NZDF - Now and the Future.

[Markus40]

The P3s role is maritime survelliance. It can be used as a secondary long range strike for countering subs and surface units, but i am of the opinion that P3s role should be used to guide the Hawkes for example to their targets. This was their role when they were first purchased along with the A4s back in the 70s.

It makes sense that the Hawke should carry quick interdiction and strike operations along with the orions. The orions are slow, and whos to say they can find a target in the first place if there was one there. Thats why they need to work alongside the Hawke.

I agree with you when talking about close air support, that the P3 can't do the job supporting troops. Interdication (Long range strikes) are best left to aircraft like the P3, that have the range, payload capability and don't tie up New Zealands limited resources.

 

[Markus40]

Firstly there is no Fijian Airforce that i know about, so im not sure what the argument is here. The MRV will change the way we deploy and there is no reason to doubt this. NZ will be in a far better position to be able to deploy a frigate and MRV and fueler/supply ship to a region that requires security attention. IE ET, Solomons or Fiji if that came about. So we will be able to send 250 soldiers by sea, but might take a few days.

This would need to be backed up by transporting our troops by air to this region to set up our forward operating bases using our C130s and equipment.

He refers to the Fijian airforce, not their army, which is a quality outfit.

Honestly the MRV is for training and patrol work and the troop transport side is a cheap, political, way of saying "umm err, see! troop transportation!, look over there, shiny object!" . Its there to mollify those who dont know any better, and now they an crow that they have provided the army with transport to far off lands and National didnt.
What they wont say openly is that we still cannot transport a battalion, and its gear to Timor sized operations without dependence on foreign powers, but hey they dont need to because the public is saftely distracted by the MRV.
In short, the MRV is the ideal political Strawman argument, and a cheap one at that.

 

[Markus40]

Whos to say on this one. If push comes to shove on the political level where we have a rebel army running amok, and weilding its power then i think NZ could quite easily become involved and land its troops to stabalize the situation. I dont think for one minute that this wasnt impossible and in fact very possible. With a MRV we will have the ability to carry out an operation that can carry all the armies equipment and Helos to do this job.

Would Fijian soldiers really fight against the NZ soldiers, though as much as they may be upset the ties to NZ and Aus are very close. In East Timor a Fijian Company served with the NZ Batt group etc, Im just thinking that their presence may be elocmed rather than shunned in the forseeable future.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

Whos to say on this one. If push comes to shove on the political level where we have a rebel army running amok, and weilding its power then i think NZ could quite easily become involved and land its troops to stabalize the situation.

Only if the place goes the way of the Solomons or Timor.

I dont think for one minute that this wasnt impossible and in fact very possible.

And how would they have got there, hmm? beamed over by the starship Enterprise?

With a MRV we will have the ability to carry out an operation that can carry all the armies equipment and Helos to do this job.

Wrong. The MRV can carry 250 troops and a handfull of LAV's. It cannot carry "...all the armies equipment and Helo's.." and could not fight the Fijian army, which has something like three battalions of infantry.
Fiji has shown that it is quite capable of sorting out its own affairs and certainly does not need outside intervention, and if they do, I am sure they will ask.

 

[Markus40]

Quote:
I dont think for one minute that this wasnt impossible and in fact very possible.


And how would they have got there, hmm? beamed over by the starship Enterprise?



Quote:
With a MRV we will have the ability to carry out an operation that can carry all the armies equipment and Helos to do this job.


Wrong. The MRV can carry 250 troops and a handfull of LAV's. It cannot carry "...all the armies equipment and Helo's.." and could not fight the Fijian army, which has something like three battalions of infantry.
Fiji has shown that it is quite capable of sorting out its own affairs and certainly does not need outside intervention, and if they do, I am sure they will ask.



And how would they have got there, hmm? beamed over by the starship Enterprise?


ANSWER: How would they have got there? I think you have miss read me. Im talking about the Hyperthetical argument of the Fijian army rebeling against its own government and you have a standoff. Something any military head with half a brain would know wouldnt be acceptable to the stability of this region. Its happened before and could happen again.


Quote:
With a MRV we will have the ability to carry out an operation that can carry all the armies equipment and Helos to do this job.


Wrong. The MRV can carry 250 troops and a handfull of LAV's. It cannot carry "...all the armies equipment and Helo's.." and could not fight the Fijian army, which has something like three battalions of infantry.
Fiji has shown that it is quite capable of sorting out its own affairs and certainly does not need outside intervention, and if they do, I am sure they will ask.


ANSWER: RIGHT!! Check your facts sir.The MRV can carry extra supplies and stores along with up to 20 LAVS if needed with 4 Helos. The Fijian Army has shown that it HASNT in the past been able to take control properly over coups and NZ along with Australia have expressed deep concern over the role of the Army in times past. Any military commander who is weilding control over a coup and manipulating the armies control like it has in Fiji, and asks for outside help is in cookkoo land.

Only if the place goes the way of the Solomons or Timor.




And how would they have got there, hmm? beamed over by the starship Enterprise?



Wrong. The MRV can carry 250 troops and a handfull of LAV's. It cannot carry "...all the armies equipment and Helo's.." and could not fight the Fijian army, which has something like three battalions of infantry.
Fiji has shown that it is quite capable of sorting out its own affairs and certainly does not need outside intervention, and if they do, I am sure they will ask.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Firstly there is no Fijian Airforce that i know about, so im not sure what the argument is here. .

That was my apparently bleak attempt at injecting humour and inferring that the prev comment was daft and ill informed.

 

[Markus40]

Here is some stats on the MRV for the uninitiated.

Ship to Shore Transfer
Tactical sealift means the ship is able to disembark its cargo (up to a Company Group of troops and equipment) without access to port facilities. A typical company group load might consist of 20 Light Armoured Vehicles, 14 Light Operational Vehicles (Pinzgauers), 7 Unimogs, 2 ambulances, 2 flat bed trucks, 7 LOV trailers, 2 Rough Terrain Fork Lifts and 4 four-wheel drive vehicles) in addition up to 33 containers.

Only if the place goes the way of the Solomons or Timor.




And how would they have got there, hmm? beamed over by the starship Enterprise?



Wrong. The MRV can carry 250 troops and a handfull of LAV's. It cannot carry "...all the armies equipment and Helo's.." and could not fight the Fijian army, which has something like three battalions of infantry.
Fiji has shown that it is quite capable of sorting out its own affairs and certainly does not need outside intervention, and if they do, I am sure they will ask.

 

[gf0012-aust]

With all due respect I would never underestimate the Fijian Army, or call then a tinpot outfit,

I didn't either - read my response again.

 

[Markus40]

Mr Stuart Mackey-I thought you might like a history lesson to broaden your understanding over the fijian military/political scope. Im sure you will find the information helpful and understand why the NZ government might be concerned over the way the Fijian military acts.


Fiji's Military has a history of political intervention. In 1987, soldiers were responsible for two military coups, and in 2000, the Military organized a countercoup to quash George Speight's civilian coup. Since 2000, the Military has had a sometimes tense relationship with the Qarase government, and has strongly opposed its plans to establish a Commission with the power to compensate victims and pardon perpetrators of the coup. Among other objections, the Military claims that its integrity and discipline would be undermined if soldiers who mutinied in the 2000 upheaval were to be pardoned.

On 4 August 2005, Opposition Leader Mahendra Chaudhry called for more Indo-Fijians, who presently comprise less than one percent of the Military personnel, to be recruited. This would help guarantee political stability, he considered. He also spoke against government plans to downsize the military. Military spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Orisi Rabukawaqa responded the next day by saying that the Military was not an ethnic Fijian body, that it stood to serve the entire nation, and that there was no colour bar in its recruitment or promotion. He said that many Indo-Fijians had been reluctant to commit themselves to a Military career because of the slow progress of promotion, often preferring to be discharged and to use their record as a stepping stone to a successful career in some other field. Nevertheless, he appreciated the Indo-Fijian contribution to the Military, and noted the success of Lieutenant Colonel Mohammed Aziz, the head of the Military's legal unit who was a pivotal figure in the court martial of soldiers who mutinied in 2000.

On 26 August 2005, the government announced plans to study ways to reduce the size of the military. Military engineers would be transferred to the Regional Development Ministry, said Home Affair Minister Josefa Vosanibola, and the reduction of the Military forces would coincide with an increase in the numbers of the police force.

On 26 September 2005, Rabukawaqa revealed that the Military had decided to curtail certain operations in order to stay within its budget. The cuts would affect maritime patrols, search and rescue operations, training and exercises, School Cadet training, and the deployment of Military engineers to rural areas. These cuts would be made to ensure that activities accorded a higher priority, such as peacekeeping operations in the Sinai Peninsula and Iraq, officer cadet training with the New Zealand Defence Forces, and the prosecution of soldiers charged with mutiny, would not be affected, Rabukawaqa said.

The next day, Lesi Korovavala, Chief Executive Officer of the Ministry of Home Affairs, told the Fiji Village news service that the Military had undertaken the reductions on its own initiative, in consultation with the department, an explanation corroborated by Lieutenant Colonel Rabukawaqa

Only if the place goes the way of the Solomons or Timor.




And how would they have got there, hmm? beamed over by the starship Enterprise?



Wrong. The MRV can carry 250 troops and a handfull of LAV's. It cannot carry "...all the armies equipment and Helo's.." and could not fight the Fijian army, which has something like three battalions of infantry.
Fiji has shown that it is quite capable of sorting out its own affairs and certainly does not need outside intervention, and if they do, I am sure they will ask.

 

[NZLAV]

What do you mean the NZDF could not fight the Fijian army??? Their soliders are well trained but have only small arms and non-armoured vehicles. If NZ wantedn to take fiji, they could do it when they have the MRV and Patrol boats. Send the two frigates, MRV and 1 OPV to the main island of fiji. Get the frigates and OPV 2 cover the shore while the MRV unloades 250 soliders and gear. As long as the NZers are in the LAVs, the fijians can not do anything. They can set up artillary and mortars to bombard the city. Then the NH90's can patrol by using the door gunners for air support. NZ could take fiji within days.

 

[Markus40]

Agreed. Having been in the military, and most others on this post will know, that NZ will have the overwhelming ability to take on the fijian military using our Navy and air units.

What do you mean the NZDF could not fight the Fijian army??? Their soliders are well trained but have only small arms and non-armoured vehicles. If NZ wantedn to take fiji, they could do it when they have the MRV and Patrol boats. Send the two frigates, MRV and 1 OPV to the main island of fiji. Get the frigates and OPV 2 cover the shore while the MRV unloades 250 soliders and gear. As long as the NZers are in the LAVs, the fijians can not do anything. They can set up artillary and mortars to bombard the city. Then the NH90's can patrol by using the door gunners for air support. NZ could take fiji within days.

 

[gf0012-aust]

What do you mean the NZDF could not fight the Fijian army??? Their soliders are well trained but have only small arms and non-armoured vehicles. If NZ wantedn to take fiji, they could do it when they have the MRV and Patrol boats.

The following comment has got nothing to do with my opinions of whether the NZ military can take the fight up to the Fijians - its an issue of awareness of what has to be considered.

Continental force ratios are historically regarded as having to be in the order of 3:1 in favour of the attacker.

Amphibious and Airborne insertions are regarded as having to be in the order of 5:1. That means that you are immediately having to counter a landforce of over 3500 regulars. A lot of their snr officer corp are ex Sandhurst and Duntroon graduates. I assume you know how highly regarded their troops are who rotate with SAS/SASR/NZ SAS.

That means that not only do you have to numerically be at an advantage to cause immediate dislocation and disruption - you have to be able to maintain, persist and project that capability against a landforce that by its nature will have greater mobility.

Not only that - but to be able to land equipment and armour to reinforce your forces you have to be able to secure what will be limited entry points that will be highly defended and of which very few can take larger vessels.

To take Fiji via its capital would be sheer stupidity. You'd seriously want to seize and hold one of the outlying islands to establish a comms centre and force headquarters outside of Fijian military intervention range.

FYI - Fiji was regarded as the most experienced of all the nations contributing military forces to the UN - they hold the record for the longest serving continuous provision of military services. When Fiji decided to withdraw from future UN support recently a substantial number of her personnel were employed as contractors by companies such as Blackwater. They are highly regarded - and seriously respected for discipline and knowledge of their craft.

in 1987 Australia was well aware that even with a full regiment, landing ships and DDG destroyers for fire and shore support that it would be a very very big ask. The advice was not to do it as we couldn't get adequate force and weapons ratios on shore in time.

Beating them is not the issue - getting the right force ratio in place and inserted within a proscribed timeframe - and continually supported, reinforced and provisioned before their entire military co-ordinate an encircle is the issue.

I seriously doubt that a direct insertion with the forces you suggest will do it. You just don't have the numbers to wedge and dominate early.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Agreed. Having been in the military, and most others on this post will know, that NZ will have the overwhelming ability to take on the fijian military using our Navy and air units.

What air units is NZ going to be able to provide which allow them to insert into secured territory. There are very few spots where a Herc can land. That means that the airstrips and airports at risk will be blocked and covered. You just don't have enough para qualified troops to be able to dominate the critical points. Remember the Airborne/Amphibious to defender force ratios. and - 5:1 is a conservative figure for entrenched defenders.

 

[Mr Waka]

:gun HELL yeah now we are talkin ....nz in actual combat........ WICKED
then we could prove to the world that NZ infantry is Da BoMb kick ass even thou we dont have flash stuff or large numbas we will hammer any bugga into the ground

 

[Aussie Digger]

What do you mean the NZDF could not fight the Fijian army??? Their soliders are well trained but have only small arms and non-armoured vehicles. If NZ wantedn to take fiji, they could do it when they have the MRV and Patrol boats. Send the two frigates, MRV and 1 OPV to the main island of fiji. Get the frigates and OPV 2 cover the shore while the MRV unloades 250 soliders and gear. As long as the NZers are in the LAVs, the fijians can not do anything. They can set up artillary and mortars to bombard the city. Then the NH90's can patrol by using the door gunners for air support. NZ could take fiji within days.

Fiji ALSO uses 81mm mortars (of the same type as New Zealand in fact) and as to the LAV's. Well they have explosive don't they? How well do you think an NZLAV is going to go against a 200lbs IED?

Same with the frigates and MRV. Assymetric warfare is always going to be the tactic of choice when a force is used against an obviously overwhelmingly superior military force. The USA can't stop it in Iraq.

What makes you think NZ could in Fiji?

 

[Markus40]

All NZ has to do is send the Navy with its contingent of soldiers and Helos and land near suva airport and take the airport. Secure the lines of communications get the engineers in and clear the runway, then start bringing in the C130s and P3s with the Army and their equipment. I dont think for one moment that this would be a hard objective to acheive.

What air units is NZ going to be able to provide which allow them to insert into secured territory. There are very few spots where a Herc can land. That means that the airstrips and airports at risk will be blocked and covered. You just don't have enough para qualified troops to be able to dominate the critical points. Remember the Airborne/Amphibious to defender force ratios. and - 5:1 is a conservative figure for entrenched defenders.

 

[Markus40]

Quite simple Mr Aussie Digger. I really dont think the 81mm motar is going to be a problem in this scenerio. We now have the Javelin Missile that can take out bunkers and other targets and the NZ Army will sure wont be letting a 81mm mortar crew be standing round for long.

Remember NZ does have an overwhelming force when propped up against Fiji, and also Fijians are not Crazy Islamic fundamentalists on a suicidal mission to stave off an assault. They will surrender to overwhelming forces if this ever occured. There is a difference between the races you know.

Fiji ALSO uses 81mm mortars (of the same type as New Zealand in fact) and as to the LAV's. Well they have explosive don't they? How well do you think an NZLAV is going to go against a 200lbs IED?

Same with the frigates and MRV. Assymetric warfare is always going to be the tactic of choice when a force is used against an obviously overwhelmingly superior military force. The USA can't stop it in Iraq.

What makes you think NZ could in Fiji?

 

[Markus40]

Im not sharing your sentiments on this one either. Remember the Fijian Army have been directly involved in Coups over the last decade and this has brought into question the discipline of the Army to protect government and its peoples.

If NZ saw it necessary to secure proper government in Fiji by taking down the Fijian Military then i have no doubt it could. Especially when we could use a Island close by for supplies and communications, and to quickly take the Airport at Suva to gain control of the air elements that NZ needs to bring in Supplies.

Despite their training, i am less than sceptical that the Fijian Army of less than 3500 men could continue to fight when we have way better hardware to get the job done.

The following comment has got nothing to do with my opinions of whether the NZ military can take the fight up to the Fijians - its an issue of awareness of what has to be considered.

Continental force ratios are historically regarded as having to be in the order of 3:1 in favour of the attacker.

Amphibious and Airborne insertions are regarded as having to be in the order of 5:1. That means that you are immediately having to counter a landforce of over 3500 regulars. A lot of their snr officer corp are ex Sandhurst and Duntroon graduates. I assume you know how highly regarded their troops are who rotate with SAS/SASR/NZ SAS.

That means that not only do you have to numerically be at an advantage to cause immediate dislocation and disruption - you have to be able to maintain, persist and project that capability against a landforce that by its nature will have greater mobility.

Not only that - but to be able to land equipment and armour to reinforce your forces you have to be able to secure what will be limited entry points that will be highly defended and of which very few can take larger vessels.

To take Fiji via its capital would be sheer stupidity. You'd seriously want to seize and hold one of the outlying islands to establish a comms centre and force headquarters outside of Fijian military intervention range.

FYI - Fiji was regarded as the most experienced of all the nations contributing military forces to the UN - they hold the record for the longest serving continuous provision of military services. When Fiji decided to withdraw from future UN support recently a substantial number of her personnel were employed as contractors by companies such as Blackwater. They are highly regarded - and seriously respected for discipline and knowledge of their craft.

in 1987 Australia was well aware that even with a full regiment, landing ships and DDG destroyers for fire and shore support that it would be a very very big ask. The advice was not to do it as we couldn't get adequate force and weapons ratios on shore in time.

Beating them is not the issue - getting the right force ratio in place and inserted within a proscribed timeframe - and continually supported, reinforced and provisioned before their entire military co-ordinate an encircle is the issue.

I seriously doubt that a direct insertion with the forces you suggest will do it. You just don't have the numbers to wedge and dominate early.

 

[Markus40]

Where did you come from? Do you want to join the Army?

:gun HELL yeah now we are talkin ....nz in actual combat........ WICKED
then we could prove to the world that NZ infantry is Da BoMb kick ass even thou we dont have flash stuff or large numbas we will hammer any bugga into the ground

 

[Aussie Digger]

Im not sharing your sentiments on this one either. Remember the Fijian Army have been directly involved in Coups over the last decade and this has brought into question the discipline of the Army to protect government and its peoples.

If NZ saw it necessary to secure proper government in Fiji by taking down the Fijian Military then i have no doubt it could. Especially when we could use a Island close by for supplies and communications, and to quickly take the Airport at Suva to gain control of the air elements that NZ needs to bring in Supplies.

Despite their training, i am less than sceptical that the Fijian Army of less than 3500 men could continue to fight when we have way better hardware to get the job done.

Well since we are in a theoretical discussion I suppose we need to discuss WHY NZ feels the need to impose it's will in such a manner, as well as if the military DID take over and this compelled NZ to act, would this make them LESS ready to fight?

You seem overly impressed with NZ's technical ability compared to that of the Fijian military to me, Markus. Underestimating a potential enemy is a sure way of tactical failure.

Given that it is theoretical, it is easy for me to state (AND no less accuarate) that it is just as likely that the Fijian militay WOULD put up a strong fight, would overrun the dozens of troops NZ could deploy before the MRV arrived.

How strong would NZ's convictions be if a RNZAF Herc were shot down by small arms fire on it's final approach, thus losing 20% of it's total tactrans capability, because it's intial lodgement on Fijian soil was as limited as it can be due to NZ's "fiscally minded" Government???

As to the 81mm mortar comment, you seemed to miss the point. The pro-NZDF group talk about NZ's "overwhelming" force including 81mm mortars and conveniently overlook that Fiji is equipped with same.

I realise NZ has some more advanced weapons including 105mm howitzers and Javelin ATGW's, but you are simply overlooking that fiji possesses well trained and reasonably well equipped light infantry forces. Without your LAV's you don't possess a massive technical advantage over the Fijian military, simply AN advantage.

One which can be negated in any number of ways. Look at the Vietnam war. The USA, Australia and NZ held a massive technical advantage there. Didn't do them much good though against a well trained and reasonably well equipped light infantry force operating assymetrically on their own turf did it?