It was .280, the rifle it was designed for was the EM-2, there was a program on discovery which mentioned this rifle and round last weekend, I remembered your post so here is the wikipedia entry on the system, it looked really interesting and as you said probably before it time, but what goes around comes around.
Yep it was a particular Colonel within the US Army who managed to get that over turned. He was in charge of their main armoury, had connections almost to God, and didn't like any goddamned foreigners telling him what rifle & round the US Army was going to use. He was stubborn, obnoxious, and due to retire so the new rifle and round was the legacy that he was absolutely determined would go through and by God it would be a US one come hell or high water. I read the story a couple of years or so back, but didn't keep the link - bugger. That's why we got the SLR in 7.62 mm instead of 6.8 mm which was the agreed round. We may have got 25 round mags in the SLR with the 6.8 mm cartridge. From what I remember reading the EM-2 wasn't half bad either in the 6.8 mm calibre.
IIRC Stinger was what was desired, but export approval was denied or not able to be provided as one-man operated MANPADs were not available in the region (whereas Mistral required 2 men and a tripod).
That’s interesting haven’t heard or seen that before, did a quick google search nothing came back. Do happen to have a source for that by chance?
Sorry, I remember reading it in a newspaper circa 1995 so predating the internet getting flowing. It was a response to our experience in Bosnia, and there was a little bit of a stink about it disadvantaging the SAS or similar being not able to operate with one man - and given our special forces were operating places the US wanted us, they should have considered exporting them too us. However its recollection only so may have been an opinion piece.
). Its a write up on why he qualified to speak on MH17 so take from that what you will - Dates etc also don't line up with the project timelines which can be found in an Office of the Auditor General report i'll link to at the bottomhttps://justthetruth.ch/Analysis for New Zealand’s Purchase of a Very Low Level Air Defence System (VLLAD), written in November 2015.pdf
Just adding that if as written in there, it was an abnormal process with this dude along with a DOTSE expert doing the analysis in a rush then conceivably they could have missed the RBS-70 altogether (though you would think they would check what Australia were using..)
Because MANPADS have been withdrawn from NZDF training and use. Yet another unfortunate casualty of the limited funding in Vote Defence.
I actually heard the gunners rolled a vital (and very expensive) peice of kit in a training accident which was in turn cost prohibitive to repair, possibly the cueing/IFF radar, so I guess this coupled with the tech training/cost/commitment, manpower shortages and most likely lack of perceived actual use (I can't think of any major deployment since post Bos that would require such a system) ala ACF reasoning and again out comes the axeman and his apparently beneficial decision making process...
Yes I believe it was a trailer mounted controller or queuing / tracking thing - can picture the image of it but can't find anything online. AIUI they only ever bought 1 and the original purchase was cocked up as no IFF module was purchased so allies wouldn't let use it near their aircraft.
Yes I seem to remember it was pretty new and abit unfortunate it was not more gunner proof haha.
It would be stupid to get rid of the guns. Yes we haven't used them in anger since 'Nam but they are an integral part of the Army TOE. Yes the ACF needs to return but returning it at the expense of the guns is just as idiotic as getting rid of the ACF in the first place. Yes maybe 155's would be good, but I think that 105's are a gun that is not to heavy for a light infantry army and it's not too light to deal with most threats. My own view is that we should have a mix of 105 mm SPG's and towed arty.
The modern defence force.It would be stupid to get rid of the guns. Yes we haven't used them in anger since 'Nam but they are an integral part of the Army TOE. Yes the ACF needs to return but returning it at the expense of the guns is just as idiotic as getting rid of the ACF in the first place. Yes maybe 155's would be good, but I think that 105's are a gun that is not to heavy for a light infantry army and it's not too light to deal with most threats. My own view is that we should have a mix of 105 mm SPG's and towed arty.
Shame that there isn't a land based variant of the 5 in / 127 mm naval gun that was reasonably light and portable.
Oh I'm not suggesting to get rid of artillery, just like I did not support getting rid of the fast jets but I am just pointing out that when push came to shove come replacement/upgrade time and when the costs began to boggle the beans they did'nt reach for the chequebook they instead got out the axe, justification, lack of use, changing operating enviro, other priorities blah blah blah, it's not that I don't support the capability per se more I don't feel the capability support from those that really make the final Ds, I fully understand how defence is always left wanting at the politicians whims. TBH though if I did have to choose between an ACF and Artillery then actually for what we do and have done post "nam" and what could be meaningfully offered operationally to our allies (ie in Bosnia, Timor, Afghan etc) then I would still probably go ACF as warfighting has evolved, conventional is not so conventional anymore and bar WWIII not sure it ever will be either, not for us anyway.It would be stupid to get rid of the guns. Yes we haven't used them in anger since 'Nam but they are an integral part of the Army TOE. Yes the ACF needs to return but returning it at the expense of the guns is just as idiotic as getting rid of the ACF in the first place. Yes maybe 155's would be good, but I think that 105's are a gun that is not to heavy for a light infantry army and it's not too light to deal with most threats. My own view is that we should have a mix of 105 mm SPG's and towed arty.
Shame that there isn't a land based variant of the 5 in / 127 mm naval gun that was reasonably light and portable.
I always think (for us anyway) about the types of scenarios and operational enviroments we would most likely encounter as to their effective use. I guess fo Aus itself they would be rather useful with the big wide open spaces but then in terms of actual ops such as Timor and (again for us) Afghan, bigger/heavier/beefier was actually more of a hinderance than a benefit in hindsight and actually directly influenced their employment and all this was with comparitively "light" light armoured vehicles of ASLAV/NZLAV compared to boxers anyway.
New Zealand pollies pull their heads out of the sand. that won't happen soon as they are too deeply buried, and probably cemented in place anyway. It will take a major shock to achieve that , or the formation of a completely new political party with guts.
Exactly Ngati, it's sad (not to mention dangerous) that it needs to take a wake up call for them/us to seemingly need to take action, especially with timeframes involved for any decent capability, wether that be maitaining, renewal or aqquisition.