK did in the Falklands, straight out the back and over the ramp. i.e. It might be simpler just to develop some kits.

Cheers

W

PS Where is my translation??:wah I could have learnt German by now.

 

[Waylander]

It's comming, it's comming...
Don't hit me for a bad english!

"Description
In the mid '70s the conecpt of a Sturmpanzer has been awaken again. At the beginning of 19980 a prototype was build. But no buyer was found because even in the third world the art of war changed so that a Sturmpanzer was no longer integrable. The development was done completely by KMW in germany with with FMC as subcontractor.The production would have takne place in germany with components being delivered from the USA.

The chassis is based on the M113. The driver is siting on the left right next to the gun and on the right there is the engine. Behind this there is the crew compartment. The commander sits on the right, right behind the engine, the loader behind the gun with the ammo on the right and left of him. The crew comparment is accessible through two doors at the back. There are four periscopes for the driver around the hatchet with one of them being convertible with a light intensifier or an IR-sight. The driver is also the gunner. The vehicle is driven by a wheel and driving noise with which the gun is also aimed. The driver/gunner is using a LZP 2000 (4x) for targeting. The commander has five periscopes and a LRP 2001 sight. Both system are linked to the steering system of the vehicle. The loader knows because of his display which ammo he has to load.

There is a periscope on the right above the gun, two on the left and one at the back. If needed four soldiers can be carried. The gun is a Rheimetall 105mm which is able to fire two part ammo and one part ammo (You guys knwo what I mean?). There is muzzle breal and a smoke discharger. There is also a NBC protection.
You could also add some other targeting computers or a amphibibious capability."

That's it.
My dictionary made some problems today so blaim i for my mistakes.

Edit: Oh my god I just see how many mistakes I produced. I hope you are able to read it. :lam

 

[Wooki]

It's comming, it's comming...
Don't hit me for a bad english!

"Description
In the mid '70s the conecpt of a Sturmpanzer has been awaken again. At the beginning of 19980 a prototype was build. But no buyer was found because even in the third world the art of war changed so that a Sturmpanzer was no longer integrable. The development was done completely by KMW in germany with with FMC as subcontractor.The production would have takne place in germany with components being delivered from the USA.

The chassis is based on the M113. The driver is siting on the left right next to the gun and on the right there is the engine. Behind this there is the crew compartment. The commander sits on the right, right behind the engine, the loader behind the gun with the ammo on the right and left of him. The crew comparment is accessible through two doors at the back. There are four periscopes for the driver around the hatchet with one of them being convertible with a light intensifier or an IR-sight. The driver is also the gunner. The vehicle is driven by a wheel and driving noise with which the gun is also aimed. The driver/gunner is using a LZP 2000 (4x) for targeting. The commander has five periscopes and a LRP 2001 sight. Both system are linked to the steering system of the vehicle. The loader knows because of his display which ammo he has to load.

There is a periscope on the right above the gun, two on the left and one at the back. If needed four soldiers can be carried. The gun is a Rheimetall 105mm which is able to fire two part ammo and one part ammo (You guys knwo what I mean?). There is muzzle breal and a smoke discharger. There is also a NBC protection.
You could also add some other targeting computers or a amphibibious capability."

That's it.
My dictionary made some problems today so blaim i for my mistakes.

Edit: Oh my god I just see how many mistakes I produced. I hope you are able to read it. :lam

Brilliant! A couple more of those and you'll have a second job waylander Thanks very much for doing that for us...

I don't think a "sturm panzer" is out of date at all. We're just making do with what we have. Although instead of a honking 105 gun, I would go with the 120mm gun mortar... Did you guys see the Gun/mortar developed for the new AC130? Basically they took the 105 howitzer and converted it to 120mm with 120mm mortar ammo...

Very neat and it reduces the blast that the aircraft is exposed to when fired. The recoil is less "peaky" too, which is good for the airframe...

Stick this puppy on a "Sturm Panzer" and you are good to go.

Cheers

W

 

[Waylander]

Thanks.
I also think that this just shows us that the M113 chassis is able to handle a big gun but in the end it is only usefull as an uparmored APC/patrol vehicle, medical or mortar vehicle in the future.
BTW, I don't know were you put your mortars on but in the Bundeswehr and in the Siwtzerland army we put our 120mm mortars onto a M113 chassis (Which is being replaced by the Wiesel 2).
I really love 120mm mortars inegrated into the fighting units. They provide fast fire support without the need for asking the brigade or divison artillery units for it and during peacekeeping operations they are also able to give you smoke and enlightement capability right were you need it.
Some light rounds above a crowd seemed to cool down the situation very fast in the Kosovo.
And even when your vehicle is broken or the situation requires it you are able to transport it by food (At least our mortar crews do that and they hate it )
They are no substitute for normal 105mm, 155mm and MLRS artillery for bigger armys but for small armys which are concentrated on peacekeeping missions they are the best choice.

 

[Wooki]

Thanks.
I also think that this just shows us that the M113 chassis is able to handle a big gun but in the end it is only usefull as an uparmored APC/patrol vehicle, medical or mortar vehicle in the future.
BTW, I don't know were you put your mortars on but in the Bundeswehr and in the Siwtzerland army we put our 120mm mortars onto a M113 chassis (Which is being replaced by the Wiesel 2).
I really love 120mm mortars inegrated into the fighting units. They provide fast fire support without the need for asking the brigade or divison artillery units for it and during peacekeeping operations they are also able to give you smoke and enlightement capability right were you need it.
Some light rounds above a crowd seemed to cool down the situation very fast in the Kosovo.
And even when your vehicle is broken or the situation requires it you are able to transport it by food (At least our mortar crews do that and they hate it )
They are no substitute for normal 105mm, 155mm and MLRS artillery for bigger armys but for small armys which are concentrated on peacekeeping missions they are the best choice.

I agree, to a point. I think with regard to supporting infantry the 120mm mortar (AMOS) is the best choice, as it;

1) doesn't wear out as quickly
2) doesn't create a huge blast wave (over pressure)
3) has a wide range of munitions that you can use, including simple mods for the tank ammo.
4) further to the munitions, you can launch UAVs and smart munitions like STRIX or even the Israeli Lahat missile

So in a lot of ways it is superior to the 105, 120, 155 and area denial weapon like MLRS in the infantry support role.

Plus, when looking at data like this, you realize that a chassis like the CV90 AMOS or LAVIII AMOS have huge possibilities, so long as you make its primary mission direct fire.

Now, on the other hand if you do all that (modifying mortar rounds to suit the gun)with the Ruag 120 CTG, you are good to go as well.

There is an overlap between the two guns:

a) The mortar you can use for high elevation stuff, like illumination flares and traditional mortar support fires. so you need an ATGM like TOW or Lahat to compliment it.

b) The high velocity gun can revert to a tank killer, so you need a specialized flare dispenser and it can't do long range fire support unless you go with a specialized munition. Which IIRC is being developed.

Because you can launch UAV's I am canning my thoughts on the 105 caliber.

But I am still out of whether to go with a 120mm tank gun with mortar ammo, or a 120mm mortar with ATGM. One second I think the mortar and then the next I say, "Nah, the gun".

ATGMs (even the TOW) are expensive and if you are using the gun to fire mortar ammo, you are extending its life 3 fold at least. So the high velocity gun would be a good compliment to the Javelin purchase.

The NZDF only have 12 or so Javelins as is. What it really comes down to is probably a mix of AMOS and 120mm gun with maybe a 7 AMOS chassis to 3 120mm gun chassis ratio.

Yep:

Armor Scenario 1) If want to go with LAVIII, then AMOS with TOW
Armor Scenario 2) If you want to go CV90, then AMOS with 120-T at the 7:3 ratio.

I think that would be pretty much the bees knees for infantry support. Go with (1) if you think you'll never face a tank. Go wth (2) if you think you might come across a few.

Cheers

W

 

[Todjaeger]

I agree, to a point. I think with regard to supporting infantry the 120mm mortar (AMOS) is the best choice, as it;

1) doesn't wear out as quickly
2) doesn't create a huge blast wave (over pressure)
3) has a wide range of munitions that you can use, including simple mods for the tank ammo.
4) further to the munitions, you can launch UAVs and smart munitions like STRIX or even the Israeli Lahat missile

So in a lot of ways it is superior to the 105, 120, 155 and area denial weapon like MLRS in the infantry support role.

Plus, when looking at data like this, you realize that a chassis like the CV90 AMOS or LAVIII AMOS have huge possibilities, so long as you make its primary mission direct fire.

Now, on the other hand if you do all that (modifying mortar rounds to suit the gun)with the Ruag 120 CTG, you are good to go as well.

There is an overlap between the two guns:

a) The mortar you can use for high elevation stuff, like illumination flares and traditional mortar support fires. so you need an ATGM like TOW or Lahat to compliment it.

b) The high velocity gun can revert to a tank killer, so you need a specialized flare dispenser and it can't do long range fire support unless you go with a specialized munition. Which IIRC is being developed.

Because you can launch UAV's I am canning my thoughts on the 105 caliber.

But I am still out of whether to go with a 120mm tank gun with mortar ammo, or a 120mm mortar with ATGM. One second I think the mortar and then the next I say, "Nah, the gun".

ATGMs (even the TOW) are expensive and if you are using the gun to fire mortar ammo, you are extending its life 3 fold at least. So the high velocity gun would be a good compliment to the Javelin purchase.

The NZDF only have 12 or so Javelins as is. What it really comes down to is probably a mix of AMOS and 120mm gun with maybe a 7 AMOS chassis to 3 120mm gun chassis ratio.

Yep:

Armor Scenario 1) If want to go with LAVIII, then AMOS with TOW
Armor Scenario 2) If you want to go CV90, then AMOS with 120-T at the 7:3 ratio.

I think that would be pretty much the bees knees for infantry support. Go with (1) if you think you'll never face a tank. Go wth (2) if you think you might come across a few.

Cheers

W

Okay, LAVIII with AMOS I could see NZ going with. I have to ask though, launching UAVs? What kind and how? Never heard of it doing that before.

As for the TOW, that might be better off mounted on separate LAVIIIs. If a wire-guided ATGM is chosen, is TOW the best option, or would something like the Milan-ER be a better choice? From what I remember reading during the runup to GWI, the Iraqi Milans were faster than the US TOW. Not sure if that is still the case or not. Also, cost would be a factor, the lower the better since I wouldn't expect the vehicles to be used as tank hunters, more bunker busters.

How does the effect of a 120mm AMOS shell stack up against a direct hit from a 105mm or 155mm howitzer?

As for NZ Javelins, I believe they have 24, not 12, but still not very many.

With the introduction of something like the LAVIII/CV90/M113 AMOS, would there need to be an upgrade of NZ C3 capabilities to make proper use of it? Given the growth of network-interoperability in the armed forces of other nations, I also start to wonder if NZ needs to work on the issue or risk being left behind in terms of being able to work with other nations.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Okay, LAVIII with AMOS I could see NZ going with. I have to ask though, launching UAVs? What kind and how? Never heard of it doing that before.

As for the TOW, that might be better off mounted on separate LAVIIIs. If a wire-guided ATGM is chosen, is TOW the best option, or would something like the Milan-ER be a better choice? From what I remember reading during the runup to GWI, the Iraqi Milans were faster than the US TOW. Not sure if that is still the case or not. Also, cost would be a factor, the lower the better since I wouldn't expect the vehicles to be used as tank hunters, more bunker busters.

How does the effect of a 120mm AMOS shell stack up against a direct hit from a 105mm or 155mm howitzer?

As for NZ Javelins, I believe they have 24, not 12, but still not very many.

With the introduction of something like the LAVIII/CV90/M113 AMOS, would there need to be an upgrade of NZ C3 capabilities to make proper use of it? Given the growth of network-interoperability in the armed forces of other nations, I also start to wonder if NZ needs to work on the issue or risk being left behind in terms of being able to work with other nations.

I find it difficult to believe NZ would be interested in a weapon such as TOW. The Javelin purchase cost about $23m and the auto-grenade launcher purchase will also cost about $15m. That's ALL they've currently got for fire support enhancements at present, with the artillery/mortar replacement/ upgrade program deferred for some time, IIRC.

If they have more money available a greater Javelin purchase would be more beneficial IMHO. If it is correct that they purchased only 12x launchers, this MUST mean that only 1 battalion can be equipped with the launchers at any one time. If they had 24x obviously the matter is a bit different, with this quantity probably being sufficient to equip both battalions, the QAMR, NZSAS AND the School of Infantry (or whatever NZ calls it's infantry training unit).

If more money can be found than I'd advocate enhancing an existing capability by acquiring more Javelin launchers rather than introducing yet another capability in limited quantities. If more money could be found, equipping the Territorial Battalions with a Javelin capability would provide greater overall capability and would obviously be FAR more supportable than equipping another battalion with a similar anti-tank capacity (in terms of weapon effects) to one it already has...

If the regular battalions needed greater fire support, I'd advocate a 120mm mortar system being included instead of another ATGW system. Javelin will be undergoing an upgrade within a few years which will provide it with a range similar to that of TOW anyway. The current range is more than useful and will be sufficient until the next generation Javelin missile is available, as will the warhead effects.

I have read reports on current 120mm mortar systems, which show that the effects of 120mm mortar rounds are almost equivalent to that of 155mm artillery ammunition, whilst the effective range of 120mm mortar systems (such as AMOS) "almost" matches that of NZ's current 105mm artillery
system.

The difference is the high trajectory which mortar's utilise, which makes them usually more effective in urban and mountainous regions.

To enhance NZ's fire support, I'd advocate acquiring a motorised 120mm mortar based on a 4x4 or 6x6 chassis. I don't think they need to be mounted on a LAVIII chassis for NZ's purposes and mounting it on something like a Pinzgauer or perhaps a Unimog type truck as this would keep costs down significantly.

I'd also advocate procuring one of the numerous 105mm artillery upgrade programs that exist to improve the capability of NZ's L118 howitzers. These programs are available from companies such as BAE or Denel with increased range ammunition (base bleed units provide up to 28k range, similar to rocket assisted M198's) GPS guided fuzes allowing a "precision" fire capability to be added to existing artillery rounds and enhanced lethality (equivalent to NATO standard M107 155mm ammunition).

The benefits of these sorts of upgrade should be obvious (greater range, lethality, precision etc) but allow the existing weapons and (largely) infrastructure and support capabilities to be maintained as well as usage of existing ammunition stocks.

I'd then rsimply retire the 81mm mortar in favour of the new 120mm mortar system as discussed earlier...

 

[Todjaeger]

If the regular battalions needed greater fire support, I'd advocate a 120mm mortar system being included instead of another ATGW system. Javelin will be undergoing an upgrade within a few years which will provide it with a range similar to that of TOW anyway. The current range is more than useful and will be sufficient until the next generation Javelin missile is available, as will the warhead effects.

I have read reports on current 120mm mortar systems, which show that the effects of 120mm mortar rounds are almost equivalent to that of 155mm artillery ammunition, whilst the effective range of 120mm mortar systems (such as AMOS) "almost" matches that of NZ's current 105mm artillery
system.

The difference is the high trajectory which mortar's utilise, which makes them usually more effective in urban and mountainous regions.

To enhance NZ's fire support, I'd advocate acquiring a motorised 120mm mortar based on a 4x4 or 6x6 chassis. I don't think they need to be mounted on a LAVIII chassis for NZ's purposes and mounting it on something like a Pinzgauer or perhaps a Unimog type truck as this would keep costs down significantly.

I'd then rsimply retire the 81mm mortar in favour of the new 120mm mortar system as discussed earlier...

AD, does the 120mm AMOS system you envision have direct fire capability? What I was thinking, and I believe Wooki was referring to was a system that could direct fire. I'm not sure that would work on a Mog. Now an indirect fire version would definately work, and I believe ADI is developing a Bushmaster variant to do just that. I doubt a turret large enough for a 120mm AMOS could be mounted on the roof of a Bushmaster without increasing the vehicle profile unreasonably.

Direct fire I feel should be an option since the vehicle would then be able to provide heavy fire support when specific targets need to be hit. If enemies have occupied a structure (say something that might be fairly well built like a bank with vault), then a direct hit on the front entrance with a 120mm mortar round might just be a nice way of knocking on the door. You will at least have their attention, and by direct fire, should be able to do so accurately without using expensive guided munitions.

81mm mortars I imagine would be kept. I doubt that enough 120mm AMOS systems would be purchased to match the available volume of fire from 81mm tubes in all areas needed. Plus the 81mm tubes are man portable, where as the vehicle mounted systems can be more difficult to transport.

Incidentally, the AGL, is that a manpack mounting or will there be vehicle mounts as well?

 

[RubiconNZ]

Vehicles

Incidentally, the AGL, is that a manpack mounting or will there be vehicle mounts as well?

They are wanting both, it was some of the requirments for LAV III and the Pinzgauer, to allow weapons stations to be fitted, so dependant on cost you should see some vehicle mounts, espescially for the SAS vehicles but you wont here about that I would predict, NZ is just about the most secretive about their SAS.

 

[Wooki]

I find it difficult to believe NZ would be interested in a weapon such as TOW. The Javelin purchase cost about $23m and the auto-grenade launcher purchase will also cost about $15m. That's ALL they've currently got for fire support enhancements at present, with the artillery/mortar replacement/ upgrade program deferred for some time, IIRC.
...

Money, is the reason I mentioned TOW and it has a proven record doing things it wan't designed to do like penetrating a 4 meter sand burm and then a hardened bunker to explode inside.

Money is also the reason why I think the 120mm high velocity gun is valid to compliment the Javelin.

I agree that more Javelins are the go, but if you can't do that and you don't want to buy a cheaper ATGM, then you need a gun, as the low amount of Javelins that the NZDF has, is not enough.

As we know, buying a gun has its own headaches too, with what type of platform do you put it on.

The end result is "Yes, go with the AMOS and stay away from tanks."
AMOS can take out the tank at long range too from above, so I would look at a modified BAT munition to launch in the tube.

And yes 120mm UAVs are being developed as we write, so the Bat munition mod would be relatively easy too.

got to go

cheers

W

 

[Waylander]

If you really want to gun with a high velocity gun 120mm is for me he only alternative.
105mm is just not powerfull enough if you want to use your vehicles also as tank hunters while using hit and run tactics.

The swedish AMOS system on their CV90 chassis with two 120mm mortars is defenitely able to give you accurate direct fire support.

 

[Aussie Digger]

AD, does the 120mm AMOS system you envision have direct fire capability? What I was thinking, and I believe Wooki was referring to was a system that could direct fire. I'm not sure that would work on a Mog. Now an indirect fire version would definately work, and I believe ADI is developing a Bushmaster variant to do just that. I doubt a turret large enough for a 120mm AMOS could be mounted on the roof of a Bushmaster without increasing the vehicle profile unreasonably.

Direct fire I feel should be an option since the vehicle would then be able to provide heavy fire support when specific targets need to be hit. If enemies have occupied a structure (say something that might be fairly well built like a bank with vault), then a direct hit on the front entrance with a 120mm mortar round might just be a nice way of knocking on the door. You will at least have their attention, and by direct fire, should be able to do so accurately without using expensive guided munitions.

81mm mortars I imagine would be kept. I doubt that enough 120mm AMOS systems would be purchased to match the available volume of fire from 81mm tubes in all areas needed. Plus the 81mm tubes are man portable, where as the vehicle mounted systems can be more difficult to transport.

Incidentally, the AGL, is that a manpack mounting or will there be vehicle mounts as well?

I was actually envisaging a 120mm mortar system that could be vehicle mounted (like the M113 - M125A1 81mm mortar carrier) or dismounted from the vehicle and used in a "manpack" situation if the terrain was too difficult for vehicles to operate in.

The reason for this is simply cost. Australia HAD a project to acquire 20x 120mm armoured mortar systems. The budget for this? $500m... This project was subsequently cancelled and replaced by the M1A1 Abrams acquisition which was achieved with the same funding level...

NZ could not afford to spend $500m obtaining such a capability, and if they some how did, they would not be afford to upgrade or replace their 105mm artillery and 81mm mortars.

My view was that the in-direct fire capability in terms of range and lethality of the ammunition, could be achieved as easily with a MUCH cheaper man-pack capable 120mm mortar, as with the complex and expensive AMOS system (or similar). The man-pack system would be likely to provide less overall firepower given the AMOS's particularly high rate of fire.

I can also see no reason why the 120mm mortar couldn't be operated from a Pinzgauer or a medium truck offering it greater mobility as well as a ready ammunition supply, plus tractor for the mortar section operating the weapon.

This option would allow a good compromise between cost and achievable firepower. This option would obviously forgoe a direct fire capability that AMOS can provide.

Other options which may be more affordable than AMOS, but provide greater capability than a traditional man-pack style mortar include the "Bighorn" 120mm mortar, which is an autonomous 120mm mortar system that can be fitted to APC's or light trucks (details can be found here: http://www.defense-update.com/products/b/bighorn.htm)

In relation to a direct fire capability, it's be nice, but again money needs to be found. I think increased in-direct fire support is of more importance to NZ at present, particularly highly mobile fire support capability (scoot and shoot) given it's lack of aerial fire support and the investments made recently in direct fire systems (25mm Bushmasters on LAVIII, Javelins and from 2008 40mm AGL's or perhaps M-307)...

 

[RubiconNZ]

STOL/Tac Transport Capability

While I agree the C-27 will meet Australia's inter theater requirements, New Zealand should never buy equipment that isn't useful for its own defence. Buying an aircraft that don't meet New Zealand's needs and leasing them to Australia is not an answer to New Zealand's airlift needs. New Zealand's capital budget is barely large enough to buy equipment for New Zealand's defence forces.

Any Hercules replacement will have to have significant cargo loading and range to fulfill New Zealand's airlift requirements. Otherwise, the RAAF larger transport planes would have to be offered to airlift a significant amount of RNZAF's airlift needs. Not much of a plus for Australia leasing New Zealand's C-27s.

Don't forget the RNZAF operated 10 Andovers right up until 1998 the budget has been available in the past, now of course C-27 J's would be in partner ship with A-400's perhaps four of each. The andover's were scrapped for maintenance issues, and well yes their 1000nm range, however a C27 J has a 5926km (3250nm) ferry range and with a 6000kg payload a 4260km (2400nm) range, and as stated could provide a excellent niche capability for UN ops.
This puts it well within range of Suva (2115miles) from Auckland, Honiara (2122miles) and just with in ferry range of Darwin though probably to close as Auckland to Darwin is 3195 miles.
Not to mention the Spartan can carry at least a half decent load of Hay for Farmers when the Winter snow sets in, bit overkill for a A-400 , though it would look kinda cool...


Now of course this isn't my first preference, I would prefer 7 C130 J's with three in the KC130 model, much simpler, share commonality with Aus, provide a very credible tranport strength single type, proven design maybe even get a cheaper deal once the A400 is launched, if Airbus hasn't gone under by then.

 

[tomahawk6]

What ever happened to NZ's fighters ? Good thing for the RAAF.