Beggars can't be choosers and it'd give us an Air Combat Force again. As if we'd be so lucky? An opinion piece on govt cost cutting and NZDF civilianisation. Cost-cutter's cleaver leaves deep wounds
NZDF General discussion thread
- Thread starter NZLAV
- Start date
t68
Well-Known Member
A very sad state of affairs for the NZDF, but it is noted that the Philippines will be reconstructing its Airforce with 12 F/A 50 since retiring the F5 in 2005, the Philippines is pretty well cash strapped at the moment and are a lot closer to a more dominate influences in their area of responsibility, in realty 12 aircraft is not going to change the status quo but does show a commitment they are willing to stand up when it counts. The problems are not insurmountable but will need clear and defined leadership which will stand up for commonsense.
Philippines to buy 12 South Korean fighter jets | Aviation & Air Force News at DefenceTalk
Yes the KAI TA50 at US25 Million (2011 Indonesian order - Indonesia Orders 16 T-50s From Korea) and FA50 at US 30 Million (2012 - Seoul places $600m order for 20 FA-50s) isn't to far out of context for the NZG to procure. Say 24 FA50 and 12 TA50. It would be less than US$1 billion and the aircraft are similar to F16 but more modern and the the commonality of airframe would be a money saver. Just need to convince the idiot pollies. Me thinks it would be cheaper and viable buy than the 18 F16IQ offered to Iraq in 2010 for US$4.2 billion.
I have since been informed that this is correct. The NZDF Youtube channel has placed a video up of the C9 Minimi 5.56mm LSW weapon replacement. [nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MauvVJz4nts"]NZ Army's new Light Support Weapon - YouTube[/nomedia] the blurb with video states:
So one wonders if NZDF are thinking of replacing the 5.56mm Steyr with a 7.62mm weapon and if so when and what type?
t68
Well-Known Member
I believe you have a couple of choices, but if it were to happen most likely would be back to the future with the FN FAL. I wonder if Lithgow still has the tooling for L1A1!!!!
There’s also the FN SCAR in 7.62x51 and comes in barrel lengths of 6.5in to 20in and can also be fitted with a grenade launcher. Australia bought a number of HK 417 to be used in Afghanistan in the marksman role, these also come in a number of different barrel lengths to suit.
It’s interesting if NZ does move away from the 5.56 round and standardize on 7.62 I believe we should never have moved from 7.62 in both NZ and Aus, it did not hurt us logistically wise in Vietnam and cannot see why it would be any different now. But it could pose problems on combined ops between NZ/Aus as the logistic tail for NZ is smaller than the tail Australia had in Vietnam. I have used both weapons in my time in the RACT when moving from vehicle to vehicle I preferred the F88 but preferred the L1A1 on the range.
kiwi in exile
Active Member
NZDF has adopted a 7.62 designated marksman rifle for use at patrol level for observing and engaging target at ranges beyong the 5.56 steyr
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byZPhAVoqdI"]New NZ Army Marksman Rifle - YouTube[/nomedia]
Aus, the UK, germany and france have adopted similar rifles, also at squad level.
The US uses modified M14 rifles (M14 EBR). Aus, Fr, UK and US have all adopted the 7.62 version of the Minimi/C9 (the american one is called Mk 48 mod 0 and is slightly different. This is in response to longer engagement ranges in A'stan, and poor 5.56 stopping power and reach.
I think for the forseable future, NZDF and our allies will stick with the 5.56 as the standard individual rifle calibre. We wont change until everyone else changes. Given the cost of this, i don't think it will happen for a while. I have read (possibly on this website) that most of NZDF's 13 000 steyers are still in good order.
Australia is adopting an improved steyr, the EF88. I like the side opening grenade launcher, for longer 40mm grenades. Would be good to see nz have some of these.
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byZPhAVoqdI"]New NZ Army Marksman Rifle - YouTube[/nomedia]
Aus, the UK, germany and france have adopted similar rifles, also at squad level.
The US uses modified M14 rifles (M14 EBR). Aus, Fr, UK and US have all adopted the 7.62 version of the Minimi/C9 (the american one is called Mk 48 mod 0 and is slightly different. This is in response to longer engagement ranges in A'stan, and poor 5.56 stopping power and reach.
I think for the forseable future, NZDF and our allies will stick with the 5.56 as the standard individual rifle calibre. We wont change until everyone else changes. Given the cost of this, i don't think it will happen for a while. I have read (possibly on this website) that most of NZDF's 13 000 steyers are still in good order.
Australia is adopting an improved steyr, the EF88. I like the side opening grenade launcher, for longer 40mm grenades. Would be good to see nz have some of these.
That video was put up on 17 Oct 2011. For last three or so years Defence Science had been running an evaluation of all Defence small arms and IIRC was stalled because it had exceeded budget back in 2011 or last year and need extra funding to finishing. Maybe that has happened because the funding was directed by Cabinet. Looking at the sheep entrails and tea leaves, NZDF never said why it widrew the tender citing commercial sensitivities. If it was a funding issue it probably would have said the tender may have been rolled over to a following budget cycle. There is a debate amongst NATO allies about 5.56mm Vs 7.62mm and this debate appears to have been dragging on for a while. It actually doesn't matter if NZDF decided to go to 7.62 x 51mm with regard to allies and friends because the LSW uses same round, just as long as we have enough rifles and get good one. As much as I like the L1A1 SLR, I think it would be a mistake going back to that particular rifle, my preference being for a full auto function as the original FN had. I note that there is now a semi auto 7.62 x 51mm semi auto bullpup being marketed by an US company that takes the metric NATO 7.62mm mags, but no full auto facility.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Out of curiousity, which US bullpup are you talking about? I am curious because most of the US 7.62 x 51 mm bullpups of which I am aware of are essentially M1A or M14 rifles, rebuilt into a bullpup form.
-Cheers
The one I came across is an ambidextrous one being marketed to US police forces. Rifle Forward-Ejecting Bullpup (RFB) from KEL-TEC CNC INDUSTRIES INC. The shorter one might be good for naval boarding parties as L1A1 SLR was a bit bulky is some quarters. Mind you had its good points too.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
That is the one I was afraid you were talking about. While I have not fired this particular model (or any Kel-Tec gun for that matter) the reputation of the manufacturer is well... Poor would probably be the best/nicest way to put it.
As an example, there are a number of firearms manufacturers that produce very small, sub-compact pistols chambered in 0.380 ACP for the US market. By reputation at least, the Kel-Tec entry into this specific class of pistols for concealed carry wears out and requires replacement after firing ~200 rounds through the pistol.
With that sort of reputation in mind, I would have concerns about any defence force adopting the RFB for service.
-Cheers
kiwi in exile
Active Member
I just posted the video in response to talk of adopting/'going back to' 7.62 rifles.
If i had to choose a 7.62 infantry rifle, I'd go for the HK417. L1A1's might be too long for the back of LAV's, plus they would need to be made accessory friendly.
But i think 5.56 will be with us for some time.
I'm not sure what 5.56 ammo the NZDF uses, but since 2010 the US army has used an improved round M855A1, which apparently has better performance.
The Kiwi Prime Minister stated in tv tonight that if North Korea attacks South Korea and NZ would very likely join the US and Australia in defending South Korea. Key in China heeds NKorea threats - Story - Politics - 3 News The reasons he gave are that there is a long history of NZ supporting South Korea and if diplomatic efforts and interventions failed then it is possible that NZ would be at war with North Korea with us Kiwis standing alongside South Korea, US and Australia.
Therefore is this government going to dramatically increase funding to NZDF in order that NZDF will be able to fight a modern techonological war in Korea against an enemy who has the fourth largest army in the world with artillery, missiles, an air combat force some submarines and who knows what else. Methinks it is time for the NZG to put a few billion NZ$ where its mouth is. Maybewe might get an ACF out of. 28 JAS Gripen NGs would be real nice. US$40 million each and Saab state 50% cheaper to operate. They have a 40 year lifetime expectancy which would be what the RNZAF would fly them for.
Therefore is this government going to dramatically increase funding to NZDF in order that NZDF will be able to fight a modern techonological war in Korea against an enemy who has the fourth largest army in the world with artillery, missiles, an air combat force some submarines and who knows what else. Methinks it is time for the NZG to put a few billion NZ$ where its mouth is. Maybewe might get an ACF out of. 28 JAS Gripen NGs would be real nice. US$40 million each and Saab state 50% cheaper to operate. They have a 40 year lifetime expectancy which would be what the RNZAF would fly them for.
t68
Well-Known Member
Yes it’s easy for politicians to risk raising your head above the parapet, but it’s not easy for them to stump up the money so you can do it with confidence. Aunty Helen must be thanking her lucky star she not the PM anymore and having to explain why she chose not to spend money on defence if she sent the defence force into a high intensity conflict.
Still would not hold your breath about an ACF, even if you did it would be in your best interest to go with 2 Squadrons worth of F35A by the time they become fully operational it would be sometime between 2025 and 2030.
I was tongue in the cheek about the ACF and if it did ever happen the F35 would not be an appropriate acquisition for NZ. We might be able to afford the initial purchase but we wouldn't be able to afford the operational and sustainment costs. I also believe we couldn't politicaly justify such an expensive purchase to the electorate.
The reason I plumbed for the Gripen NG is that it has the ability of one gripen able to target for four other gripens, it is now NATO compatible and SAAB claim that it is 50% cheaper to operate and sustain than other similar aircraft by which I would presume to be F16, Typhoon, Rafale, F18E/F and F15E/K/SA/SG. The USAF F15E operational cost per flight hour is US$35,365.00 and ownership cost per flight hour is US$36,343.00. The F16D costs per flight hour are US$30,140.00 and US$30,357.00 respectively. These are USAF figures given to Time Magazine by the USAF. They are available on a spreadshet from http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/afcap-data-for-2008-2012.xlsx
kiwi in exile
Active Member
And today media are reporting that he is downplaying his comments. Maybe he realised he was putting his foot in his mouth by making war talk while being in China who is pushing for a peaceful solution. Has australia even announced that it would join the US/ROK? Julia's gonna be ticked off. Foolish man for speaking out of turn.
If we were to contribute something what could we offer.
While our Orions have good ISR, they have obsolete sub hunting equipment. Are they able to fire mavericks even? How useful would they be in this context?
Wouldn't want to send an ANZAC before they have the planned upgrades.
Incedentally one is allready on its way over:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/asia/8491259/NZ-frigate-heading-to-Korean-trouble-zone
RNZAF seasprites are not equiped with sub hunting equipment
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/n...navy-discussions-updates-4854-188/#post258859
Hopefully this tension makes the pollies realise that they need to invest in some big stick items.
King Wally
Active Member
There is no doubt that Australia would be in there behind SK/USA if things went south. But as you could imagine its all a diplomatic game and Aus Gov are probably publicly pushing the "lets settle things down and secure the crisis" type lines. NZ gov probably are only saying whats already been agree'd on behind the scenes just missed the memo about what to say in public.
Totally agree with you there. I think NZ gov has cut budgets in def for too long, and a wake up call never hurts. For us Aussies over the ditch it also should help remind them to stay focused on the big ticket def investments in the pipeline (F-35's/Air Warfare Destroyers / Future Subs etc). Could be easy to slash some programs to help prop up budget promises but at the end of the day you need to be able to look at your force in a crisis, and like you indicate, have confidence that you can contribute some assets that are upgraded / high quality and able to stand up in a high intensity conflict if it were to go down.
With the Australian LHD's not ready yet HMNZS Canterbury would be very valuable. I also thought of the Kiwi Orions for sub hunting.... NK has a large number of small subs hunting around so thats a big mission to handle internationally. I cant talk though for what state / capability the NZ P-3's are in? The ANZAC you already have on the way over naturally is in the right place at the right time. NZ SAS also comes to mind for special missions probably operating close with AUS SAS? While yes NZ may not be in an ideal position in many ways I'm certainly sure you guys could offer a lot to any international coalion that may need to be scrambled if Korea went to hell in the near future.
t68
Well-Known Member
Yep pretty much thought it was, but IMHO it's a lot of bull I regards to NZ not be able to sustain the F35 in any variant.
Last time I looked the RSAF had on their books some 140 odd Fixed wing combat aircraft on the books in addition to the rotary fleet of support helicopters, I relies that the Singaporeans have a larger economy and population than NZ but this notion that NZ could not sustain 2 Squadrons worth of F35 is beyond the pale, last time I looked NZ was still part of the chain of 1st world country's.
No sence investing in 4gen aircraft when you can afford and sustain 5gen when it's. Not till 2025 at the earliest the the capability would come on line.
Have you had a look at the projected F35 operation and sustainability costs? If NZ bought the F35 it would have to forego the P8 and the P8 is far more important to NZ than the F35. With the MPA there is also a probable requirement for a BAMS and the ADF is looking at acquiring seven MQ-4C Triton to go with their eight P8As. They are budgeting A$ 2- 3 billion for the seven MQ-4C Triton. In that context and along with my previous post I stand by my comment that the F35 is not a suitable platform for NZ. Like I said, if the NZG do decide to stand up an ACF the SAAB JAS Gripen NG will be ideal. It may not be stealthy but it is a Gen 4.5 aircraft and NZ does not have the same issues as Singapore. Who are we going to invade? Tasmania?
King Wally
Active Member
Looking at the NZDF budgets theres just no way you could factor in F-35's... not without NZ gov coming out and pledging to double the defence budget.
Air Combat Force wise I think NZ could look at picking up some Advanced Jet Trainers or if they wanted to go the whole hog the SAAB Gripen is certainly budget wise one of the few that may fall within tight cash limits not only initial pick up wise but also maintanance wise too due to its low ongoing costs. Only other thing that comes to mind would be if some hot offer landed on the table... like Indonesia got with those recent 2nd hand F-16's at virtually give away prices. If they were patient and sniffed around you never know something may come up thats too good to refuse. (ie. Maybe the RAAF will want to sell off its Super Hornets in the 2020's to move to a single fleet model once the F-35's arive? Stuff like that.)