Moving Forward with Maximizing New Zealands Defense Force Assets

[Todjaeger]

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.

This all comes down to one's impression of NZ logistical lift capacity, and projected possible or probable needs.

The Canterbury is indeed designed to be able to transport and deploy a company of troops, plus vehicles and should be able to do this quite well. As mentioned helicopters will also operate from it. As for the other forces mentioned as available for transport I have a few issues with them.

For the helicopters, be they Seasprite, Huey or NH90 when they are available, none of these transport assets are of any use in transporting a force from NZ to somewhere else alone. They lack the range to accomplish that sort of mission. If they are operating from, or delivered by a vessel, helicopters can be used to move troops, supplies, and some vehicles around. To my knowledge, none of helicopters can even cross from NZ to Fiji or Australia unladen. If NZ developed AAR that could refuel a helicopter, that might change somewhat.

As for using all 5 of the RNZAF C-130Hs to transport a force in, that doesn't work if the force has (or needs) heavy equipment. For example, an NZLAV weights in at 19.85 tonnes, which puts it right at, if not over the cargo capacity of the Hercules. Also, half the engineering vehicles NZ uses are over the max capacity. Granted, the 757 can carry some stuff, I am not sure if they are rigged to carry vehicles. Not to mention the limitations on where a 757 can take off or land. Even if all 5 Hercs are used, that is most of NZ long-range transport to transport a platoon of troops plus vehicles, or a company or two of plain leg-infantry without vehicles. Even in the South Pacific, just plain infantry without vehicles aren't a great deal of use in my opinion. While walking can be good (or best, depending on terrain) without vehicles to bring in replacement troops and/or supplies, everything needs to be carried in. If someone needs to carry everything they need to operate for a week on their back, I can confirm it gets very tiring. Also, if the soldiers have to carry their supply, that will either keep soldiers close to a resupply point on an extended deployment, or require a system of airdrops or forward resupply points in the field. Something that I feel NZ would be hardpressed to carry out with their limited air assets.

In terms of vehicles per platoon, I've found a good rule of thumb for infantry is roughly 1 vehicle per squad. This isn't including any support vehicles like fuel trucks, recovery vehicles, ambulances, supply trucks, etc which are usually assigned at a higher HQ than platoon level.

As for using the OPV or frigates to transport a force, that makes little sense to me. It is a good capacity to have in pinch, but using a frigate to deliver a platoon of light infantry sans vehicles is an underwhelming use of resources. The only time it would make sense to me to use these assets to transport troops would be something like an NZSAS insertion, either by RIB or helicopter.

What I was thinking of regarding the MRV trimaran was something that could do a number of the things the MRV Canterbury can do, hospital, troop/vehicle lift, helicopter platform, etc. But on a smaller scale, instead of a company, maybe a platoon, that sort of thing. Also, it would be an asset if the vessel could make a rapid transit.

 

[Whiskyjack]

This all comes down to one's impression of NZ logistical lift capacity, and projected possible or probable needs.

.
.
.
.

What I was thinking of regarding the MRV trimaran was something that could do a number of the things the MRV Canterbury can do, hospital, troop/vehicle lift, helicopter platform, etc. But on a smaller scale, instead of a company, maybe a platoon, that sort of thing. Also, it would be an asset if the vessel could make a rapid transit.

I agree with you in principle. Further things to consider:

C-130H
even at the best availability rates, there will only be 80%, so 4 Hs available. It is also very unlikely that all 4 would be in NZ at the same time, Given support of Kiwi troops on missions, UN support and exercises, I think it much more likely that there will be 3 Hs available. Now the USAF website lists the following Stats:

• • Maximum Allowable Payload:
    C-130E, 42,000 pounds (19,090 kilograms)
    C-130H, 42,000 pounds (19,090 kilograms)
    C-130J, 42,000 pounds (19,090 kilograms)
    C-130J-30, 44,000 (19,958 kilograms)
    Maximum Normal Payload:
    C-130E, 36,500 pounds (16,590 kilograms)
    C-130H, 36,500 pounds (16,590 kilograms)
    C-130J, 34,000 pounds (15,422 kilograms)
    C-130J-30, 36,000 pounds (16,329 kilograms)
    Range at Maximum Normal Payload:
    C-130E, 1,150 miles (1,000 nautical miles)
    C-130H, 1,208 miles (1,050 nautical miles)
    C-130J, 2,071 miles (1,800 nautical miles)
    C-130J-30, 1,956 miles (1,700 nautical miles)
    Range with 35,000 pounds of Payload:
    C-130E, 1,438 miles (1,250 nautical miles)
    C-130H, 1,496 miles (1,300 nautical miles)
    C-130J, 1,841 miles (1,600 nautical miles)
    C-130J-30, 2,417 miles (2,100 nautical miles)

Now at no stage does the max normal payload allow for the delivery of a LAV3, and even max allowable is marginal. Looking at the range stats it is also obvious that IF the H (or J for that matter) could lift an LAV3 there is no way it could deploy it from NZ without stopping to refuel at a half way point (assuming the target destination is east coast of Australia/Pacific Islands 1300nm). So IMHO the 3 Hs could lift 1 reinforced coy, 160-180 with 3-4 Pinzs.

I would therefore say then that the RNZAF really needs to look to 6 A400Ms as a first choice, with 8 C-130Js as a, IMO, poor second choice.

Sea Lift:
My preference here is one of two options:
· A fast lift (e.g. Cat or Tri 100m +) that can move troops and supplies into the pacific fast, with 4 main roles.
1. Intervention: either deploying follow-on forces after the MRV has landed the initial forces, or in a less hostile environment, deploy the initial forces.
2. Humanitarian: disaster relief, aid etc
3. Evacuation
4. Transport of cargo for exercises, UN ops etc…
· A second MRV (if the first works out well)

The first option will be, IMO, cheaper to purchase and man. The second allow for more flexibility.

Some thoughts.

 

[Todjaeger]

Sea Lift:[/FONT]
My preference here is one of two options:
· A fast lift (e.g. Cat or Tri 100m +) that can move troops and supplies into the pacific fast, with 4 main roles.
1. Intervention: either deploying follow-on forces after the MRV has landed the initial forces, or in a less hostile environment, deploy the initial forces.
2. Humanitarian: disaster relief, aid etc
3. Evacuation
4. Transport of cargo for exercises, UN ops etc…
· A second MRV (if the first works out well)

The first option will be, IMO, cheaper to purchase and man. The second allow for more flexibility.

Some thoughts.

I do believe NZ needs another MRV. The air assets can be used to reinforce or supply a detachment, but not deploy one in my opinion. The data I alluded to and WJ posted would tend to support that. The only question for me would be what form another MRV took. I don't think another Canterbury type MRV would best serve NZ. As had been mentioned near the start of this thread, a Lo/Lo should also probably be acquired for operations where Ro/Ro is limited. I do like the idea of NZ getting a fast transport though, something like the Westpac Express or the former Jervis Bay, except I would insist it have a helicopter hangar. The idea behind the fast transport was why I liked the small Austal trimaran, it could carry some vehicles, a helicopter and should still be small & fast enough to get close to shore or carry out patrols.

Is there any more info out for the RAN's planned fast lift vessel? Depending on what Australia goes with, NZ might want to go along as well. Also, does anyone have comprehensive info on the Meko 200 MRV? When I've tried searching for it, I tend to either find other forums with a smattering of info, or dead links on the Blohm + Voss site. Depending on the fitout a Meko 200 MRV might serve a useful crossover between the Anzac frigate and the MRV Canterbury. Particularly if the Meko 200 MRV can be made like the Danish Absalon.

 

[Sea Toby]

According to Jane's IDR, TKMS, the owners of B+V and Kockums, announced two new concept OPVs at MECON 2006 in August.

The Guardian, for policing and civil missions, 1,850 tonnes, length 80m, main gun up to 40mm, top speed 20 - 25kts, crew of 30 with accomodation for an additional 60, 6 berth hospital plus 16 berth casualty station, a 250sq m cargo handling area for up to 12 20ft containers, and a helicopter deck capable of handling a 12 tonne helicopter with a telescopic hanger. Cost approx €30m.

The Sentinel for naval and policing missions, 2,000 tonnes, length 85.2m, main gun up to 76mm, top spees 25kts, range 4,000 n miles at 12 kts cruising speed (may be increased by adding containerised fuel), crew of 36 plus berths for 38 more, up to 120 troops/refugees may be housed in extra containerised accomodation, a hospital area, and a flight deck for a 12 tonne helicopter. The Sentinel is derived from the Meko 100.
----

It would seem the Guardian could fill your mission. At 30 million Euros, that's over $60 million in New Zealand dollars, probably a bit more expensive than the NZ OPVs. I'm sure the Akker Finnyards designed NZ OPV could be redesigned to fill this role by eliminating the hangar, and expanding the flight deck space to carry more vehicles, along with a suitable crane. A helicopter could be carried by another OPV or frigate.

 

[Todjaeger]

According to Jane's IDR, TKMS, the owners of B+V and Kockums, announced two new concept OPVs at MECON 2006 in August.

The Guardian, for policing and civil missions, 1,850 tonnes, length 80m, main gun up to 40mm, top speed 20 - 25kts, crew of 30 with accomodation for an additional 60, 6 berth hospital plus 16 berth casualty station, a 250sq m cargo handling area for up to 12 20ft containers, and a helicopter deck capable of handling a 12 tonne helicopter with a telescopic hanger. Cost approx €30m.

The Sentinel for naval and policing missions, 2,000 tonnes, length 85.2m, main gun up to 76mm, top spees 25kts, range 4,000 n miles at 12 kts cruising speed (may be increased by adding containerised fuel), crew of 36 plus berths for 38 more, up to 120 troops/refugees may be housed in extra containerised accomodation, a hospital area, and a flight deck for a 12 tonne helicopter. The Sentinel is derived from the Meko 100.
----

It would seem the Guardian could fill your mission. At 30 million Euros, that's over $60 million in New Zealand dollars, probably a bit more expensive than the NZ OPVs. I'm sure the Akker Finnyards designed NZ OPV could be redesigned to fill this role by eliminating the hangar, and expanding the flight deck space to carry more vehicles, along with a suitable crane. A helicopter could be carried by another OPV or frigate.

I don't think the Project Protector OPVs could be redesigned effectively to an MRV. Yes the hangar could be eliminated and the space "regained" could be used for cargo or vehicles. The problem is such a change reduces the usefulness of the design as either an OPV where heli is used for SAR and boarding party delivery or in MRV where the heli can transport personnel. I would say that vehicle delivery and heli ops are a requirement for any vessel designed to transport ground units.

As for the new OPV vessels mentioned, I couldn't find them on the English sections of the ThyssenKrup site, so I'll have to go off the info provided. The designs look like good OPVs and possibly better than the one chosen for the Projector Protector. The added ability to have a modular container added to increase fuel bunkerage, or extra cargo or space is a novel approach. However, unless there is a different design feature like an onboard cargo crane, or side ramps, etc. the vessel is stuck relying on port cranes if it wants to deliver vehicles. Such a deficiency in my mind would keep the OPV from being used as a transport in all but emergency situations.

As for my liking an "Absalon-type" vessel for NZ... If NZ had a similar type vessel, that would fill a number of desired roles. A number of people have mentioned a desire for NZ to have a 3rd frigate available, which makes sense to allow deployments, training, and maintenance to be split without causing problems with availability. Also, if an "Absalon-type" design was adopted, the vessel could escort the MRV and simultaneously deliver troops as well. It could then stay on-station supporting the deployed troops (naval gunfire from a BAE Systems Mk 45 Mod 4 5" gun) as well as protect the MRV also on-station from air attack with ESSM.

Definately think though, given the vast distances involved, as well as regional instabilities, that some sort of fast sealift should be possessed as well.

 

[Sea Toby]

The Absalon design destroyer sized hull costs 100 million Euros, the New Zealand MRV costs 85 million Euros, the Meko 200 MRV costs, 60-70 million Euros, and the Meko 100 MRV runs around 30-40 million Euros. Why buy a ship with lesser sealift capability which costs more?

The NZ MRV has 403 lane meters of vehicle deck, the Absalon MRV has 300 lane meters, the Meko 200 MRV has 200 lane meters, the Meko 100 has 180 lane meters, and the Guardian and Sentinels have even less lane meters. Using the helicopter deck and hangar spaces should give a ship around 150+ lane meters.

The Guardian and Sentinel design of B&V or a redesigned Aker Finnnyards NZ OPV should be very near in costs. I doubt whether New Zealand is interested in acquiring another vessel, but if they chose to the price will be very cheap indeed.

Frankly, as I noted before, the NZ OPVs already have the sealift capability of moving 30 men already. They carry a Seasprite helicopter which can lift Pingauzers, along with a crane and a container. In a squeeze, I'm sure the NZ OPV could carry a Pingauzer or two below the helicopter hangar, which can be lifted onto the helicopter deck by the crane, and airlifted to shore by the Seasprite.

The Irish OPVs have in the past been used for sealift purposes for small UN peacekeeping operations. Surely NZ can do the same, if necessary, for small numbers. If the OPVs can carry SAS boats, one could assume they can carry Pingauzers too.

Acquiring a fast ferry such as an Austal's cats would cost as much as the NZ MRV. Why buy a ship with lesser sealift capability which costs more? If there is a need for speed, in my opinion it would be best to use the Hercules aircraft to move the men and their equipment, Pingauzers only. LAVs would have to be carried by the NZ MRV.

Also, the NZ MRV can be used for sealift operations with less than their full sealift capacity.

 

[RubiconNZ]

The Absalon design destroyer sized hull costs 100 million Euros, the New Zealand MRV costs 85 million Euros, the Meko 200 MRV costs, 60-70 million Euros, and the Meko 100 MRV runs around 30-40 million Euros. Why buy a ship with lesser sealift capability which costs more?

Would it not be the five inch gun (commonality) ESSM's and harpoons that turn the favour, even if the 20mill only counted the radars, fcs etc would it not be worth it adding a relatively major surface combatant?

 

[Whiskyjack]

The Absalon design destroyer sized hull costs 100 million Euros, the New Zealand MRV costs 85 million Euros, the Meko 200 MRV costs, 60-70 million Euros, and the Meko 100 MRV runs around 30-40 million Euros. Why buy a ship with lesser sealift capability which costs more?

The NZ MRV has 403 lane meters of vehicle deck, the Absalon MRV has 300 lane meters, the Meko 200 MRV has 200 lane meters, the Meko 100 has 180 lane meters, and the Guardian and Sentinels have even less lane meters. Using the helicopter deck and hangar spaces should give a ship around 150+ lane meters.

The Guardian and Sentinel design of B&V or a redesigned Aker Finnnyards NZ OPV should be very near in costs. I doubt whether New Zealand is interested in acquiring another vessel, but if they chose to the price will be very cheap indeed.

Frankly, as I noted before, the NZ OPVs already have the sealift capability of moving 30 men already. They carry a Seasprite helicopter which can lift Pingauzers, along with a crane and a container. In a squeeze, I'm sure the NZ OPV could carry a Pingauzer or two below the helicopter hangar, which can be lifted onto the helicopter deck by the crane, and airlifted to shore by the Seasprite.

The Irish OPVs have in the past been used for sealift purposes for small UN peacekeeping operations. Surely NZ can do the same, if necessary, for small numbers. If the OPVs can carry SAS boats, one could assume they can carry Pingauzers too.

Acquiring a fast ferry such as an Austal's cats would cost as much as the NZ MRV. Why buy a ship with lesser sealift capability which costs more? If there is a need for speed, in my opinion it would be best to use the Hercules aircraft to move the men and their equipment, Pingauzers only. LAVs would have to be carried by the NZ MRV.

Also, the NZ MRV can be used for sealift operations with less than their full sealift capacity.

Hi Sea Toby,

A few comments. IMO the Absalon would be an addition to the combat arm of the fleet, with a secondary ability to carry men and equipment, or act as a command ship. If an Absalon arrived I would still advocate the purchase of an additional logistics ship (MRV, Lo/Lo, etc...).

A Seasprite can carry 1,800kg under slung, an LOV (Pinz) has a weight of around 5,000kgs, although I believe that figure indicates an operating weight, I know an NH90 is supposed to be able to carry one so I am thinking it can be stripped down to 4,000kgs. (happy for someone who knows this stuff in more detail to comment on this).

Agree that if the NZDF needs to get somewhere fast then the C-130 is the only alternative and lets not forget that the NZDF has the armoured version of the Pinz as well, which I am sure will fit into a C-130. Still can’t help wishing there were 8 C-130s instead of 5 tho…

Also the NZDF needs to think about the A400M seriously. It is the only western air-lifter that, if it goes ahead as projected, will meet the requirements.

Two normal Pinzs with a load on the back (2,000kg) and towing a trailer (2,500kg) will weigh around 19,000kg (not including any troops!), so you have the range problem all over again. Hardly ideal.

 

[Todjaeger]

WJ, are you thinking of a NZ copy of the Danish 6,000 ton Absalon, or rather a different sized vessel outfitted to switch roles like the Absalon?

As for the air transport... I have my concerns about the A400M:unknown
There are currently too many unresolved variables about the aircraft for me to look at it as a solution. Given some time that might change, once more data is available. Right now I'm leary of the program due to the lack of a prototype available to test, and all that goes along with it. Once performance specs are decided on, and some kind of expected availability date and cost can be gotten, then I'd look at the A400M as a possible solution. Given the current problems Airbus seems to be having with the A380, I don't consider the A400M a done deal yet. If the A400M does become available, and NZ does decide to purchase any, is there some sort of offset arrangement that NZ could make use of?

 

[WaterBoy]

Venezuela Rescues Antonov An-70

Just read that Venezuela has offered to purchase 12 An-70 aircraft, after their earlier attempt to buy Spanish CASA aircraft was blocked because of their U.S. 'technology'. The low cost NZ labour market just got guzumped!

If this project proceeds, it may well be the ideal transport for NZ, but it will suffer from it's achilles heel of Russian/ Ukranian powerplants & their uncertain support. It will also entail a new idealogy in terms of training & logistics for the NZDF should they choose to go down this procurement path.

Regards,

WaterBoy

 

[Wooki]

Just read that Venezuela has offered to purchase 12 An-70 aircraft, after their earlier attempt to buy Spanish CASA aircraft was blocked because of their U.S. 'technology'. The low cost NZ labour market just got guzumped!

If this project proceeds, it may well be the ideal transport for NZ, but it will suffer from it's achilles heel of Russian/ Ukranian powerplants & their uncertain support. It will also entail a new idealogy in terms of training & logistics for the NZDF should they choose to go down this procurement path.

Regards,

WaterBoy

V,V interesting stuff...

Teh powerplant can always use RR... But it would be cheaper to QA the existing powerplant in the long run and then sell it back to other users, or as an alternative to C130, A400 users.

got to go

cheers

w

 

[Whiskyjack]

WJ, are you thinking of a NZ copy of the Danish 6,000 ton Absalon, or rather a different sized vessel outfitted to switch roles like the Absalon?

As for the air transport... I have my concerns about the A400M:unknown
There are currently too many unresolved variables about the aircraft for me to look at it as a solution. Given some time that might change, once more data is available. Right now I'm leary of the program due to the lack of a prototype available to test, and all that goes along with it. Once performance specs are decided on, and some kind of expected availability date and cost can be gotten, then I'd look at the A400M as a possible solution. Given the current problems Airbus seems to be having with the A380, I don't consider the A400M a done deal yet. If the A400M does become available, and NZ does decide to purchase any, is there some sort of offset arrangement that NZ could make use of?

Off The Shelf mate! NZDF should go for the 6000 ton version.

Same applies to the A400, by the time the NZDF needs to even start thinking about the H replacement, the A400M should have been flying at least 4 years. If it isn't go on to something else IMO.

IMHO looking at world procurment, the NZDF should go OTS all the time for major items. Not against development in NZ, but I feel the NZDF should not rely on it!

 

[Todjaeger]

Off The Shelf mate! NZDF should go for the 6000 ton version.

Same applies to the A400, by the time the NZDF needs to even start thinking about the H replacement, the A400M should have been flying at least 4 years. If it isn't go on to something else IMO.

IMHO looking at world procurment, the NZDF should go OTS all the time for major items. Not against development in NZ, but I feel the NZDF should not rely on it!

I'm of two minds about OTS acquisitions. On the plus side, depending on what's being purchased & from whom, OTS buys can be less expensive. On the downside, the purchase needs to be made from existing, available designs which might not be particularly suited for the desired roles.

I'm not sure which would be a of greater benefit to NZ. For areas where NZ lacks existing or sufficient industry, then OTS is the only reasonable way unless for strategic reasons NZ has decided it needs to develop a particular capacity. But in areas where NZ has the industry, particularly if there is a desire to deviate from the OTS design, then might OTS not make so much sense?

Going in a slightly different direction, can anyone think of other areas NZ could/should work on to improve? We seem to have covered the vehicles, aircraft and major ships fairly well. How about support systems like networking, or ground-based surveillance radar, that sort of thing?

 

[Sea Toby]

When it comes to aircraft and vehicles, New Zealand should buy off the shelf. When it comes to weapons data systems, New Zealand should buy off the shelf.

However, when it comes to warships, New Zealand should buy an off the shelf warship, but slight structural changes as seen with the Aker Finnyards NZ OPV and Merwede's NZ MRV can be done to fit NZ's needs better. Of course, this should retain the proven seakeeping and powerplant of the revised off the shelf warship design.

New Zealand's defence forces are not budgeted or are large enough to develop much of anything on its own.

 

[Todjaeger]

When it comes to aircraft and vehicles, New Zealand should buy off the shelf. When it comes to weapons data systems, New Zealand should buy off the shelf.

However, when it comes to warships, New Zealand should buy an off the shelf warship, but slight structural changes as seen with the Aker Finnyards NZ OPV and Merwede's NZ MRV can be done to fit NZ's needs better. Of course, this should retain the proven seakeeping and powerplant of the revised off the shelf warship design.

New Zealand's defence forces are not budgeted or are large enough to develop much of anything on its own.

The problem I have with OTS is that NZ ends up buying something that was designed to meet another country's needs at one point. As long as the design fills NZ's needs, that works fine. On the other hand, if the design isn't such a good fit, or if it could be better using different tech/fitout that isn't available from builder, NZ is stuck getting an inferior product.

Going off thread for an example. The HMMV is a good offroad replacement for the venerable Jeep and the US uses it in large numbers. So many that we also use it as a patrol/escort vehicle in Iraq because we lack sufficient other vehicles. As a result of this, the HMMV frequently entered combat which it was not designed, and the need for armour became apparent. This led to up-armouring the HMMV so it can take 7.62mm AP, but did nothing to improve resistance to IED or mines, and the extra weight from the armour is wearing the vehicles out faster than before. Despite this, there are still orders being filled for the up-armoured HMMV.

My concern is that by relying just on OTS, the NZDF could end up in a position where is has to use equipment that isn't really suited to the job, like the HMMV in Iraq.

 

[Gibbo]

I'm of two minds about OTS acquisitions. On the plus side, depending on what's being purchased & from whom, OTS buys can be less expensive. On the downside, the purchase needs to be made from existing, available designs which might not be particularly suited for the desired roles.

I'm not sure which would be a of greater benefit to NZ. For areas where NZ lacks existing or sufficient industry, then OTS is the only reasonable way unless for strategic reasons NZ has decided it needs to develop a particular capacity. But in areas where NZ has the industry, particularly if there is a desire to deviate from the OTS design, then might OTS not make so much sense?

Going in a slightly different direction, can anyone think of other areas NZ could/should work on to improve? We seem to have covered the vehicles, aircraft and major ships fairly well. How about support systems like networking, or ground-based surveillance radar, that sort of thing?

We're a small country with Defence purchases so insignificant in size that we simply don't have any buying power (muscle) - so OTS is pretty much the most sensible option for bigger gear. Although there have been a few exceptions over the years, it's generally what we do - often in conjunction with the Aussies. Certainly for lower tech (largely non-weaponry I'd suggest) developing our own may be worth it (I understand there are a few minor projects underway here - nothing too exciting though).

As for support systems - good call! NZ is seriously lacking in this area as well. I believe we obtained a few ground based sensors mid-1990's, but generally speaking AFAIK the NZ Army still use the eyeball & day/night binoc's for all their observation, recon etc. The LAVIII's have introduced some decent new sensors etc - but we're far from having a serious recon capability (UAV; properly equipped choppers; ground sensors; dedicated recon vehicle etc etc).

I'm no expert in this area so what would other recommend - remembering it has to be low cost & realistic for what NZ is likely to spend (ie: no large UAV's; U2 spyplanes; aircraft carriers; strike aircraft etc etc) :unknown :shudder

 

[Whiskyjack]

We're a small country with Defence purchases so insignificant in size that we simply don't have any buying power (muscle) - so OTS is pretty much the most sensible option for bigger gear. Although there have been a few exceptions over the years, it's generally what we do - often in conjunction with the Aussies. Certainly for lower tech (largely non-weaponry I'd suggest) developing our own may be worth it (I understand there are a few minor projects underway here - nothing too exciting though).

As for support systems - good call! NZ is seriously lacking in this area as well. I believe we obtained a few ground based sensors mid-1990's, but generally speaking AFAIK the NZ Army still use the eyeball & day/night binoc's for all their observation, recon etc. The LAVIII's have introduced some decent new sensors etc - but we're far from having a serious recon capability (UAV; properly equipped choppers; ground sensors; dedicated recon vehicle etc etc).

I'm no expert in this area so what would other recommend - remembering it has to be low cost & realistic for what NZ is likely to spend (ie: no large UAV's; U2 spyplanes; aircraft carriers; strike aircraft etc etc) :unknown :shudder

If I remember correctly, there was a news article on this site regarding the sale of the armed Predator to the UK, 2 UAVs plus ground station + equipment was US$72mil. Now I think that the UAV is around US$9mil per copy.

So for a conservative NZ$220mil the NZDF should be able to acquire a 2 on station 24/7 coverage UAV system (5 UAVs and equipment) that has some teeth. Or buy less and have 1 on station 24/7.

A lot of 'I thinks' in there I know but this general direction I would like to see the NZDF move. Doesn't have to be that specific system, but something like it.

 

[Todjaeger]

We're a small country with Defence purchases so insignificant in size that we simply don't have any buying power (muscle) - so OTS is pretty much the most sensible option for bigger gear. Although there have been a few exceptions over the years, it's generally what we do - often in conjunction with the Aussies. Certainly for lower tech (largely non-weaponry I'd suggest) developing our own may be worth it (I understand there are a few minor projects underway here - nothing too exciting though).

As for support systems - good call! NZ is seriously lacking in this area as well. I believe we obtained a few ground based sensors mid-1990's, but generally speaking AFAIK the NZ Army still use the eyeball & day/night binoc's for all their observation, recon etc. The LAVIII's have introduced some decent new sensors etc - but we're far from having a serious recon capability (UAV; properly equipped choppers; ground sensors; dedicated recon vehicle etc etc).

I'm no expert in this area so what would other recommend - remembering it has to be low cost & realistic for what NZ is likely to spend

I understand about the limitations (in size & money) the NZDF faces. What I was thinking about was more along the following lines. Instead of going for a completely OTS system, choose get the frame/hull OTS and then include some local content if it is superior.

The item that comes to mind is something Wooki has mentioned, namely a 2-stroke pivotal engine from Mace Engineering.
http://www.pivotalengine.com/
If it is able to be delivered as mentioned on the site, the engine offers the same power output as a conventional engine of twice the size and weight. This is the sort of thing I have in mind, where an NZ product is better than is available from OTS, but isn't being used.

As for the surveillance and support, does NZ have any plans to pursue a netcentric military? The ability to readily move information between the info sources and the people who need it is a force multiplier all it's own. What I'm wondering is this a concern for NZ?

I was also thinking in larger scales as well. If NZ had some system that performed similarly to the Australian SECAR, that could reduce the surveillance operations being conducted by the RNZN & the P-3K Orions. Or if it didn't reduce the operations, might assist in making them more effective, because NZ would have some sort of long-range detection system it could use to monitor aircraft and vessels in it's EEZ. It could then vector in ships and aircraft at suspicious traffic. Or send UAVs to eyeball the target to for that matter.

 

[Wooki]

A few points re : the trimaran corvette and fast sealift

1) what is the NZDF mission?

It seems the MRC-sealift discussion is straying into trying to find a mission to fit a platform as opposed to finding a platform to fit the mission.

2) More sealift? A LOLO is better, in that it is cheap and substantially increases capacity over the medium to long term scenario.

3) Considering a fast transport means you want to create capability. That capability is to get supplies to an area remote from NZ fast (in the short term). The way NZDF does that now is through the C130.

So you need to compare the lifting capability with the c130 fleet and then balance that with the time it takes to respond (or deliver the freight). On top of this, then you need to compare running costs.

For example: a 10000 ton DWT lift can move one Marine Armored Division.
How many C17s would you need to do same? Answer = Alot.

So the question is, can the purchase of one fast sealift v/l (like a trimaran or catamaran) compare favorably with 8 C130J's?

In terms of cost: yes; the fast sealift normally runs around 44 million USD (FY 98 dollars). Maybe a bit more now that has become trendy. the cost of 8 c130J'-30s? 48.5 million USD per unit (FY98 dollars) So, at least 400 million USD when all said and done. So we are hovering around a 9:1 cost advantage for the fast sealift.

In terms of speed: No; The fast sealift can do 40 knots
The C130 J series can do 350 knots

About 8.75 times faster

Lift capacity: Yes; The auto express 127 Austal design can lift 1000 metric tons. Eight C130J-30s can lift abut 127.3 metric tons

so lets take a 2000NM range scenario as this is within the bounds of a C130 and the Austal 127 Trimaran:

How many trips does it take to lift 1000 metric tons 2000NM and how long does it take?

The C130J-30 takes 7.86 trips, so the 8 aircraft fleet could do it.
Time for the full deployment to make 2000NM is about 6 hours.

The Austal 127 can do it in one trip and it takes about 51 hours (50 = 1) for time to navigate out of port and then gun it.

Now if you take TWO Austal 127's over 30 days (720 hours), how much cargo is delivered assuming 2 hours for turn around , i.e RORO stock

720 / 53 = 13.6 trips

Done feeder style with one ship at either end = 12000 metric tons of cargo

the c130J fleet with 2 hours turn around ( 16 hours full trip ready to take off for the next haul) =

720/16 = 45 round trips

45 x 127.3 = 5728.5 metric tons of cargo

Two fast sealift v/ls

The addition of one extra Austal 127 to give you 2 fast sealift v/ls seems to give you a significant advantage in short term lifting capacity over the C130J-30.

That means you can reduce your fleet c130J-30s to 3 to provide emergency medical evacuation and supply in the immediate time frame of event +4 days or 106 hours before the sealift capacity starts taking over. In essence you have decreased the immediate response envelope and strengthened the short to medium term sealift capability. For longer term operations (+6 months) the fast sealift becomes inefficient, unless you take adavantage of new ICE technologies that can burn FO and create the power to weight ratio of a GT.

And this is within the range of a C130J-30 fleet.

Having come up with the figure of two Austal 127's, how do you pay for them when they are not being used? An answer could be to supplement the North/South Island ferry run. You subsidize the ferry operator and allow him to use the ships so long as they are maintained to an NZDF standard plus a small commission or "lease" that will pay for the ships in 12 years while the NZDF retains ownership. If you follow this route you must make it an addition and not a replacement so there are no economic consequences for NZ if and when they are used for military sealift. i.e. keep the ferry service running when they are away.

Anyway, if you did all this and went for the 2 fast lift vessels and reduced the C130 fleet, you are making the NZDF a Pacific-centric logistical prime mover. The sealift capacity would not have the same dramatic impact for the NZDF and its allies in landlocked conflicts, like Afghanistan for instance.

That being said, you could argue for an additional CH-47 or two to supplement that capability.

Last; At the moment I am struggling with how the MR Corvette is of useful size to do anything very well. Better to go with a frigate sized v/l. The Absalon is already there, but a larger version of the LCS would be attractive. A trimaran Absalon so-to-speak. In the long term I would look at this type of v/l to replace the ANZAC frigates.

My 2c

Cheers

W

 

[Whiskyjack]

1)
.
.
.
Lift capacity: Yes; The auto express 127 Austal design can lift 1000 metric tons. Eight C130J-30s can lift abut 127.3 metric tons

so lets take a 2000NM range scenario as this is within the bounds of a C130 and the Austal 127 Trimaran:

How many trips does it take to lift 1000 metric tons 2000NM and how long does it take?
.
.
.

My 2c

Cheers

W

Wookie, A question:

Are you talking a 2000nm Range (i.e. 1000nm there and 1000nm back) or a 2000nm radius?

Cheers

WJ