NZDF General discussion thread

gf0012-aust said:
there are some very tricky new AP rounds avail in .50 cal. the swiss even trialled sabots for them (pretty damn small, but hey, they were showing whats possible).

a .50 cal will go through a hull, but you need to get it right and hope that its got enough energy to reach the drive train and disrupt things.

I was involved in some kinetic tests using .50 cals about 6 years ago and they could cause some serious damage. the idea of warning shots and escalating those shots with an increase in calibre is designed to show resolve and intent in an orderly fashion.

the problem is when they call your bluff and don't stop
Click to expand...

Thats why we fire on the bridge & then board. We really don't want to sink them because if you impound the ship the law allows for forfeiture to the Crown plus sinking of FV causes all sorts of environmental problems but worst of all the paper work involved - it would be horrendous :(. Who's gonna write the environmental impact statement?
 
ngatimozart said:
Thats why we fire on the bridge & then board. We really don't want to sink them because if you impound the ship the law allows for forfeiture to the Crown plus sinking of FV causes all sorts of environmental problems but worst of all the paper work involved - it would be horrendous :(. Who's gonna write the environmental impact statement?
Click to expand...

Q. Doesn't RNZN fire ahead of the bow first when warning?
 
recce.k1 said:
Gov is looking for short ranged MPA's and publically suggested last year they are interested in Q300's (cheap option, as Gov could buy/lease existing a/c operated by Air NZ subsideries) or CN-235. From WhitePaper/supprt docs, it appears the budget is $200M (currently US$154M) and that the timeline for this is 2011 onwards.
Click to expand...

The CN-235 fitted with the modular AMACOS fit would be a cost effective solution but given NZ's geography and the operational requirements of the RNZAF, the range and endurance of the CN-235 might be a limiting factor.

recce.k1 said:
NZ's then buy's into the ADF heavy lift programme eg purchase outright a C17 or two (can't really be an A-400M alas, unless we partnered up with eg Malaysia, but that's not where the NZGov-AusGov level focus is at).
Click to expand...

Malaysia is forking out 600 million ringgit [the exchange rate is about 3.01 ringgit for a U.S. dollar] for it's 4 A-400Ms. Not sure what the C-130J would costs but I'm pretty sure it's cheaper. Given the purchasing and operating costs of the C-17, I don't see how participating in the ADF's heavy lift programme would benefit NZ given the size of NZ's defence budget and it's operational requirements compared to Australia [of all countries, I can't see why Qatar would want a C-17!].
 
STURM said:
The CN-235 fitted with the modular AMACOS fit would be a cost effective solution but given NZ's geography and the operational requirements of the RNZAF, the range and endurance of the CN-235 might be a limiting factor.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. If it was being used to monitor the EEZ then long range fuel tanks could be fitted to hard points on wings. It won't being carrying anything relatively heavy in that role, so extra rate of fuel and drag of tanks will not be an impairment on performance.
 
STURM said:
The CN-235 fitted with the modular AMACOS fit would be a cost effective solution but given NZ's geography and the operational requirements of the RNZAF, the range and endurance of the CN-235 might be a limiting factor.



Malaysia is forking out 600 million ringgit [the exchange rate is about 3.01 ringgit for a U.S. dollar] for it's 4 A-400Ms. Not sure what the C-130J would costs but I'm pretty sure it's cheaper. Given the purchasing and operating costs of the C-17, I don't see how participating in the ADF's heavy lift programme would benefit NZ given the size of NZ's defence budget and it's operational requirements compared to Australia [of all countries, I can't see why Qatar would want a C-17!].
Click to expand...

Check your figures again Sturm. The Malaysians are forking out about four times that amount. If only it was just R600m for 4 .....;). The C-130J is roughly cheaper by half.
 
STURM said:
The CN-235 fitted with the modular AMACOS fit would be a cost effective solution but given NZ's geography and the operational requirements of the RNZAF, the range and endurance of the CN-235 might be a limiting factor.
Click to expand...

The mission endurance can be up to ~9 hours for an HC-144A Ocean Sentry version of the CN-235MPA, for surveillance work.

For patrolwork, loiter time is often more important than range or speed.

Incidentally, as I had posted earlier, a C-130J is ~US$67 mil. per aircraft.

-Cheers
 
Off-topic to what's currently being discussed but does anyone know if NZ army personnel are still attached or seconded to the Malaysian Army Jungle Warfare School at Ulu Tiram in Johor?
Up till the late 80's there were still 2 NZ officers, as well as Aussie officers, based at the school, who were living in J.B. across the causeway from Singapore.
 
This is the first paragraph of an article in the latest Aviation Week.

"The military transport market will see production of almost 900 new aircraft over the next decade, but the raw numbers obscure major changes in the landscape. Production of the Boeing C-17 could end, leaving the strategic transport market to the Airbus Military A400M, while the Lockheed Martin C-130J will face a challenge for the tactical sector from Embraer’s new KC-390."​

A400M, KC-390 Will Reshape Transport Market | AVIATION WEEK

The link has the full article. In our discussions on the future replacement(s) for the C130H LEP this throws a bit more light into the mix.

I also would like to draw you attention to a conversation in another sub forum which IMO has much bearing upon what is being discussed here. It is in the http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/geo-strategic-defense/anzac-joint-hq-force-9466-3/ sub forum.
 
Last edited:
recce.k1 said:
No capability cuts and some improvments (although I believe more is required however it's a start in this financial climate etc). Good to see ISR, networked Command and Control (and interoperability etc) gaining more importance etc.

Here's the equipment "detail" (although no decisons have been released on types etc). Interesting that the 757's and C130's are likely to be replaced at roughly the same time as that opens up other options now etc. Army does well as it is restructured (but loses 15 LAV's instead of 30-odd as rumoured earlier and shake up at Linton will be interesting in terms of work opportunities for families if consolidated at Ohakea). Navy does well (inc. ANZAC upgrade & replacement vessels). Air Force, improvements (and as Lucas says, let's see what the pilot training study recommends in terms of the MB339. The PM & DefMin in the media today have ruled out a proper ACF due to costs though).
Click to expand...
The DWP is flawed as it assumed no attack in the next 25 years, we simply dont know what is going to happen in the next 25 years. The reason we do not see any threats in the future is that we cannot see into the future. The other problem with the DWP is that it does not as the question, how do we defend NZ, if you dont know how we are going to defend NZ how can we structure our defence forces correctly?
Currently a nation could simply fly into one of our international airports using their national airline, take the nearest port to bring in their heavy equipment and there is nothing we could do about it.We would be over run before help could arrive.Without an aircombat ability we are defenceless.
 
Rob c said:
The DWP is flawed as it assumed no attack in the next 25 years, we simply dont know what is going to happen in the next 25 years. The reason we do not see any threats in the future is that we cannot see into the future. The other problem with the DWP is that it does not as the question, how do we defend NZ, if you dont know how we are going to defend NZ how can we structure our defence forces correctly?
Currently a nation could simply fly into one of our international airports using their national airline, take the nearest port to bring in their heavy equipment and there is nothing we could do about it.We would be over run before help could arrive.Without an aircombat ability we are defenceless.
Click to expand...

Rest assured Rob c, Govt agencies assess any likelyhood of threats and Govt then responds accordingly. The DWP is a point in time document, should things/events get worse then future DWP (and Govt actions independant of DWP's) will reflect this.

I understand former PM Lange wanted to despatch the NZDF to deal with the first Fiji coup in 1987. If they had deployed in airliners or C130's without first taking out critical Fiji comms, military and logistics infrastructure our guys would have been holed up in the airport terminal whilsts the Fijians counter attacked and shot them up. Same thing would happen here in your scenario.

Auckland International Airport knows what aircraft are coming and anything unusual or not projected to arrive will be queried and escalated if things don't appear right.

I think a better angle for you to take would be that of beefing up NZ's self-defence systems, eg more capable detection and portable SAM systems for the Army and Air Force to protect deployments and critical NZ infrastructure from air terrorism opportunites. NZ would also need a more advanced ground radar network (I believe some primary radar systems were discountinued after the ACF was disbanded) to be able to track any rogue aircraft that can turn off their identification systems to prevent the secondary radar systems from tracking them. We will need to upgrade ground radar, look at acquiring airbourne radar and refueling aircraft to ensure any hypothetical ACF has the means to do their jobs effectively patrolling within NZ skies. The previous ACF was geared up towards contributing to coalition efforts overseas and training with the RAN, so even if we still had A-4's or the proposed F-16's we'd need to acquire other systems/capabilities to ensure reliable air-defence of NZ (which we've never had before bar WW2 i.e. radar vans, AAA, and hundreds of P-40 fighter aircraft and dozens of "MPA" coastal patrol aircraft based all around NZ on dozens of airfields) etc.
 
The idea that the troops would be holed up in the airport teminal is not reasonable, Auckland airport is full of busses , trucks and cars, A gun is a good ticket to get you anywhere. It is said that a car thief can get a car running in 30 seconds, I am sure troops could be trained to do the same. There is nothing to stop the troops being at the port within 2 hours to start unloading their heaver gear.The aircraft intially used could simply be an arranged charter or with the transponders turned of it would be to late to do anything we it was realised there was a problem.The combat aircraft could isolate the problem. and reduce its ability to expand.There has been no case in recient history of a nation recognising a threat and re-arming in time to meet that threat. To wait until there is a threat has a 100% failure rate and I think our sovereignty and freedom desurves better than this.
NZ currently has no ability to defend its self, yet the primary fuction of any defence force is to defend its countries sovereignty, so if we are not prepared to give Defence that ability perhaps we should get out of defence altogether and run a Coastguard /search and rescue in its place.
 
We've had a hypothetical invasion of NZ thread before (search this thread group although it may have been merged into this topic from memory). I don't want to bring that up again because it went downhill quite quickly (and it may incur the wrath of the defpros or mods), seeing there is no definition of who the invaders are. If you mean China invading NZ, forget that, they could buy up more NZ industry, enter into more partnerships or lock in long term supply and exploration arrangments being win-win for both sides. China would have to take out most of SE Asia to get here (and if it happened, you'll see NZ Govt boosting defence preparations faster than normal etc).

A better case you could be making is to prevent a repeat Mumbai incident - that is more likely than an undefined invasion - and your scenario better fits that type of terrorism scenario, rather than an invasion from another country. Overseas troops are usually professionals working with set procedures to ensure their objectives are met eg taking over the functioning govt etc (not acquring buses with no protection and shooting their way from AK to WN Parliament). Your scenario fits an irregular warfare, fanatical or terrorism scenario IMO.

I won't say anything further on this scenario (I've responded seeing you quoted my post, which was made when the DWP came out. After 25 years of capability cuts I was pleased Govt DWP ensured no capability cuts and some growth in new areas such as C&C and ISR. Granted this is all bare minimum and still prone to allow policy failure and we know nowadays Defence has to find alot of savings from within so DWP has taken on a new meaning in light of this, but we should be grateful it wasn't alot worse). :)
 
Nonsense scenarios over hypothetical invasions of New Zealand are generally not really tolerated by Mods and wear the patience of long term senior members and DefPro’s. There are plenty of fantasy war-gaming websites on the net for people to engage in such stuff.

Flaws in the White Paper – Yes - that is a good line of discussion, but when it strays off-course into invasion scenario’s at AKL or PoA – No.
 
On another note, looking forward to the results of the DefMin talks in New Zealand today, a surprise announcement would be nice, being an election year I'm not sure how this would impact though, Pro-defense does not win a lot of friends in NZ especially in this fiscal climate.

However I would expect something to be mentioned with the Amphibs.
 
Last edited:
recce.k1 said:
We've had a hypothetical invasion of NZ thread before (search this thread group although it may have been merged into this topic from memory). I don't want to bring that up again because it went downhill quite quickly (and it may incur the wrath of the defpros or mods), seeing there is no definition of who the invaders are. If you mean China invading NZ, forget that, they could buy up more NZ industry, enter into more partnerships or lock in long term supply and exploration arrangments being win-win for both sides. China would have to take out most of SE Asia to get here (and if it happened, you'll see NZ Govt boosting defence preparations faster than normal etc).

A better case you could be making is to prevent a repeat Mumbai incident - that is more likely than an undefined invasion - and your scenario better fits that type of terrorism scenario, rather than an invasion from another country. Overseas troops are usually professionals working with set procedures to ensure their objectives are met eg taking over the functioning govt etc (not acquring buses with no protection and shooting their way from AK to WN Parliament). Your scenario fits an irregular warfare, fanatical or terrorism scenario IMO.

I won't say anything further on this scenario (I've responded seeing you quoted my post, which was made when the DWP came out. After 25 years of capability cuts I was pleased Govt DWP ensured no capability cuts and some growth in new areas such as C&C and ISR. Granted this is all bare minimum and still prone to allow policy failure and we know nowadays Defence has to find alot of savings from within so DWP has taken on a new meaning in light of this, but we should be grateful it wasn't alot worse). :)
Click to expand...

I concur with your reply having read Rob C's posts. I will add that I'd like to think that we have past the era of violent swinging of Defence policy and spending directive change and are now entering an era of some future certainty with regard to policy directives from their political masters. This is very much need both for NZDF forecasting and planning and in International Relations to show our allies, partners & friends that we have moved forward. IMHO that is very much need in order to regain respect and trust that was lost in the past 25 years because of various upheavals in policy direction.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
recce.k1 said:
We've had a hypothetical invasion of NZ thread before (search this thread group although it may have been merged into this topic from memory). I don't want to bring that up again because it went downhill quite quickly (and it may incur the wrath of the defpros or mods), seeing there is no definition of who the invaders are. If you mean China invading NZ, forget that, they could buy up more NZ industry, enter into more partnerships or lock in long term supply and exploration arrangments being win-win for both sides. China would have to take out most of SE Asia to get here (and if it happened, you'll see NZ Govt boosting defence preparations faster than normal etc).

A better case you could be making is to prevent a repeat Mumbai incident - that is more likely than an undefined invasion - and your scenario better fits that type of terrorism scenario, rather than an invasion from another country. Overseas troops are usually professionals working with set procedures to ensure their objectives are met eg taking over the functioning govt etc (not acquring buses with no protection and shooting their way from AK to WN Parliament). Your scenario fits an irregular warfare, fanatical or terrorism scenario IMO.

I won't say anything further on this scenario (I've responded seeing you quoted my post, which was made when the DWP came out. After 25 years of capability cuts I was pleased Govt DWP ensured no capability cuts and some growth in new areas such as C&C and ISR. Granted this is all bare minimum and still prone to allow policy failure and we know nowadays Defence has to find alot of savings from within so DWP has taken on a new meaning in light of this, but we should be grateful it wasn't alot worse). :)
Click to expand...
The invasion senerio was simply to highlight the vulnerability of NZ without any Aircombat ability. Conversely when we had the Skyhawks any nation wishing to invade would have needed an aicraft carrier, which are few and far between. However I disagree with you on Mumbai as this like most terror incidents is highly over emotionalised. Mumbia equalled 3 days of India's road toll and 7 day's of NZ's smoking related deaths and you are just as dead either way. We should not concentrate on what is most likely but rather what will cause us the most grief, which is the loss of soveregnty. For example the most common auto accident is a fender bender in a super market car park, but we target road safety on serious injury and death, which is far less common.

Defence is our insurance for a free NZ and like fire insurance on a house it is too late to try to improve your insurance when you first see smoke.

The major faw in the DWP appears to be that every one was hard at work looking at the tree's and no one looked at the forrest. (Which is the primary role of any defence force to protect their countries freedom)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rob c said:
The invasion senerio was simply to highlight the vulnerability of NZ without any Aircombat ability. Conversely when we had the Skyhawks any nation wishing to invade would have needed an aicraft carrier, which are few and far between. However I disagree with you on Mumbai as this like most terror incidents is highly over emotionalised. Mumbia equalled 3 days of India's road toll and 7 day's of NZ's smoking related deaths and you are just as dead either way. We should not concentrate on what is most likely but rather what will cause us the most grief, which is the loss of soveregnty. For example the most common auto accident is a fender bender in a super market car park, but we target road safety on serious injury and death, which is far less common.

Defence is our insurance for a free NZ and like fire insurance on a house it is too late to try to improve your insurance when you first see smoke.

The major faw in the DWP appears to be that every one was hard at work looking at the tree's and no one looked at the forrest. (Which is the primary role of any defence force to protect their countries freedom)
Click to expand...

I don’t think you will find many of us who disagree with your sentiments regarding a need for a component of air combat capability within the NZDF.

However that air combat capability that we once possessed was not for an ADF/Interceptor role over the skies of NZ. It was primarily required, funded and configured for expeditionary support of ground and maritime assets in a coalition context. The principle of forward defence in collaboration with likeminded actors has been the cornerstone of NZ Defence for many decades.

Defence is not just an insurance policy. To use another term from the finance world it is also hedge in the strategic context. Issues over sovereignty are not only territorial but also are economic. That is why a collaborative alliance of likeminded nations who have integrated trade, financial, cultural and diplomatic ties also choose to have defence ties. It actually works out to be more cost effective and militarily more flexible that way rather than operating an unilateral border centric defence approach.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top