Moving Forward with Maximizing New Zealands Defense Force Assets

Wooki

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #101
Strategy, making a technological powerhouse out of a 2 island nation and a plane

Whiskyjack said:
It is tempting Wookie, the issues as I see it for the NZDF:
1. the Russians/Ukrainians are not secure as far as logistics go
2. Still many unknowns about the AN70
3. how much development money? NZ only need 6-8
4. through life maintenance costs, the Russians have not got a great record here IMO.
5. It would need more than just Australia
6. yes there are the people, but no experience in this sort of enterprise
7. When NZ decides on the C-130 replacement it will be a risk free decision. The NZDF has publicly stated many times it will only go OTS, it reduces risk and means the equipment arrives on time and to spec.

Don’t get me wrong, if Germany had split off from the A400M 5-6 years ago and co developed the AN70 like they were threatening to do, or EADS, BAE etc had gone into partnership then I would be all for the RNZAF operating the AN70.

But to do it now, given the ‘intolerance’ to risk that the NZDF has (especially when looking at some of the projects out Australian cousins are involved with at the moment), and how well the OTS policy works for a country with limited budget.

I would like to see some projects in the UAV/Engineering field as you mentioned above, where the Govt can put a million or two into them and help the companies get some project funds from overseas. But a project on the scale of the An70 would be political suicide here at the moment.
Tempting... Sorely tempting. The time is right IMHO to commence good business practice and make a business plan for doing as I suggest. Doesn't cost the government any cash apart from man hours they would have paid for anyway. Then after reviewing the plan, they have done due diligence and can make the correct choice which is in the interests of the NZDF and New Zealand.

The AN70 would require that NZ create a small boutique industry to fulfill its need. But what that really means is pulling in the specialized small business' that already exist within NZ and giving them the life blood they need to move forward and beyond the AN70.

Foundation

The most crucial factor here is that you have an excellent platform that has already been built. It is a lot easier to quantify project deliverables based off an existing platform with the goal of getting said platform into production. It is something real and tangible that can be mastered by many. You are not modifying an aircraft that is in production already, you are fine tuning a design in order to make it into production.... Big difference and a hell of a lot cheaper.

Antonov will partner with anybody to get this project going and may well sell the rights to NZDF commercial entity outright.

Market

New Zealand is the big dog in the South Pacific. Australia might have some muscle, but really, NZ has the influence. You don't think there is a market there for the taking if a platform like the AN70 turned up? There is and it isn't in military. Its in commercial. Chile and Argentina would be 2 prime candidates for their "adventourous" Antarctic basing policies. Fiji, Tonga Brunei, Singapore, Indonesia and Malaysia are all countries that have expressed a need for a transport like the AN70, or (more importantly) technologies that would be created by building the AN70.

Agility

Those small companies that you developed in the program would be a well spring of aerospace technologies that could be applied to everything from aerospace to medicine, to alternative power sources. You just have to make a plan that recognizes that you can't make a squillion off just building the platform. You have to be adaptable. If you create such an agile "conglomerate" ( a Company of companies if you will), then it has every chance of success.

Its a challenge. So many people have failed in similar endeavors, but, I think that is an advantage given the current climate. Those failures turn into "lessons learned" and done right from the start, you would be onto a winner, not just for the NZFD, but for the economy and the nation as a whole.

If you need to look for lessons learned, just look West. Look at the Colins and look at Austal. If you look farther, look at Airbus and Boeing. Two companies that have put it all on the line based on one product. Lunacy. That is why you have to begin building a solid biz plan now based on the technologies that will be developed and how they can be applied to the broader spectrum of the commercial market.

For example: Avionics= medical examination equipment. The US medical industry represents 19% of 2003 USA GDP alone. Defense was, what 7%? Point being most military types think the US defense industry is huge. It isn't compared with commercial industry.

Leadership

Anyway, the major hurdle in this "Biz plan" is finding the right people and getting them to throw their hat in (like IAI and Boeing Australia... particularly Boeing Australia, those guys must be sweating bullets).

Risk

As to risk, if you want ot invest in something, there is always risk. But there is always one thing that holds true; You can't make a better investment then investing in yourself. If NZ start this thing, they must make it adaptable and not expect to make money off selling planes. Build the industry, secure the through life support, exploit the technologies.

In the long run it will make NZ stronger and the NZDF would have a logistical punch that can deliver real results in real time far and above what would normally be expected of them.


cheers


W

let me guess, this is going to make it to the beehive now?:lol3
 
Last edited:

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Waylander said:
The A400M is going to transport the Puma IFV.
How much more density do you want?

But I am also very sceptical if EADS is able to fullfill the planned introduction of the A400M.
D'Oh! I had realized after I made the entry... I think I confused the discussion of the A400M vs. C-130 with the C-27J vs. CN-295. I think the CN-295 was the one where the floor strength was lower than the competing aircraft.

Currently there are two companies in Australia/NZ that design & build aircraft that I am aware of. These are Pacific Aerospace or sometimes PAC out of NZ, builder of the CT-4E Airtrainer (this was the moniker Plastic Parrot I was referring to) as well as the 750XL single turboprop light utility. In Australia there is Gippsland which makes the GA8 Airvan single piston light utility. In Australia there used to be GAF (since acquired and merged into Boeing Australia) which had designed & built the Nomad series twin turboprop light STOL transports. At this point I'm uncertain if Boeing Australia retains the facilities needed to design and build aircraft. Aerospace Australia, a subsidiary of Eurocopter and thus EADS has a production facility in Australia for some Eurocopter designs.

As for the usage of any aircraft built in Australia/NZ definate attention needs to be made on civil use of an aircraft. Boeing, Airbus, Bombardier and Embraer having pretty well covered civil/regional jet transport, which is fine if all one is concerned about is moving between developed cities in the region. Unfortunately in a military or civil emergency, airports with paved runways, etc. might not be located where needed for airlift. Hence my interest in STOL & rough field capable aircraft. It could be a misperception on my part, but there seems to be less STOL aircraft in production now than there had been in the past. Such a capability would allow access to sites in the different Pacific islands that couldn't take a jet/large transport due to size of landing field or lack of paving.

Having an indigenous design able to fill that need could strengthen the economic and technical abilities of the host country, and by extension the defence forces.

Something to think about anyway.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Additional units for RNZN to respond with

What are people's thoughts on the following Austal design if used by the RNZN
http://www.austal.com/go/product-information/defence-products/multi-role-corvette
While the design is listed as a Multi-role corvette, given the vessel's stock armament (a 25mm Bushmaster on a Typhoon mount) as well as the helicopter hangar and vehicle deck I think it would make a better MRV.

There was some discussion of this vessel for use as a RAN corvette, but not much about using it as a MRV. Would something like this be useful for the RNZN as a patrol/rapid small lift vessel? I could see a vessel this size being useful for small-scale rapid lift operations, where the HMNZS Canterbury of any Lo/Lo ships would be overkill. I'm not sure about the seakeeping ability though, a similar Austal ship, the Armidale patrol boat seems designed more for littoral waters and not the Southern or Pacific oceans.

What do people think?
 

Whiskyjack

Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analys
Verified Defense Pro
Wooki said:
Tempting... Sorely tempting. The time is right IMHO to commence good business practice and make a business plan for doing as I suggest. Doesn't cost the government any cash apart from man hours they would have paid for anyway. Then after reviewing the plan, they have done due diligence and can make the correct choice which is in the interests of the NZDF and New Zealand.

The AN70 would require that NZ create a small boutique industry to fulfill its need. But what that really means is pulling in the specialized small business' that already exist within NZ and giving them the life blood they need to move forward and beyond the AN70.

Foundation

The most crucial factor here is that you have an excellent platform that has already been built. It is a lot easier to quantify project deliverables based off an existing platform with the goal of getting said platform into production. It is something real and tangible that can be mastered by many. You are not modifying an aircraft that is in production already, you are fine tuning a design in order to make it into production.... Big difference and a hell of a lot cheaper.

Antonov will partner with anybody to get this project going and may well sell the rights to NZDF commercial entity outright.

Market

New Zealand is the big dog in the South Pacific. Australia might have some muscle, but really, NZ has the influence. You don't think there is a market there for the taking if a platform like the AN70 turned up? There is and it isn't in military. Its in commercial. Chile and Argentina would be 2 prime candidates for their "adventourous" Antarctic basing policies. Fiji, Tonga Brunei, Singapore, Indonesia and Malaysia are all countries that have expressed a need for a transport like the AN70, or (more importantly) technologies that would be created by building the AN70.

Agility

Those small companies that you developed in the program would be a well spring of aerospace technologies that could be applied to everything from aerospace to medicine, to alternative power sources. You just have to make a plan that recognizes that you can't make a squillion off just building the platform. You have to be adaptable. If you create such an agile "conglomerate" ( a Company of companies if you will), then it has every chance of success.

Its a challenge. So many people have failed in similar endeavors, but, I think that is an advantage given the current climate. Those failures turn into "lessons learned" and done right from the start, you would be onto a winner, not just for the NZFD, but for the economy and the nation as a whole.

If you need to look for lessons learned, just look West. Look at the Colins and look at Austal. If you look farther, look at Airbus and Boeing. Two companies that have put it all on the line based on one product. Lunacy. That is why you have to begin building a solid biz plan now based on the technologies that will be developed and how they can be applied to the broader spectrum of the commercial market.

For example: Avionics= medical examination equipment. The US medical industry represents 19% of 2003 USA GDP alone. Defense was, what 7%? Point being most military types think the US defense industry is huge. It isn't compared with commercial industry.

Leadership

Anyway, the major hurdle in this "Biz plan" is finding the right people and getting them to throw their hat in (like IAI and Boeing Australia... particularly Boeing Australia, those guys must be sweating bullets).

Risk

As to risk, if you want ot invest in something, there is always risk. But there is always one thing that holds true; You can't make a better investment then investing in yourself. If NZ start this thing, they must make it adaptable and not expect to make money off selling planes. Build the industry, secure the through life support, exploit the technologies.

In the long run it will make NZ stronger and the NZDF would have a logistical punch that can deliver real results in real time far and above what would normally be expected of them.


cheers


W

let me guess, this is going to make it to the beehive now?:lol3
I can't disagree, its just that the will is not there, the RNZAF will not want it, the govt will not want to pay for it, the opposition will not want to support it and the Green Party will have a fit (unless we use it to fly whales to there breeding grounds etc..). :D
 

Whiskyjack

Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analys
Verified Defense Pro
Todjaeger said:
What are people's thoughts on the following Austal design if used by the RNZN
http://www.austal.com/go/product-information/defence-products/multi-role-corvette
While the design is listed as a Multi-role corvette, given the vessel's stock armament (a 25mm Bushmaster on a Typhoon mount) as well as the helicopter hangar and vehicle deck I think it would make a better MRV.

There was some discussion of this vessel for use as a RAN corvette, but not much about using it as a MRV. Would something like this be useful for the RNZN as a patrol/rapid small lift vessel? I could see a vessel this size being useful for small-scale rapid lift operations, where the HMNZS Canterbury of any Lo/Lo ships would be overkill. I'm not sure about the seakeeping ability though, a similar Austal ship, the Armidale patrol boat seems designed more for littoral waters and not the Southern or Pacific oceans.

What do people think?
If anything I would support the 127m trimaran design that is the basis for the USN LCS. Does not need to be as fully fitted out. I am no expert though and there may be stability issues in the Southern Ocean etc...

Also the lift would be far greater as well as the range.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Whiskyjack said:
If anything I would support the 127m trimaran design that is the basis for the USN LCS. Does not need to be as fully fitted out. I am no expert though and there may be stability issues in the Southern Ocean etc...

Also the lift would be far greater as well as the range.
I doubt that NZ would go for an LCS type design. From what I understand, the LCS starts at US$300 million, and the gets a 57mm gun and VLS for ESSM. Additional armament would be contained in add-on modules and would cost extra. Granted, a good deal of the pricing for a warship goes into systems & electronics, I'm not sure if it would be feasible to have Austal just build a 127m hull in the US without the electronics. Never mind the possible stability issues, which might also effect the MR Corvette.
 

Whiskyjack

Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analys
Verified Defense Pro
Todjaeger said:
I doubt that NZ would go for an LCS type design. From what I understand, the LCS starts at US$300 million, and the gets a 57mm gun and VLS for ESSM. Additional armament would be contained in add-on modules and would cost extra. Granted, a good deal of the pricing for a warship goes into systems & electronics, I'm not sure if it would be feasible to have Austal just build a 127m hull in the US without the electronics. Never mind the possible stability issues, which might also effect the MR Corvette.
Sorry to clarify, I am talking about a 'dumbed' down 127m trimaran hull, basically a fast moving logistics/patrol ship that can respond to emergencies in the south pacific at 35-40knots.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Whiskyjack said:
Sorry to clarify, I am talking about a 'dumbed' down 127m trimaran hull, basically a fast moving logistics/patrol ship that can respond to emergencies in the south pacific at 35-40knots.
Okay, you just meant the hull itself, along with the needed machinery, right? Hmm... No idea what that would cost. Does anyone know how many lane meters an LCS would have operating as a MRV? Or for that matter, the performance in different sea states?
 

Whiskyjack

Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analys
Verified Defense Pro
Todjaeger said:
Okay, you just meant the hull itself, along with the needed machinery, right? Hmm... No idea what that would cost. Does anyone know how many lane meters an LCS would have operating as a MRV? Or for that matter, the performance in different sea states?
I suggest you check out the Austal website at http://www.austal.com/ and check out the military and commercial trimaran designs to get an idea.

Very interesting.

Cheers WJ
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Okay, the LCS has 11k m^3 and can launch helicopters at Sea State 5 and watercraft at Sea State 4. Doesn't mention what seas are too rough for the vessel to operate in though, so not sure if is is more vulnerable to capsizing, etc, vs. mono-hulled vessels. What would the conversion be from cubic meters to lane meters for vessel capacity?
:(
From the number I've worked, it looks like the LCS might have more lane metres than the Canterbury, which doesn't look right to me. The Canterbury will have 403 lane metres, while the LCS appears to have approx. 733 lane metres. This is making an assumption requiring 6m vertical volume per lane metre. If I'm wrong, please steer me right.
 

Sea Toby

New Member
Divide by 3.6 to get a 12 feet 3.6 meter wide vehicle lane. I got 305 lane meters.

Compared to the NZ MRV which is 403 lane meters. an Absalon MRV destroyer is 300 lane meters, a MEKO 200 MRV frigate is 200 lane meters, a MEKO 100 MRV corvette or OPV is 150 lane meters. Only the destroyer has internal vehicle deck, the others have an external vehicle deck replacing a helicopter hangar and flight deck. Of course, once the equipment has been unloaded, the vehicle deck can be used as a helicopter deck.

A typical New Zealand infantry group equipped with LAVs carries 14 LAVs, 16 LOHs, 7 Unimogs, and a few other items. The New Zealand requirement was for 390 lane meters, its MRV has a bit more lane meters than was required. If the helicopter hangar and deck were used as a vehicle deck leaving the helicopters at home, the New Zealand MRV vehicle lane meters would increase significanlty, more than likely double its internal vehicle deck.
 

Whiskyjack

Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analys
Verified Defense Pro
Sea Toby said:
Divide by 3.6 to get a 12 feet 3.6 meter wide vehicle lane. I got 305 lane meters.

Compared to the NZ MRV which is 403 lane meters. an Absalon MRV destroyer is 300 lane meters, a MEKO 200 MRV frigate is 200 lane meters, a MEKO 100 MRV corvette or OPV is 150 lane meters. Only the destroyer has internal vehicle deck, the others have an external vehicle deck replacing a helicopter hangar and flight deck. Of course, once the equipment has been unloaded, the vehicle deck can be used as a helicopter deck.

A typical New Zealand infantry group equipped with LAVs carries 14 LAVs, 16 LOHs, 7 Unimogs, and a few other items. The New Zealand requirement was for 390 lane meters, its MRV has a bit more lane meters than was required. If the helicopter hangar and deck were used as a vehicle deck leaving the helicopters at home, the New Zealand MRV vehicle lane meters would increase significanlty, more than likely double its internal vehicle deck.
I would not necessarily get the LCS version but the logistics version that has far more ability to carry helos and vehicles. Potential to have a company group+ up to the Islands within 48hrs. Just a basic version that can be used in conjunction with the MRV. Keep the costs down.
 

Wooki

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #113
Todjaeger said:
Okay, the LCS has 11k m^3 and can launch helicopters at Sea State 5 and watercraft at Sea State 4. Doesn't mention what seas are too rough for the vessel to operate in though, so not sure if is is more vulnerable to capsizing, etc, vs. mono-hulled vessels.
you need to check out http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4661&page=3

and other threads.

Multi hulls are more prone to capsize when you have to run 90 degrees to the sea. But really, you just design for x sea state by adding beam.

The MRV will be more prone to capsize when it runs with the sea (when its speed matches the swell speed) so what you do is not match speed.

If I were to make a trimaran that can mix it in the Southern Ocean you need reserve buoyancy and that means a SWATH design, meaning Smaller Water Plane Area - Tri Hull. Pretty simple to do with an Austal design and the experience they have in Trimarans. In other words I would add buoyancy to an existing design and it would end up looking like a SWATH boat.

Anyway, I think NZ are happy with their OPV and you are not going to see a change.

It would be my view that this "Nu ship" would be used as a compliment to the existing frigates, so the Danish Absalon design would be a good one to look at.

Or just go to Austal and ask for a trimaran frigate ;)

cheers

W
 
Last edited by a moderator:

icelord

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
What are people's thoughts on the following Austal design if used by the RNZN
http://www.austal.com/go/product-inf...-role-corvette
While the design is listed as a Multi-role corvette, given the vessel's stock armament (a 25mm Bushmaster on a Typhoon mount) as well as the helicopter hangar and vehicle deck I think it would make a better MRV.

There was some discussion of this vessel for use as a RAN corvette, but not much about using it as a MRV. Would something like this be useful for the RNZN as a patrol/rapid small lift vessel? I could see a vessel this size being useful for small-scale rapid lift operations, where the HMNZS Canterbury of any Lo/Lo ships would be overkill. I'm not sure about the seakeeping ability though, a similar Austal ship, the Armidale patrol boat seems designed more for littoral waters and not the Southern or Pacific oceans.

What do people think?
I'm a big supporter of a corvette for the RAN, and with the NZDF it makes sense.
NZ does a lot of work in and around the pacific islands, In times of Emergency, such as severe storms, the NZAF Hercules are first in to supply the small villages, and evacuate when neccesary.
A corvette would be much better in these support operations, as well as for patrolling pacific islands for nations that have too small a navy to protect against gun runners and train Officers of island Navies.
The Corvettes would not be for the south, as the OPVs role is the southern Ocean
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
icelord said:
I'm a big supporter of a corvette for the RAN, and with the NZDF it makes sense.
NZ does a lot of work in and around the pacific islands, In times of Emergency, such as severe storms, the NZAF Hercules are first in to supply the small villages, and evacuate when neccesary.
A corvette would be much better in these support operations, as well as for patrolling pacific islands for nations that have too small a navy to protect against gun runners and train Officers of island Navies.
The Corvettes would not be for the south, as the OPVs role is the southern Ocean
What I was referring to was not a warship but an additional MRV type vessel, similar to a trimaran design by Austal. Not so much a vessel that would accompany the HMNZS Canterbury, more along the lines of a vessel that would be used to respond to limited needs in the South Pacific area. Something that could be used for EEZ patrol, as well as SAR and also carry personnel to respond to a crisis (Timor Leste, the Solomons, etc.) or natural disaster.

I'll use an example to illustrate.
During the crisis in the Solomons, the RAN deployed an Armidale to the area to support ADF personnel, move people around, show the flag, etc. Now imagine if you will, that instead of having the Armidale available, they had a MRV "corvette" which also had a heli hangar and could land & support some troops & vehicles. The 25mm Bushmaster wouldn't be of much use, but being able to carry a helicopter and vehicles would. As would the possible rapid response time for the fast hull.

As for my concerns about the design, they remain. From what I've seen of Austal designs, they appear to be geared more towards littoral waterways. The Armidale is again a fairly good example, being designed to conduct normal operations in conditions up to Sea State 5, which as Alexsa wrote...
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4661&page=3
alexsa said:
Sea keeping: No (sea state 5 is nothing to write home about)
Given the conditions found in the waters around NZ, I'm not sure a vessel with the length, beam and height above waterline apparent on the brochure would work. If someone would be kind enough to explain the range of ratios length to beam that allow safe operation in high sea states, I'd appreciate it.

Also, regarding the LCS volume. Per the site, the volume is 11,000 cubic metres. From different websites I've found differing definitions given for a lane metre, these are 1m x 2m to 1m x 3m. Not mention a height for the vehicle lane so I haven't been able to determine the cubic volume of a lane metre.
 

icelord

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
i see what you mean, what i also meant was that with a corvette, it would be able to deploy Combat Engineers as well as their equipment, i'm not 100% on what can be taken on a C-130 for the CE, but a Corvette could deploy tractors, trucks and any equipment needed to rebuild post-severe storm along with supplies, which would be of major benefit to many smaller islands with low tides and no ports, making the MRV hard to access, and it would still take time to move these items to a landing craft. The Austal Corvette can also be used as a field hospital with the ability to have a surgery onboard-if you go by the brouchure.
 

Sea Toby

New Member
The New Zealand navy's Anzac frigates have 30 extra bunks, their new OPVs will have as many extra bunks too. Therefore, New Zealand's navy ALREADY has the capacity to move a small number of troops with their frigates and OPVs, why do they need another ship? Aren't four ships enough?

New Zealand's navy has in the past resupplied island possessions with their frigates, and will in the future use their OPVs for that role allowing the frigates to do more warfare and showing the flag duties. New Zealand's OPVs were designed to do the resupply missions and SAS espionage/anti-terrorism roles.

While the Canterbury MRV can move 250 troops, its frigates and OPVs 30 extra bunks each could add up to another 120 troops, bringing the total potential to 370 troops. Thirty troops equate to a platoon or two each.
 
Last edited:

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Sea Toby said:
The New Zealand navy's Anzac frigates have 30 extra bunks, their new OPVs will have as many extra bunks too. Therefore, New Zealand's navy ALREADY has the capacity to move a small number of troops with their frigates and OPVs, why do they need another ship? Aren't four ships enough?

New Zealand's navy has in the past resupplied island possessions with their frigates, and will in the future use their OPVs for that role allowing the frigates to do more warfare and showing the flag duties. New Zealand's OPVs were designed to do the resupply missions and SAS espionage/anti-terrorism roles.

While the Canterbury MRV can move 250 troops, its frigates and OPVs 30 extra bunks each could add up to another 120 troops, bringing the total potential to 370 troops. Thirty troops equate to a platoon or two each.
The Anzac or for that matter the Armidale, can be used to move troops around. What it's not equipped to do is to deliver vehicles or equipment heavier than the helicopter can lift. This is of course assuming there is available hangar or deck space for the equipment in question. Granted, something could be stored in the hangar in place of the heli, there wouldn't be a way of landing it without port facilities and a crane.

What I was thinking of in terms of use is much like what Icelord, the ability to land things like engineering equipment in times of disaster. Once the Canterbury is comissioned NZ will have equipment lift and has been discussed, NZ would find more than one lift vessel useful. In addition to being able to engage in large deployments (for NZ I mean) with the MRV and any Lo/Lo ships, NZ might find itself with a larger number of relatively small detachments posted around the Pacific. In this scenario, I would think having a few smaller, fast MRV that can transport platoon sized detachments with vehicles might be useful.
 

Wooki

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #119
Todjaeger said:
The Anzac or for that matter the Armidale, can be used to move troops around. What it's not equipped to do is to deliver vehicles or equipment heavier than the helicopter can lift. This is of course assuming there is available hangar or deck space for the equipment in question. Granted, something could be stored in the hangar in place of the heli, there wouldn't be a way of landing it without port facilities and a crane.

What I was thinking of in terms of use is much like what Icelord, the ability to land things like engineering equipment in times of disaster. Once the Canterbury is comissioned NZ will have equipment lift and has been discussed, NZ would find more than one lift vessel useful. In addition to being able to engage in large deployments (for NZ I mean) with the MRV and any Lo/Lo ships, NZ might find itself with a larger number of relatively small detachments posted around the Pacific. In this scenario, I would think having a few smaller, fast MRV that can transport platoon sized detachments with vehicles might be useful.
You forgot stealth. Got to make them stealthy with their own EFV or FAC to land specialops teams, oh yeh!:p:

cheers

W
 

Sea Toby

New Member
A platoon's vehicles and personnel can be flown in by the air force's five Hercules transports. The frigates and OPVs are capable of carrying platoons of light infantry or special forces. The Seasprite and NH90 helicopters have the capability to lift a Pingauzer.

The NZ MRV, the Canterbury, is very capable of transporting a company group, their vehicles and personnel, and 4 of the air force's NH90 helicopters, and until they are delivered, their Huey helicopters, plus its Seasprite. Surely there aren't very many vehicles per platoon.

I am of the opinion some are making mountains out of molehills again.
 
Top