NZDF General discussion thread

[wkill]

You are correct NZ has failed to stem the invasion of rabbits, despite the use of biological warfare.


Whether the NZDF wants to retaliate against against some aggressive attack, outside of deployed operations with standing rules of engagement is irrelevant. The NZDF is subject to political control, therefore it is the politicians that will decide if we retaliate. It will be the NZDF decision (after talking to the government) to choose the method of retalitation that best meets the governments objectives.



Tried that in WWII - The tank was a joke, the land mines seemed to work. We could build more OPV's with a big cross saying hit here

If you're new to the defence debate, which your post suggests you are my I suggest a couple of books. The first one is called "Defending New Zealand" and the second one is "The Armed Forces of New Zealand" by James Rolfe. Both good books, though starting to get a little dated.

Defence Talk is a good site for disguntled Kiwis to vent their spleen, but be prepared to learn from what is posted, defend and in the face of overwhelming odds change, your views on issues. Hope to see you on the site more.

i guess the tank would be a disadvantage to new zealand as the movement of them across water would leave them vunerable and thus somewhat useless.
i am new and those books seem interesting so i will take a note and perhaps read them.
and i also wondered why so many forum topics are about new zealand.
and you will hear a bit from me if other users keep me interested

 

[Aussie Digger]

new zealand couldn't defend its shore from an invasion of rabbits!
i personaaly believe that nzdf wouldn't retaliate from an offensive attack until it would be too late to do anything about it.
to answer his question i would say convert existing factories into tank and munitions factories to give us some fire power that we do not have.

Read what I said mate. Apart from fanciful invasion scenarios, who in the pacific region could invade NZ with a significant likelyhood of success?

That NZ is able to deploy modern and relevant combat power (for the operational environments and threat scenarios NZDF is intended to address) within her region and sustain such on operations, makes her a power within the Asia Pacfic region. NZDF definitely lacks some capabilities compared to other Countries, but it's threat environment is not the same, either.

Does this mean NZDF could fight China single-handedly? Of course not.

Does that mean that NZDF is able to project power within it's region beyond the measure of the overwhelming majority of nearby Countries? Yes it does. NZDF can demonstrably do that.

It is doing so right now...

 

[KiwiRob]

God defend NZ, yep, but only because we can't, or won't do it for ourselves. hit the money

Who exactely are we going to be defending ourselves against?

 

[RegR]

i guess the tank would be a disadvantage to new zealand as the movement of them across water would leave them vunerable and thus somewhat useless.

Isn't this how we move the majority of our equipment overseas? I don't understand what your getting at.

 

[lopez]

i guess the tank would be a disadvantage to new zealand as the movement of them across water would leave them vunerable and thus somewhat useless.
i am new and those books seem interesting so i will take a note and perhaps read them.
and i also wondered why so many forum topics are about new zealand.
and you will hear a bit from me if other users keep me interested

a boat tank?
a tank boat?
the jesus tank?
hehehehehehehe...

wasnt aware tanks could make long journeys on water...
on a more serious note wouldnt it be better to be able to control the seas surounding nz to prevent an invasion (however unlikely)? rather than having tanks to defeat it when it arives...

 

[Kiwikid]

new zealand couldn't defend its shore from an invasion of rabbits!
.

Ha ha ain't that the truth. A few years back in a bid to spread the Rabbit disease Mixamitosis, some farmers put some dead Australian Rabbits in a blender and brought the juice extract here to infect some Kiwi Rabbits.

First rule of warfare since WW1 is that air superiority is key. At base minimum they should reactivate the Skyhawks as a cheap way to recover credibility.

The contribution a Squadron of Skyhawks could have made to the war in Afghanistan over recent years would have been immense. We do not need 5th generation fighters to make a valid contribution with old aeroplanes.

 

[MrConservative]

Ha ha ain't that the truth. A few years back in a bid to spread the Rabbit disease Mixamitosis, some farmers put some dead Australian Rabbits in a blender and brought the juice extract here to infect some Kiwi Rabbits.

First rule of warfare since WW1 is that air superiority is key. At base minimum they should reactivate the Skyhawks as a cheap way to recover credibility.

The contribution a Squadron of Skyhawks could have made to the war in Afghanistan over recent years would have been immense. We do not need 5th generation fighters to make a valid contribution with old aeroplanes.

Actually I would rephrase that by saying that an RNZAF contribution of F-16's as what would be the heart of our ACF if we did not stupidly cancell them, would have made a valid and lasting contribution to our involvment in Afghanistan. Even a flight of six would be enough as part of the long term NATO air component.

Im sorry but the A-4's will never come back. They are well past their used buy date. Beside the numbers involved to re-activate them from their current condition plus there relative operational cost per hour over time make them unattractive. For a second tier air combat contribution there are better alternatives than 40 year old A-4's.

 

[JJC]

Hello,

I have a couple of quick job questions if any of you have any knowledge on this please help me out.

I am looking at joining the NZ military and am torn between these two jobs -

(couldnt post links sorry post count too low)

Seaman Combat Specialist - Navy

Air Security Specialist - Airforce

I am 20 years old and from an athletic background and enjoy working in a team evnironment.

Travel is a big thing for me, i really want to go places and do interesting things and i am not too sure how much that will happen if i am a security specialist with the air force, but could be wrong.

I have no idea what navy lifestyle or air force lifestyle would be like and would appreciate any input on these.

Thanks

 

[grdwalker]

in reply to JJC

as an airforce serviceman, i can tell you that air security do a lot of travelling, when the aircraft go to theatre, a flight (detatchment) of air security guys go with them, pretty much every disaster you have heard about in the pacific that our miltary has helped with, some of them go.

i cant tell you it would happen straight away because obviously it takes about 6 months before you finish basic training, and then you start at the bottom of the pile, i cant say anything about the navy because i just dont know.

 

[Cadredave]

One Network News

The government wants to sell up to 35 of the army's stock of 105 light armoured vehicles (LAVs).
They can hit a target two kilometres away but after seven years in service the government says the LAVs are yet to fire in anger.The first time any were sent overseas was late last year when three were deployed with the SAS in Kabul.For NZ crews operating the vehicles it's a rare chance to operate the machines in a combat situation."I certainly think for the individual crews this does provide a little extra motivation," Major Kit Taylor says. Details released to ONE News under the Official Information Act show 11 Kiwi gunners, drivers and technicians have been sent to the Afghan capital to help transport our elite soldiers.The army has spent $250,000 fitting out the LAVs with additional armour to protect the soldiers who sit in the back of the vehicles. Inside the armoured cars suspended seats aim to stop the full impact of a roadside bomb being carried into the occupant's bodies.
But there are no plans to send more overseas and it seems some of the vehicles will be going to the sale yard. Labour paid almost $680 million for the LAVs in 2003 but the government is yet to assess their current value. More details of a potential sale are expected in September's defence review.

Well finally some one has confirmed the rumours doing the rounds in Army, unlike the skyhawkes these vehicles will sell, its a pity I was hoping that army could of done a deal with GD/US and swaped them for stryker variants for example, Engineer, C3, mortar, A1/A2 ech vehicle again just have to wait until September i guess. Mind you the minister advisors need to get there facts right the M113 were 35 years old before they fired there first rounds in anger?.

 

[Kiwikid]

Actually I would rephrase that by saying that an RNZAF contribution of F-16's as what would be the heart of our ACF if we did not stupidly cancell them, would have made a valid and lasting contribution to our involvment in Afghanistan. Even a flight of six would be enough as part of the long term NATO air component.

I personally think the F-16 A/Bs offered to NZ would have been a mistake. This early block had huge problems with F-100 engine surges, engine fires etc. Taiwan actually threatened to return all theirs and cancel their order.

The Dutch had different issue with the F-16 that they were not suited to low level flying and hence were banned from tree-tops stuff. The F-16 as a strike aircraft was intended to stand off at 20,000ft with laser guided munitions in a type of integrated mission which relied on other types of aircraft to maintain airsuperiority and take out SAM/radar sites.

Ironically at the same time the US Navy had a bunch of retired F/A-18s available which would have been much more in keeping with Australia's aircraft. Personally I think NZ should look to buy Australia's Hornets. They offer twin engined security over long water distances and retain the ability for hose n drogue buddy refuelling or refuelling from RNZAF Hercules.

The F-16s offered to NZ had a severely limited combat load radius of action from Wellington to the Chatham Islands an back. They would have been hugely dependent upon NZ purchasing a flying boom tanker and that was never going to happen in your wildest dreams.

The F/A-18 by contrast has a significant range advantage on internal fuel. Range is an important consideration for our isolated little island nation.

Sorry to trash your F-16s but I think we could do better.

Meantime bring back the scooter.

 

[recce.k1]

One Network News

The government wants to sell up to 35 of the army's stock of 105 light armoured vehicles (LAVs).

A couple of points.

The Army is conducting one of their live fire training exercises (according to yesterday's DomPost) and must have invited the media along (but TVNZ decided to concentrate on selling of surplus LAV's rather than reporting on the exercise although the accompanying video of theirs appears to show the exercise (along with still shots of US or Canadian LAV/Strykers) but with the sale report voiced over). Here's the video:

Light armoured vehicles for sale | Stuff.co.nz

For those that are interested the DomPost reported (not online):

The rattle of machine guns and the roar of artillery and cannon fire tested the mettle of troops in a live firing exercise under the snow covered slopes of Mt Ruapehu. About 170 troops from Alpha Company of the Linton-based First Infantry Battalion, went into mock battle at the Army's Waiouru training area in the central North Island yesterday to test their battle skills and ensure they were ready and able to fight if required, army spokesman Kristian Dunne said. The troops involved in Exercise Absolute were supported by a squadron of 18 LAV and backed up by artillery fire from the 16th Field Regiment.

The second point is, I can understand that selling those 30 odd LAV's in deep storage makes sense from a financial/audit point of view (although except we wouldn't have 'spares' - think about how many M113's and Scorpians were written off because of damage during training .... let alone suffering loses on deployments), but can the Govt be so sure that they won't be deployed 'again' as in they aren't planning to in the foreseeable future (unless something unexpected crops up of course) or as in they are not suitable for the types of deployments that NZ usually undertakes? Personally I hope if it is the case of the latter that any sale profits are used to buy an additional dozen or so mine resistant vehicles or tracked APC's i.e. the sorts of vehicles more suited to NZ's needs in Afghanistan or the likes of Timor etc. Having a mix of wheeled and tracked LAV/APC's and /or MPV's would allow the Army to deploy with that extra bit of protection and confidence depending on the location etc.

Cadredave did the M113's actually fire shots in anger in Timor?

 

[recce.k1]

I personally think the F-16 A/Bs offered to NZ would have been a mistake. This early block had huge problems with F-100 engine surges, engine fires etc. Taiwan actually threatened to return all theirs and cancel their order.

Pretty sure I read on the NZ Wings forum once that these ex-Pakistani F16's had up-graded /up-rated engines .... but don't quote me on that as I need to verify etc.

As for a tanker, perhaps rather than the RNZAF acquiring the 757 it might have decided on another type suited to dual cargo/refueling ... but yes it would have cost more money.

F/A18's whilst would have made more sense (being a proven maritime platform - being an island NZ is pretty much like a fixed aircraft carrier a long way from other nations and need their aircraft to transit over sea etc), but probably only if NZ entered into a support arrangement with Australia because of the extra costs associated with twin engines and much more sophisticated avionics ... I'm thinking of the costs to acquire new jigs and simulators, training and support logistics and spares etc (and put more pressure on Labour to not reneg on a direct NZ-OZ relationship arrangement). I suspect back then prior the RNZAF would have resisted that by keeping everything in house. But in the end lost everything rather than accept some loss of 'sovereignty'. Then again I can see where the RNZAF were coming from - brand new F16's (with lower support costs) v second hand worn out ex-USN F18's (with higher support costs and less lifetime left etc).

(I think you will find that the Treasury scrutinise these operating costs over the lifetime of the aircraft and pretty much have the final say as to whether any purchase is feasible long term financially and should go ahead when reporting to Govt etc. Sometimes support costs can end up more in the long run than the acquistion costs)!

The scooters are worse than the F16's! Mind you I'd rather have a scooter than nothing!

 

[Cadredave]

A couple of points.

The Army is conducting one of their live fire training exercises (according to yesterday's DomPost) and must have invited the media along (but TVNZ decided to concentrate on selling of surplus LAV's rather than reporting on the exercise although the accompanying video of theirs appears to show the exercise (along with still shots of US or Canadian LAV/Strykers) but with the sale report voiced over). Here's the video:

Light armoured vehicles for sale | Stuff.co.nz

For those that are interested the DomPost reported (not online):



The second point is, I can understand that selling those 30 odd LAV's in deep storage makes sense from a financial/audit point of view (although except we wouldn't have 'spares' - think about how many M113's and Scorpians were written off because of damage during training .... let alone suffering loses on deployments), but can the Govt be so sure that they won't be deployed 'again' as in they aren't planning to in the foreseeable future (unless something unexpected crops up of course) or as in they are not suitable for the types of deployments that NZ usually undertakes? Personally I hope if it is the case of the latter that any sale profits are used to buy an additional dozen or so mine resistant vehicles or tracked APC's i.e. the sorts of vehicles more suited to NZ's needs in Afghanistan or the likes of Timor etc. Having a mix of wheeled and tracked LAV/APC's and /or MPV's would allow the Army to deploy with that extra bit of protection and confidence depending on the location etc.

Cadredave did the M113's actually fire shots in anger in Timor?

The M113 fired both in Bosnia & East Timor. Bosnia was warning shots to disuade the different factions that were fighting from getting to close to us, Timor the vehicles fired in direct support of foot patrols that took on more than they could handle. never reported back home at the time as it was the norm during V Coy deployment through to NZBATT 1 & 2. the threat of the big stick was learnt very well by the militia. One of the main issues with NZ having two types of vehicles from my collegues in QAMR is this, to support both tracked & wheeled vehicle requires both a tracked & wheeled logistics vehicle to support them someting that we could not afford hence aquiring only one type, what army did was back to front in IMO we should of brought the logistics vehicle first then the LAV cause those LAVs aint going no where until we are able to support them lesson learnt from a exercise that Whiskey Coy conducted in Aussie a couple of years ago, LAVs were stranded from a lack of fuel as the A1 ech could not resup them & still cant in reality.
Dont get me wrong Im not moaning about the LAV I think we could of done the purchase alot better and that inter service rivarly at the time created more trouble than its worth I would rather see a USMC or Royal Marine type set up for the NZDF but thats my opinion only.

 

[RegR]

I also would not want to see the vehicles wasted, would be good to see other specialised variants or even one for one of another class of armoured vehicle somewhere in between Pinzgauer and LAV. The problem the army had was restricting the majority of LAVs to just infantry whereas other corps could have benefitted from their use just in other guises, and with infantry numbers down would have provided the pers to crew them. Although not ideal platforms would have still been a valued asset and would be seen to be used and thus justify their purchase in the first place.
At the moment we have no dedicated armoured ambulances, comms, mortars, fitters, log etc and yet they convoy within the companies. Even though they should not be directly on the front line they would definately be very close so seems pointless having some guys under armour while their immediate support operates in soft skin pinz and mogs just down the road.
Another reason not to lose the numbers is once they are gone it would be hard to bring them back as the government seems to like axeing equipment any chance it gets without replacement and all to save a buck. And the old "we've never used it in anger so why do we need it" saying is starting to get old as if we keep quoting it in 20 years or so all we are going to end up with is a well armed police force in some hiluxs with water cannons on the roof.

 

[MrConservative]

I personally think the F-16 A/Bs offered to NZ would have been a mistake. This early block had huge problems with F-100 engine surges, engine fires etc. Taiwan actually threatened to return all theirs and cancel their order.

The Dutch had different issue with the F-16 that they were not suited to low level flying and hence were banned from tree-tops stuff. The F-16 as a strike aircraft was intended to stand off at 20,000ft with laser guided munitions in a type of integrated mission which relied on other types of aircraft to maintain airsuperiority and take out SAM/radar sites.

Ironically at the same time the US Navy had a bunch of retired F/A-18s available which would have been much more in keeping with Australia's aircraft. Personally I think NZ should look to buy Australia's Hornets. They offer twin engined security over long water distances and retain the ability for hose n drogue buddy refuelling or refuelling from RNZAF Hercules.

The F-16s offered to NZ had a severely limited combat load radius of action from Wellington to the Chatham Islands an back. They would have been hugely dependent upon NZ purchasing a flying boom tanker and that was never going to happen in your wildest dreams.

The F/A-18 by contrast has a significant range advantage on internal fuel. Range is an important consideration for our isolated little island nation.

Sorry to trash your F-16s but I think we could do better.

Meantime bring back the scooter.

The F-16's that we were to have received would have benefited from the MLU and the Falcon Up programmes. So to compare with bedding down problems of early block F-16's introduced in some european countries during the early 1980's and having that as the criteria to base things on might need a review.

Also the ex USN F-18-A's that ended up at AMARC had considerable wear after years of high tempo Carrier Ops. Stress fractures and the like. Also I am fairly sure that any decent ex USN F-18's around that time were earmarked for the Spanish. A fellow NATO nation.

The F-16 we were getting had much improved combat radius than the A-4K. For 75th Sqd's famous Millenium sortie on NYD 2000 required the usual T/A-4K loaded up for buddy refueling. On that occassion the aircraft ambled along in ferry mode not unlike a Trans Tasman transit. Not in balls out combat mode. I hope that gives you a glimpse of the difference between the Kiwi F-16's and the A-4's.

I can tell you that many of the Australians on this board would tell you that their F-18's will have been worked very hard by the time the RAAF comes to retire them. That may be a long way off.
As for the Taiwan situation involving the loss of a PW F-100 powered Block 20 F-16A in the late 1990's, cancellation was not and never an issue. You are never going to get far in a court case over alleged manufacturuer defects if you as an operator refuse or back down in providing maintenance records and operational logs. The RoCAF were never in any position to force the issue and in fact there was considerable constination within the RoCAF that their was a suggestion of a problem.

Now I agree that F-18's are a better fit however they are more expensive to buy, operate and maintain. F-16's were / are in my view a far more affordable and realistic option. The F-16 quickly developed into a top level multi-role strike aircraft and provided a quantum leap in capability for the RNZAF beyond the A-4K.

 

[recce.k1]

Cheers again Cadredave. I suppose I should temper my enthusiasm for a dozen or so supplementary tracked vehicles (as a wishlist item) until the logisitic support vehicles are sorted (for the LAVIII) i.e. acknowledge the importance of logistic support provisoning rather than get carried away suggesting introducing new types etc!

I note that Combat Service Support Vehicles have been on the Army wishlist ever since the 2002 LTDP (and then from 2006 onwards it moved to the defence capital programme - minors).

I've never seen the Army make public what they have in mind for these, and no doubt there's plenty of types out there available from several countries, but if I look at other LAV/Stryker operators, such as the USMC, perhaps it could be something like these wheeled examples?
http://www.oshkoshdefense.com/pdf/Oshkosh_LVSR_brochure_09-09.pdf or [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistics_Vehicle_System"]Logistics Vehicle System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Logistics_Vehicle_System_MK48_870.JPG" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/Logistics_Vehicle_System_MK48_870.JPG/220px-Logistics_Vehicle_System_MK48_870.JPG"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/c/c6/Logistics_Vehicle_System_MK48_870.JPG/220px-Logistics_Vehicle_System_MK48_870.JPG[/ame]

As an aside this article talks about the Canadians dropping the Styker/LAV-III 105mm Mobile Gun System, as a Leopard C2 tank replacement, in favour of .... new (tracked) tanks, the Leopard 2A6-NL and Leopard 2A4s:
Tanks for the Lesson: Leopards, too, for Canada

Whilst NZ isn't looking at LAV3 mobile gun systems (presumably?) nor tanks, but it seems perhaps the tracked v wheeled arguement might be going full circle again in some respects, thus I wonder though whether the dozen or so tracked APC's (and/or tracked recon/fire support vehicles for QAMR, whichever is the priority etc) still has some merit for NZ in the near future (in terms of Asia-Pacific deployments or peacekeeping, i.e. where the Army isn't operating in urban built-up areas) and for any future NZ Combat Service Support Vehicle purchase could they be tracked? I'm assuming here that the greatest logistics support needs will be in non-urban areas eg rural, jungle, desert or countryside alongway from base etc (unlike say with the NZLAV3 currently in Kabul, it's not like they are going to run out of fuel, so presumably combat service support vehicles aren't a priority for that urban operation etc)? Just wondering if this helps in terms of NZ being able to afford the one support type?

 

[Lucasnz]

Cheers again Cadredave. I suppose I should temper my enthusiasm for a dozen or so supplementary tracked vehicles (as a wishlist item) until the logisitic support vehicles are sorted (for the LAVIII) i.e. acknowledge the importance of logistic support provisoning rather than get carried away suggesting introducing new types etc!

I note that Combat Service Support Vehicles have been on the Army wishlist ever since the 2002 LTDP (and then from 2006 onwards it moved to the defence capital programme - minors).

As an aside this article talks about the Canadians dropping the Styker/LAV-III 105mm Mobile Gun System, as a Leopard C2 tank replacement, in favour of .... new (tracked) tanks, the Leopard 2A6-NL and Leopard 2A4s:
Tanks for the Lesson: Leopards, too, for Canada

I thought the army had recently placed an order for additional logistics vehicles, mainly to support the LAV's. The contracts went to NZ companies. I can't find where I read that right now, but I'll have a go when I get back later this week.

I saw some internal photos of the LAV 105mm a couple of years ago when I was looking at the Styrker Brigade structure. You can't swing a mouse let alone a cat. It would be no good for NZ. I do think there are some benefits in having a tracked vehicle as well as the LAV's.

Anyway better catch that flight .

 

[recce.k1]

Thanks Lucas you're right and that jogged my memory, after some searching here's the Army News article on the various Combat Service Support equipment items being introduced (and mainly Unimog transportable):
NZ Army - A Fully Supported Army, Equipped to Win
i.e. *Unit Bulk Refuelling Equipments (UBRE)
*NZLAV Power Pack and Turret Lift Crane
*Deployable Vehicle Servicing Facility (DVSF)
*20 Tonne Swing Thru
*Heavy Transporters & semi-trailers

... good to see that the Army is at last allowed to acquire their own heavy transporters for the LAV's (rather than rely on commercial arrangements), the Mercedes Actros 3248.
Would have thought a few more would have been useful to transport several LAV's to ports for loading onto the HMNZS Canterbury or RAN vessels, even for major exercises (however maybe in time I suppose ..... or perhaps commercial arrangements will be kept especially for loading up for exercises but it will be the Mercedes 3248's that are actually deployed hence why only 4)? Again being COTS presumably the money was found easily within the budgets (except presumably they won't end up in places like Kabul seeing they won't have protected cabs etc).

Be interesting to see what the forthcoming Land Transport Capability Programme realises (as well as the remaining 3 Combat Service Support projects - bulk fuel, bulk water and in-service repair shelters upgrade).

Also saw an article on the LAV User Nations Group (LAVUNG) and some mention of the extra protection being fitted to the LAV's deployed to Kabul. Good to see protective enhancements being fitted for the deployed troops (as well as access to information and technology sharing arrangements from/with the other LAV user nations etc).

 

[RegR]

I suppose the fact that LAV is wheeled makes the idea of transporting them to ports redundant as they would just self deploy therefore the actros are more for long distance recovery thus not as many numbers required.
Since we have begun the replacement programme with the 3248 I beleive logic dictates we will be sticking with the Mercedes brand for ease of operation, spares and commonality. The canadians use Actros AHSVS (I especially like the recovery varient) to support their LAV equipped units in Afghan and I see the aussies have Axor and Zetros(mog on steroids) on short list for their evaluation programme and already operate a few actros.
Makes sense for us to stick with similar vehicles to the aussies for ease of 'borrowing' parts in places such as Timor and sollies and streamlines cross training to share resources.
Since we will be freeing up abit of capital with the proposed LAV run out sale it would be good to see some armoured Actros support vehicles fast tracked into service, as cadredave says it does seem a little backwards that we got LAV and then(and still waiting) decided we need a class that can keep up and support.