New Zealand Army Vehicles

[Whiskyjack]

If you are considering an actively opposed invasion of Fiji, as the ulitmate situation, then you are partially correct, however such a situation would require the full capability of the ADF, not mere "peace-keeping" forces to resolve, which I don't think you've factored in.

How long therefore coud Fiji resist simultaneous RAAF F-111/F/A-18 strikes, "over the beach amphibious landings" (at multiple locations) and "covert" special operations forces?

For a VERY short period, if at all, I'd venture, especially considering the very limited support the Fijian Army would have, not to mention their very limited capabilities irrespective of their level of support...

For anything less than an "all out" war, the ADF is very able to deploy IMHO.

AD, as I said I don't doubt it can be done (I still also think it is highly unlikely the situation would ever arise!).

I just think it is going to be very difficult and stretch logistics. How often does the RAAF practice air strikes 2700 Kms form Brisbane? If it came to it NZ would also be involved, maybe even the French!

The time scale that this operation could be mounted in would also interesting.

At the end of the Day Australia and NZ would need to lease ships and civil aircraft to make the logistics work.

We are talking 3-4 battalion groups to secure the islands at least.

A C-130 can fly 11.5 tons to Fiji from Brisbane, but would have to refuel on the way back (going by specs on the web).

I guess my point is this:

Aus and NZ have 30 * the population of Fiji and 100? * the GDP. But with current assets it would stretch both defence forces logistically to conduct any such operation. The combat power is there, the ability to deploy and sustain it is the questionable factor in my mind.

10 years from now it will be very different.

 

[artistoli]

It is dangerous for any country to let its guard down during 'peaceful' interludes in it's history. It is far more difficult to regain a capability when it has been disposed of than it is to maintain a capability.


The Scorpion was the last real (albeit a light one) tank in NZ service.

 

[Whiskyjack]

I will take an 20 ton LAV over an 8 ton scorpion any time, firepower and protection! Scorpion did have tracks tho.

 

[Sea Toby]

With an unemployment rate at 3.5%, very low by any nation's standards, New Zealand's armed forces aren't going to be increased in numbers. What you see is what you get. All of its services are undermanned, and having difficulty recruiting.

New Zealand's seven Project Protector ships are consuming the manpower for the third Anzac frigate. If the economy tanks, New Zealand may be able to man a third frigate, which is needed if New Zealand wishes to sustain a deployment more than 6 months. Since New Zealand doesn't have the manpower, the two current frigates are sufficient to deploy one of them at any given time, which is by the way the government's requirement.

Since New Zealand only keeps one company available for immediate deployment, 24 hours notice, there is no need to have any more sea lift or air lift. As noted by a previous poster 2 Hercules or the 1 MPV can move the one company. The MPV will also be able to sustain the one company for 30 days. Any more follow on troops or supplies can be sea lifted easily by leasing a comercial cargo ro/ro ship, and/or air lifted by their Boeing 757s, Hercules, and leased commerical airliners.

It appears in the New Zealand defence department's long range plans that most of the equipment to modernize and sustain their defence forces have been well thought out with priorities and resources. This plan evolves every year, so that in the future some ten to fifteen years from now you'll see new Hercules and Orions replacements. It also appears the Labour Party has every intention to maintain and sustain the forces they have.

Furthermore, since the Hercules and Orions still have some life left in them, and with only upgrades to modernize their capabilities, it was wise to delay any new purchases in an attempt not to purchase so much new equipment at one time. Its preferrable to stretch out new weapons programs to avoid block obsolescence twenty or more years hence. One of the root causes of New Zealand's sudden osbsolescence was the purchase of so much new equipment during the Vietnam war era. All of which, it seems, needs to be replaced now.

However, in my humble opinion, the Labour government blew it when they cancelled the CREAM PUFF Falcon fighters for a dime on a dollar lease deal, and showed their political agenda when they elimated the small air combat force of Skyhawks. For the savings of $700 million in operations costs over ten years, including manpower costs, New Zealand axed its air combat wing and laid off air force personnel which had already been recruited. This is difficult for outsiders to understand since the government has ran surpluses exceeding that amount in each and every year. Yes, New Zealand can afford a small air combat force.

While a National government maybe able to purchase a small number of new Falcons or used Australian Hornets overnight, and at considerable expense, reinstating the air combat force will take up to ten years to regain their war fighting skills. While purchasing Hawk trainer aircraft will be less expensive, I doubt whether the Hawk will be useful in the maritime strike role.

With New Zealand defence spending at less than 1% of GDP, New Zealand can afford to do more, but won't because it sees no threat. While it can spend more for newer and better equipment, it cannot as I first stated, increase the size of its forces.

 

[Aussie Digger]

With an unemployment rate at 3.5%, very low by any nation's standards, New Zealand's armed forces aren't going to be increased in numbers. What you see is what you get. All of its services are undermanned, and having difficulty recruiting.

New Zealand's seven Project Protector ships are consuming the manpower for the third Anzac frigate. If the economy tanks, New Zealand may be able to man a third frigate, which is needed if New Zealand wishes to sustain a deployment more than 6 months. Since New Zealand doesn't have the manpower, the two current frigates are sufficient to deploy one of them at any given time, which is by the way the government's requirement.

Since New Zealand only keeps one company available for immediate deployment, 24 hours notice, there is no need to have any more sea lift or air lift. As noted by a previous poster 2 Hercules or the 1 MPV can move the one company. The MPV will also be able to sustain the one company for 30 days. Any more follow on troops or supplies can be sea lifted easily by leasing a comercial cargo ro/ro ship, and/or air lifted by their Boeing 757s, Hercules, and leased commerical airliners.

It appears in the New Zealand defence department's long range plans that most of the equipment to modernize and sustain their defence forces have been well thought out with priorities and resources. This plan evolves every year, so that in the future some ten to fifteen years from now you'll see new Hercules and Orions replacements. It also appears the Labour Party has every intention to maintain and sustain the forces they have.

Furthermore, since the Hercules and Orions still have some life left in them, and with only upgrades to modernize their capabilities, it was wise to delay any new purchases in an attempt not to purchase so much new equipment at one time. Its preferrable to stretch out new weapons programs to avoid block obsolescence twenty or more years hence. One of the root causes of New Zealand's sudden osbsolescence was the purchase of so much new equipment during the Vietnam war era. All of which, it seems, needs to be replaced now.

However, in my humble opinion, the Labour government blew it when they cancelled the CREAM PUFF Falcon fighters for a dime on a dollar lease deal, and showed their political agenda when they elimated the small air combat force of Skyhawks. For the savings of $700 million in operations costs over ten years, including manpower costs, New Zealand axed its air combat wing and laid off air force personnel which had already been recruited. This is difficult for outsiders to understand since the government has ran surpluses exceeding that amount in each and every year. Yes, New Zealand can afford a small air combat force.

While a National government maybe able to purchase a small number of new Falcons or used Australian Hornets overnight, and at considerable expense, reinstating the air combat force will take up to ten years to regain their war fighting skills. While purchasing Hawk trainer aircraft will be less expensive, I doubt whether the Hawk will be useful in the maritime strike role.

With New Zealand defence spending at less than 1% of GDP, New Zealand can afford to do more, but won't because it sees no threat. While it can spend more for newer and better equipment, it cannot as I first stated, increase the size of its forces.

If the need was there, NZ could increase the size of it's forces. It maintained an entire division in the field for the duration of WW2 and it's population (and GDP) were far smaller than they are now.

As to the fighter force, I completely agree. The F-16 deal was an absolute bargain, 10 years of F-16 ops for $200 million. A mere $20 million a year... Unfortunately it was political ideology that end the RNZAF's combat force, not staff or funding levels.

There are useful projects that could provide a residual air combat capability, (particularly in relation to maritime strike and CAS options for the Army) that could be undertaken with respect to the P-3K Orions and the light utility helicopter and NH-90 helicopter projects.

Options to cover these roles are available to fit Orions with an anti-ship missile or dual purpose standoff missile such as SLAM-ER or JASSM, and a significant weapons load able to be carried by the Singaporean Fennec helo's NZ are likely to acquire (they were formerly used to carry TOW, unguided rockets and machine gun/cannon pods, with appropriate sensors, by the Singaporeans, prior to the arrival of their Apaches).

Undertaking these options would allow the RNZAF to resume 2 of the most important roles it used to cover with it's A-4K scooter force, albeit with different ways of covering the capability, and probably at a lower level (with the helo option at least anyway).

Unfortunately political ideology is again getting in the way of this...

 

[Whiskyjack]

I think that the NZ army will expand over time as the Govt has signalled the expansion of the Army by 1500, and outlaid the funding to accomplish it over the next ten years.

I agree the strike force and the naval combat force are where NZ lacks in capability. I would like to see AD’s ideas implemented, I would also like to see 8-12 light attack trainers similar to the Aussie Bae Hawks in service to provide the army and navy with the training they will need. Also provides the seed for expansion if needed in the future. Co-operation with the RAAF to place RNZAF pilots into strike squadrons would also benefit both countries.

A third naval combatant is a bit trickier as it would be an orphan in RNZN service.

My personal preference is for the NZDF to be able to operate in small-scale amphibious operations alone and be able to fit into larger operations, with allies.
I don’t like the MRV as it is a bit of everything. I would like to see an enforcer type ship with a well dock. The MRV would be a good secondary support ship to complement the enforcer and carry out disaster relief operations etc…

If I was really dreaming I would like to see 24-30 Marine Corps EFVs in NZ service and I would like to see the ADF pick some of these up as well.

Politics will always be with us and delays to projects are inevitable. I see the MRV as the realisation of a need that was identified after the 1987 coup in Fiji, it will be in operational service 20 years after the need was identified!

 

[Sea Toby]

Considering a history of New Zealand's inadequate support of its 2 battalion light infantry why would you want to evolve the force into a tricky amphibious operation? Amphibious landings in the best of times are very dicey.

The new MPV fulfills all of the government's requirements for sealift of one company, there is no need to sealift a battalion since a battalion isn't going to be ready immediately anyway. Follow on troops and supplies can be sealifted for peacekeeping and disaster relief operations through leased commercial ro/ro cargo ships.

Notice that the same Merwede shipyard built the newly acquired Interislander ferry, except the newly acquired ferry has twice the tonnage of the MPV. She would make a great follow-on vessel if nothing else could be found.

As for an Dutch Enforcer design, the current Labour government passed on a 8,000 ton version offered by ADI, along with Dutch Sigma OPVs and IPVs. Whereas the Tenix/Merwede MPV has 403 lane meters of cargo space, the ADI Dutch Enforcer offered only 300 lane meters of cargo space. Obviously the well deck consumes in similarily sized ships 100 lane meters of cargo space.

Considering the past history of New Zealand's army, with the commanding general having the choice of returning home from a war front, I doubt seriously whether New Zealand will ever offer its army in a dicey opposed amphibious landing of any kind in the future.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Considering a history of New Zealand's inadequate support of its 2 battalion light infantry why would you want to evolve the force into a tricky amphibious operation? Amphibious landings in the best of times are very dicey.

The new MPV fulfills all of the government's requirements for sealift of one company, there is no need to sealift a battalion since a battalion isn't going to be ready immediately anyway. Follow on troops and supplies can be sealifted for peacekeeping and disaster relief operations through leased commercial ro/ro cargo ships.

Notice that the same Merwede shipyard built the newly acquired Interislander ferry, except the newly acquired ferry has twice the tonnage of the MPV. She would make a great follow-on vessel if nothing else could be found.

As for an Dutch Enforcer design, the current Labour government passed on a 8,000 ton version offered by ADI, along with Dutch Sigma OPVs and IPVs. Whereas the Tenix/Merwede MPV has 403 lane meters of cargo space, the ADI Dutch Enforcer offered only 300 lane meters of cargo space. Obviously the well deck consumes in similarily sized ships 100 lane meters of cargo space.

Considering the past history of New Zealand's army, with the commanding general having the choice of returning home from a war front, I doubt seriously whether New Zealand will ever offer its army in a dicey opposed amphibious landing of any kind in the future.

If you are referring to a USMC style opposed Amphibious landing, I agree. NZ doesn't have the combat capability, combat forces or logisitical support to conduct such an operation. Australia may not even have it.

I can see scenario's where NZ would still conduct "over the beach" operations though. An example of the type of operation I'm talking about is the Australia Amphibious landing in the Oecussi enclave in East Timor during Interfet, a combined helo and LCM8 landing.

The reason I can see NZ having a requirement for this, is even in "lower level" contingencies, there may be a requirement to deploy forces even when port facilities are non existent or purposely destroyed to attempt to deter foreign intervention.

Failure to maintain such a capability, would risk their ability to even deploy on peace keeping operations, the level their Government is determined to provide.

 

[Sea Toby]

For peacekeeping and humanitarian missions the New Zealand MPV does carry two LCM-8s along with two cranes, one to port and one to starboard. While she doesn't have a dedicated well deck, she should be able to offload her cargo via the rear ramp in sea state 3. Her helicopters can be used in sea state 6. While this capability isn't the best in the world, without a well deck, its is possible. Frankly, operating small craft such as an LCM-8 in higher sea states isn't really all that safe even with a well deck. A well deck will only increase the unloading for one sea state, not much difference in a benign environment.

Sea states change during the course of a day or two. While there maybe a delay, the delay won't be long and she can still be useful using her helicopters until the sea states change for the better. After all, its only a company that's being transported. With the ability to carry 5 helicopters, it won't take long to get the men and equipment ashore using them. Of course it will take much longer to discharge the month's worth of supplies, but surely the supplies can wait a short time for better sea states.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Let me clarify my post above, as I was not clear. The NZDF should not be carrying out opposed landings, but I believe that the EFV would allow for a tactical flexibility in the Asia Pacific region that not many countries have. It would allow for a reinforced Company to land and manoeuvre in a way that can not be done with two LCM8s, there are not many militaries that can defend their entire coastlines, or have the ability to manoeuvre, especially in the South Pacific.

As for the Enforcer, a well dock on a 8000 ton ship would of course restrict cargo and lane metres. 8000 tons is to small in my opinion, 10000-12000 would have been my ideal. The beauty of the Enforcer design is the tailored flexibility. The Well dock can have two or four LCMs, it can also just be used for cargo. The fault is not with the designs being offered, it is the specifications they have been given to conform to. A well dock also allows for faster loading and turn around

While I accept that the multi-role design is a result of budget restraints and is the best that was able to be achieved, I believe that the Govt needs to fund the NZDF to do the job that it wants done. I am not talking huge sums of money here either.

The NZDF is being made to fit into an ideology that is not reflective of the environment it finds it self in. And I believe that the politicians that have done this are realising their error, but are faced with the dilemma that they can’t admit it for political reasons.

With the money that has been saved from disbanding the air strike force, what new capability has been added to the NZDF?

 

[Aussie Digger]

Let me clarify my post above, as I was not clear. The NZDF should not be carrying out opposed landings, but I believe that the EFV would allow for a tactical flexibility in the Asia Pacific region that not many countries have. It would allow for a reinforced Company to land and manoeuvre in a way that can not be done with two LCM8s, there are not many militaries that can defend their entire coastlines, or have the ability to manoeuvre, especially in the South Pacific.

As for the Enforcer, a well dock on a 8000 ton ship would of course restrict cargo and lane metres. 8000 tons is to small in my opinion, 10000-12000 would have been my ideal. The beauty of the Enforcer design is the tailored flexibility. The Well dock can have two or four LCMs, it can also just be used for cargo. The fault is not with the designs being offered, it is the specifications they have been given to conform to. A well dock also allows for faster loading and turn around

While I accept that the multi-role design is a result of budget restraints and is the best that was able to be achieved, I believe that the Govt needs to fund the NZDF to do the job that it wants done. I am not talking huge sums of money here either.

The NZDF is being made to fit into an ideology that is not reflective of the environment it finds it self in. And I believe that the politicians that have done this are realising their error, but are faced with the dilemma that they can’t admit it for political reasons.

With the money that has been saved from disbanding the air strike force, what new capability has been added to the NZDF?

An MRV, where previously they had none. 2x OPV's where previously they had none. 4x "in-shore" patrol vessels to replace 4x aging patrol vessels. New LAVIII's to replace obsolete M113's. New Javelin ATGW's, new SINGCARS radios for NZ Army and upgrades to RNZAF Helo fleet (NH-90 and new "light" training aircraft, un-announced as yet). New "area" direct-fire weapons (yet tov be chosen, but budget provisions made for) additional logistical support capabilites, upgrades to Orion and Hercules aircraft, acquisition of B-757 transport aircraft, etc.

The strike force budget may not have paid for all these things straight away, but will over time assuredly.

The decision to axe the strike force was wrong, IMHO, but it's undeniable that the NZ government has gone on, to significantly upgrade a large part of NZ's defence forces. Numerous further upgrades are still planned.

 

[Sea Dog]

Granted that with the new MRV/OPV, NZ can easily move a few LAVIII's around to where they're required for ops.

But for the "peacekeeping" stuff far from shore or in landlocked countries, how does NZ plan to transport their LAV's? 'Cause, unlike the 113, the LAV III's don't fit on the C-130's. Is NZ then constrained by the availability of commercial lifter, or perhaps the good graces of the USAF?

ps: I love the dancing banana :dbanana


[img=http://img460.imageshack.us/img460/2369/m113lav3web0cj.th.jpg]

 

[Whiskyjack]

An MRV, where previously they had none. 2x OPV's where previously they had none. 4x "in-shore" patrol vessels to replace 4x aging patrol vessels. New LAVIII's to replace obsolete M113's. New Javelin ATGW's, new SINGCARS radios for NZ Army and upgrades to RNZAF Helo fleet (NH-90 and new "light" training aircraft, un-announced as yet). New "area" direct-fire weapons (yet tov be chosen, but budget provisions made for) additional logistical support capabilites, upgrades to Orion and Hercules aircraft, acquisition of B-757 transport aircraft, etc.

The strike force budget may not have paid for all these things straight away, but will over time assuredly.

The decision to axe the strike force was wrong, IMHO, but it's undeniable that the NZ government has gone on, to significantly upgrade a large part of NZ's defence forces. Numerous further upgrades are still planned.

AD you are right the MRV is a capability that the NZDF did not have before and is obviously a step in the right direction.

Yes equipment has been replaced but it is an evolution of old equipment, not new capabilities.

The NZDF had 2 battalions, 2 squadrons of strike aircraft and 4 frigates.

Now it has 2 battalions, no strike and 2 frigates. I fail to see how this has added capability to the NZDF! The LAV is an evolution of the M113, the NH-90 is an evolution of the UH-1. Essentially the strike force has disappeared to fund upgrades and replacements.

The Air Force is less capable, the Navy is less capable, and the army has replaced 24 scorpions and 76 M113s with 105 LAV. Well better equipment, not really a new capability just a newer model, like upgrading your car. Artillery will probably not be replaced as it is ranked very low on the capability review.

So well I think things have been done, and applaud the Govt for at least doing something, overall I feel the NZDF is less capable than it was.

 

[Aussie Digger]

AD you are right the MRV is a capability that the NZDF did not have before and is obviously a step in the right direction.

Yes equipment has been replaced but it is an evolution of old equipment, not new capabilities.

The NZDF had 2 battalions, 2 squadrons of strike aircraft and 4 frigates.

Now it has 2 battalions, no strike and 2 frigates. I fail to see how this has added capability to the NZDF! The LAV is an evolution of the M113, the NH-90 is an evolution of the UH-1. Essentially the strike force has disappeared to fund upgrades and replacements.

The Air Force is less capable, the Navy is less capable, and the army has replaced 24 scorpions and 76 M113s with 105 LAV. Well better equipment, not really a new capability just a newer model, like upgrading your car. Artillery will probably not be replaced as it is ranked very low on the capability review.

So well I think things have been done, and applaud the Govt for at least doing something, overall I feel the NZDF is less capable than it was.

It is less capable in roles that seem less important to the current NZ Government, ie: aerial strike capabilities, naval warfare capabilities, ASW capabilities etc.

It is more capable in areas that are seen as more relevant ie: the ability to deploy force OS on ops. Land forces have been the primary beneficiary of this upgrade. The LAVIII apart from some mobility issues, is a significant advance over their M113A1's. This is due to greatly increased firepower, better armour protection, actual surveillance capabilities due to night vision/thermal imagers/laser range finder capabilities.

The NH-90 will be a massive increase in capability over UH-1H's and not only in lift capacity (less than half the number of NH-90's will provide more lift capacity than the current 14 Huey's) but also in every single performance areas and also in self defence capability with EWSP, allowing the helo to be used in higher threat environments.

The MRV provides NZ with a lift capacity it hasn't really had since WW2.

The SH-2G's are a MASSIVE increase in capability over the previous Wasp helo's.

Javelin provides a capability NZ has simply never had. Mistral is a capability NZ has simply never had.

There is a project designed to upgrade or replace NZ's Mortars and 105mm towed artillery, so it's on the horizon, it's simply not as urgent as some other projects.

I actually think NZ is pretty close to what it should be. If a funding boost were to come into existence, I think some useful capabilities could be added to the NZDF, relatively cheaply, namely:

1. The B-757's should be upgraded to provide an A2A refuelling capability. This would add a useful non- direct combat capability to NZ that could be useful to it's allies (and it's own forces of course, as well as being politically acceptable to deploy) and score a significant amount of political "Brownie" points for NZ, when deployed.

2. The OPV's should be upgraded to provide "Tier 2" combat capabilities, that can support the ANZAC frigates (or if circumstances allow) provide a surface combatant to support NZ forces. An increase in weapons and ISR, C4I capability would be necessary for this. A possible suite could be; Bofors, 57mm Mk3 naval gun (as used on LCS), SeaRam/Mistral SAM's, and 2x or 4x Harpoon missiles to be fitted, plus the existing 25mm "Typhoon" as a secondary weapon system.

3. The ANZAC frigates should be upgraded to a similar standard to Australia's, with Harpoon missiles, ESSM and a new torpedo system added, to give the frigates a serious amount of "punch".

4. The light utility/training helicopter purchased should be equipped to provide a reasonable aerial recon/fire support capability for NZ forces. The rumoured Singaporean Fennecs, with TOW missile, rockets and machine gun/cannon capability, plus a decent range of sensors, could be a good choice. Such a capability would be similar to the US Army's Kiowa Warrior helo's and provide reasonable capability, at a reasonable price.

5. The Orion aircraft have their ASW systems upgraded along with their surface surveillance suites, and be equipped with an appropriate weapon suite for ASW and ASuW roles (possibly MU-90 torpedo and Harppon/SLAM-ER).

Only once these or similar upgrades were conducted would I recommend that more expensive capabilities such as a new fighter force or new major surface combatants etc be acquired.

 

[Whiskyjack]

It is less capable in roles that seem less important to the current NZ Government, ie: aerial strike capabilities, naval warfare capabilities, ASW capabilities etc.

It is more capable in areas that are seen as more relevant ie: the ability to deploy force OS on ops. Land forces have been the primary beneficiary of this upgrade. The LAVIII apart from some mobility issues, is a significant advance over their M113A1's. This is due to greatly increased firepower, better armour protection, actual surveillance capabilities due to night vision/thermal imagers/laser range finder capabilities.

The NH-90 will be a massive increase in capability over UH-1H's and not only in lift capacity (less than half the number of NH-90's will provide more lift capacity than the current 14 Huey's) but also in every single performance areas and also in self defence capability with EWSP, allowing the helo to be used in higher threat environments.

The MRV provides NZ with a lift capacity it hasn't really had since WW2.

The SH-2G's are a MASSIVE increase in capability over the previous Wasp helo's.

Javelin provides a capability NZ has simply never had. Mistral is a capability NZ has simply never had.

There is a project designed to upgrade or replace NZ's Mortars and 105mm towed artillery, so it's on the horizon, it's simply not as urgent as some other projects.

I actually think NZ is pretty close to what it should be. If a funding boost were to come into existence, I think some useful capabilities could be added to the NZDF, relatively cheaply, namely:

1. The B-757's should be upgraded to provide an A2A refuelling capability. This would add a useful non- direct combat capability to NZ that could be useful to it's allies (and it's own forces of course, as well as being politically acceptable to deploy) and score a significant amount of political "Brownie" points for NZ, when deployed.

2. The OPV's should be upgraded to provide "Tier 2" combat capabilities, that can support the ANZAC frigates (or if circumstances allow) provide a surface combatant to support NZ forces. An increase in weapons and ISR, C4I capability would be necessary for this. A possible suite could be; Bofors, 57mm Mk3 naval gun (as used on LCS), SeaRam/Mistral SAM's, and 2x or 4x Harpoon missiles to be fitted, plus the existing 25mm "Typhoon" as a secondary weapon system.

3. The ANZAC frigates should be upgraded to a similar standard to Australia's, with Harpoon missiles, ESSM and a new torpedo system added, to give the frigates a serious amount of "punch".

4. The light utility/training helicopter purchased should be equipped to provide a reasonable aerial recon/fire support capability for NZ forces. The rumoured Singaporean Fennecs, with TOW missile, rockets and machine gun/cannon capability, plus a decent range of sensors, could be a good choice. Such a capability would be similar to the US Army's Kiowa Warrior helo's and provide reasonable capability, at a reasonable price.

5. The Orion aircraft have their ASW systems upgraded along with their surface surveillance suites, and be equipped with an appropriate weapon suite for ASW and ASuW roles (possibly MU-90 torpedo and Harppon/SLAM-ER).

Only once these or similar upgrades were conducted would I recommend that more expensive capabilities such as a new fighter force or new major surface combatants etc be acquired.

I think we are in basic agreement here AD. My point is that the Govt has not really thought out side of the box to make the NZDF more capable. I agree the upgrades have provided for a more capable Army than 10-15 years ago, I just see the new equipment as an evolutionary replacement of equipment.

I believe that the ANZACs will follow the RAN upgrades it makes sense and seems to be well within the forecast budget for upgrades.

Adding a strike capability to the Orions would also make sense and has been raised as a nice to have capability.

My understanding around the Fennecs is that the RNZAF looked at them a few years ago and found maintenance records to be woefully inadequate and passed them up.

Makes sense to upgrade the 757s, also as I have mentioned in another post I would like to see 1-2 C-17s funded to be purchased, crewed and based with any RAAF C-17s.

As for the OPVs, I would leave them for NZ territorial /regional waters and look at another Combatant, I have a friend who is almost certain that a RAN ANZAC will end up in the RNZN within a decade, not so sure my self but it is a strange world!

A point regarding the NH-90s, they have twice the lift of the UH-1s, yet less will be bought, therefore only a small increase in lift and less airframes to deploy.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I think we are in basic agreement here AD. My point is that the Govt has not really thought out side of the box to make the NZDF more capable. I agree the upgrades have provided for a more capable Army than 10-15 years ago, I just see the new equipment as an evolutionary replacement of equipment.

I believe that the ANZACs will follow the RAN upgrades it makes sense and seems to be well within the forecast budget for upgrades.

Adding a strike capability to the Orions would also make sense and has been raised as a nice to have capability.

My understanding around the Fennecs is that the RNZAF looked at them a few years ago and found maintenance records to be woefully inadequate and passed them up.

Makes sense to upgrade the 757s, also as I have mentioned in another post I would like to see 1-2 C-17s funded to be purchased, crewed and based with any RAAF C-17s.

As for the OPVs, I would leave them for NZ territorial /regional waters and look at another Combatant, I have a friend who is almost certain that a RAN ANZAC will end up in the RNZN within a decade, not so sure my self but it is a strange world!

A point regarding the NH-90s, they have twice the lift of the UH-1s, yet less will be bought, therefore only a small increase in lift and less airframes to deploy.

In relation to the NH-90 it will be able to carry 20 equipped troops, seated in crashworthy seats, against 7 troops in the UH-1H seated on non-crashworthy seats. Even a fleet of 8 NH-90's would still provide a massive lift enhancement over 14 UH-1H's (160 troops as opposed to 98).

Less airframes to deploy is a bonus IMHO. Easier to get them there, and easier to maintain once deployed there. NZ currently requires 4-5 helo's to deploy a single platoon. 2x NH-90's will be able to do this job. 4x deployed NH-90's is equal to having 8-10 UH-1H's deployed in lift capacity. Can NZ deploy 8-10 UH-1H helo's with it's own capabilities though? Maybe disassembled with numerous Hercules flights, MRV will allow 4 NH-90's to be deployed in a fully ready to operate state.

The RAN has a planned force of 11 major surface combatants, assuming our strategic circumstances don't worsen. The only way I can see the RAN giving up an ANZAC frigate, is if it were necessary to make room for additional Air warfare destroyers and I can't really see this happening due to the numerous other calls upon our defence budget.

Even if it did, NZ would be lucky to get one before 2015, and even the newest RAN ANZAC frigate would be 9 years old by then. HMAS ANZAC would be 18 years old by then... Do people honestly expect the RAN to be willing to give up it's newer ANZAC's under ANY conditions? NZ would have to be happy to receive a 15-18 year old ANZAC frigate by that stage for this plan to work. I personally doubt they'd really want one by then...

 

[Supe]

In relation to the NH-90 it will be able to carry 20 equipped troops, seated in crashworthy seats, against 7 troops in the UH-1H seated on non-crashworthy seats. Even a fleet of 8 NH-90's would still provide a massive lift enhancement over 14 UH-1H's (160 troops as opposed to 98).

There's something to be said for numbers AD. If I were responsible for recommendations on how many to acquire, I'd be going for a 1:1 replacement of the Huey fleet. 8 NH-90's is far too few IMO, even for a defence force the size of NZDF. You lose one or two (accidents happen) and capability is vastly reduced. I think we shouldn't just apply their use in military terms either. In humanitarian or rescue missions having numbers of these on call would prove to be a tremendous asset in saving lives.

Numbers offer flexibility that too few won't.

 

[Aussie Digger]

There's something to be said for numbers AD. If I were responsible for recommendations on how many to acquire, I'd be going for a 1:1 replacement of the Huey fleet. 8 NH-90's is far too few IMO, even for a defence force the size of NZDF. You lose one or two (accidents happen) and capability is vastly reduced. I think we shouldn't just apply their use in military terms either. In humanitarian or rescue missions having numbers of these on call would prove to be a tremendous asset in saving lives.

Numbers offer flexibility that too few won't.

I'm all for numbers believe me, however NZ has a few other problems than that. What's the point of 14 NH-90's if they're stuck at home all the time? NH-90 is NOT air-transportable inside C-130 Hercules, and the chances of NZ getting C-17's or A400M's, are about as great as me winning Lotto, last night... MRV will only be capable of transporting 4.

I would suggest that perhaps a better solution, might be a smaller fleet of NH-90's and a light utility/training helo, with a greater transport capability such as A109LUH Power or similar, if the Fennecs have been ruled out. A helo of this sort offers decent airlift capability, is air-transportable inside C-130's and is bound to be cheaper to buy and cheaper to operate than the large NH-90's...

Using a NH-90 sized helo on civilian emergency ops should also be the last resort in my opinion. They are heinously expensive the big helo's. They have big logistics chains, again are expensive to operate, though admittedly offer greater capability and are usually more capable than what is really required...

 

[Supe]

That they aren't deployable via C130's really isn't the point though. Obviously there was a determination that this wasn't a requirement in the selection outcome so it's moot that they don't fit in NZDF C130's. I guess the Kiwis feel that if they are to be used overseas, they will go via the MRV or contracted C17's/civillian lifters. There's a lot of talk on forums about consolidating and reducing types (in this case helos) for cost, logistics and maintenance benefits and I can't see NZDF running two utility type helicopters to fill the primary role because of the burden it will pose. One size fits all, is not the best solution but buying the NH-90 in the right numbers is as good as it gets for the NZDF.

Who knows, the Kiwis might want to retain a couple of their Huey's to keep a bit of flexibility.

 

[Aussie Digger]

That they aren't deployable via C130's really isn't the point though. Obviously there was a determination that this wasn't a requirement in the selection outcome so it's moot that they don't fit in NZDF C130's. I guess the Kiwis feel that if they are to be used overseas, they will go via the MRV or contracted C17's/civillian lifters. There's a lot of talk on forums about consolidating and reducing types (in this case helos) for cost, logistics and maintenance benefits and I can't see NZDF running two utility type helicopters to fill the primary role because of the burden it will pose. One size fits all, is not the best solution but buying the NH-90 in the right numbers is as good as it gets for the NZDF.

Who knows, the Kiwis might want to retain a couple of their Huey's to keep a bit of flexibility.

The NZDF have an urgent requirement for a training/light utility helo (this helo is more urgent in fact then the NH-90), so they will be operating 2 utility types anyway. There is obviously therefore a certain amount of money to be spent on acquiring both capabilities.

I would rather see it spent on a good number of NH-90's (at least 8) and put the remainder into a more capable training/utility helo, to give the best of both worlds, ie: a utility helo that can be airlifted by their own resources and a medium utility helo that can be deployed to provide higher level lift tasks, through a combination of contracted airlift or MRV/chartered sealift.

The main reason for this is flexibility. Only having a helo that can be airlifted by aircraft you do not have, means you are forced to rely on others, with no ability to influence events irregardless of this. NZ NEEDS a training helo, irrespective of how many NH-90's it ends up buying. Why not maximise this capability???