NZDF - Now and the Future.

[Aussie Digger]

Congratulations on your first post.

All sounds pretty sensible to me. Unfortunately money that has been spent can't be retrieved.

The is no question that transporting things by sea is much cheaper. If time wasn't often a factor you could almost get away without having an airlift capacity. Unfortunately time is often the most crucial factor. It is also the prime reason we have 757s - Hercules take too long to cover significant distance.

My immediate priority would be to improve airlift. It is the only area that hasn't been subject to a review buy this government. It is probably no coincidence that it is also the most expensive! I would be looking to acquire another pair of 757s or 767s to beef up the longer range transport capability. I would also place an order for 8 A400s for delivery sometime between 2010 and 2014. Around the 2012 to 2016 timeframe I would start retiring the hercs and replacing them with a more modest capacity to support domestic operations. Something like a C-27 or C-295.

The main gap in the army is indirect fire support. Understandably it hasn't been a priority, but it is now due for an overhaul. The best solution probably to acquire some additional LAVs with a 120mm mortar turret to equip QA squadron and 1 RNZIR. 161 and 163 Btys should be bought up to strength to 6 guns for each batter. Something like G5 would be fine. I would also look to raise 162 Bty for direct support to 2/1 RNZIR and keep this is a light battery -105 howitzers and 120mm mortars operating with an arms room type arrangement where the system employed can be the commander's choice according to METT-T.


On that subject, I presume your suggestion of 50 120mm mortars is fairly arbitrary?

I wouldn’t’ go near the Tiger either. Australia is having significant problems with it and I’m not sure the $800M is justified. That sort of money buys a lost of other equipment that would be used far more frequently. Forget about a fixed wing strike capability as well. There isn’t anything on the horizon that an Orion can’t handle.

Another priority should be what the LTDP calls a ‘high readiness infantry company.’ Personally I would like to see this based in either Darwin or Townsville, preferably with a terminal operations team, signals element and a light battery. For a modest sum of money a couple of companies worth of support vehicles could also be based their for operational sue and exercise equipment for NZ-based forces. If funds allow a company set of LAVs would round it out quiet nicely.

Something that many haven’t picked up on is that the purchase of the MRV will allow exercises overseas much more easily than we can do now. Don’t be surprised if we see a lot more exercises like Predators Gallop. The MRV needs time at sea and hauling company sized groups of troops for exercise can be achieved at the same time. Again, for the sake of operational expediency a set of LOVs and Unimogs should be kept aboard ship. The organic Army movements detachment can maintain them. It’s a lot easier to fly troops to an airport to meet up with ship than it is to send the ship back to port, load it up and sail it off again.

Australia is not having "significant" problems with it's Tigers. It's still in the process of introducing them. It had some problems integrating the Hellfire and M299 launcher into Tiger, but this has been sorted.

The problem with Harrier is it is a short ranged aircraft, it lacks significant performance compared to modern fixed wing types and while it's STOVL capability is useful it's overall capability is significantly below most combat aircraft. It is subsonic for a start and has limited range and payload capacity, but has much greater logistical requirements, due to the complexity of the vertical lift system.

It does not have an integrated anti-ship missile capability any longer (Sea Eagle ASM has been retired), meaning it is forced to close with vessels and launch bomb attacks.

LGB attacks perhaps, but still well within the range of Naval SAM systems.

Gripen has had Harpoon integrated with it and the upcoming NSM will be as well. It has also used Tauras and Storm Shadow SOW's as well...

I'd also back Gripen for availability rates against AV-8B with the older aircraft requiring far more maintenance per sortie, given it's age.

 

[Rocco_NZ]

Australia is not having "significant" problems with it's Tigers. It's still in the process of introducing them. It had some problems integrating the Hellfire and M299 launcher into Tiger, but this has been sorted.

I thought I had seen some media reports talking about problems like engine power etc. Could be wrong. That aside, since it will be about 13 years from the Iroquois project start date to the the NH90 being in service, I don't think something like an attack helicopter purchase is a good idea at this stage! We need to get the basics right first.

 

[Markus40]

Re: NH-90s

The NH-90 can be fitted out with an external weopon if so required so it makes sense that an attack helicopter wouldnt be required.

 

[Markus40]

Re: AV-8B/A

Australia is not having "significant" problems with it's Tigers. It's still in the process of introducing them. It had some problems integrating the Hellfire and M299 launcher into Tiger, but this has been sorted.

The problem with Harrier is it is a short ranged aircraft, it lacks significant performance compared to modern fixed wing types and while it's STOVL capability is useful it's overall capability is significantly below most combat aircraft. It is subsonic for a start and has limited range and payload capacity, but has much greater logistical requirements, due to the complexity of the vertical lift system.

It does not have an integrated anti-ship missile capability any longer (Sea Eagle ASM has been retired), meaning it is forced to close with vessels and launch bomb attacks.

LGB attacks perhaps, but still well within the range of Naval SAM systems.

Gripen has had Harpoon integrated with it and the upcoming NSM will be as well. It has also used Tauras and Storm Shadow SOW's as well...

I'd also back Gripen for availability rates against AV-8B with the older aircraft requiring far more maintenance per sortie, given it's age.

Yes, i didnt think that information was accurate although maybe you were thinking about the Seassprite. As to why the Australian Navy are having these issues and not the RNZN is beyond me. It was obvious a faulty batch with a bad batch of software or hardware from a contracted company to Kaman that seems to keep breaking down. Will be interesting to see the out come on this one. Maybe the RAN will resort to the Seahawke based on the FFGs.

Now as to the Harrier, the AV-8B can operate a ASM and it doesnt have to be a Harpoon. A European ASM would do the job. Despite the range restriction the AV-8B can operate from a forward base closer to the field of action from a jump point, or we operate them from any point around NZ for self protection if that scenario ever was to happen. Unlikely of course, but in the South pacfic i think they could be deployed without any problem.

We can convert a C-130 to the task of refueling if needed and we already operate the C-130. All AV-8Bs could have anti missile suites installed if needed.

I do like the Grippen, and if they are going cheap sure lets get them as we are desperate for some kind of air defense to plug this gap.


Admin: markus40, can you please remember to edit your responses properly. to see how its done hit the edit button on this response to see what the layout commands are.

 

[NZLAV]

I think it's to late for a jet aircraft at this point. My suggestion for the airforce would be the PC-21 Turboprop aircraft which is cheap(anyone have any idea of the price?I'd say well under $500,000?) They can be armed with missiles and can be used as somewhat airsupport for our army. Another option would be the super Tucano. 16 of these would be ideal for the RNZAF, they would then have a light strike wing. No set up of any kind would be needed because they only need basic facilities like the current CT-4 trainers the RNZAF are using. Then in 2-5 years, purchase 5 hawk jet aircraft and advance from that. That would be a cheap and effective option right now. I don't see why the NZ government will not purchase a cheap PC-21 or Super Tucano.

 

[NZLAV]

I think NZ makes many stupid decisions with the military. For example, If I was the defence minister, I would sell the frigates and buy 5 more well armed MRV's. It would fit NZ much better. They would be armed with a 76mm oto melera cannon, harpoons anti-ship missiles, an air defence system, CIWS and 50cal mgs. It would be ideal and it would only cost $1billion.

 

[Markus40]

Re:Tucano

Im not too sure why its too late for a jet aircraft if your proposal is also to purchase a Tucano. Maybe it would make sense to purchase the Tucano as a Trainer for the RNZAF to train our pilots for either the Grippen or AV-8B or Hawke. Then we might be heading in the right direction, as the Tucano will be heavily restricted to range with a full weopons load. It also cant be refueled in flight, something we would obviously need to do to fly our planes to a point in the Pacific or Australia.

You are right about the Bae Hawke as this aircraft would be ideal for the Air to ground and maritime missions as well as air to air. To purchase the Tucano for training our pilots, good option.

I think it's to late for a jet aircraft at this point. My suggestion for the airforce would be the PC-21 Turboprop aircraft which is cheap(anyone have any idea of the price?I'd say well under $500,000?) They can be armed with missiles and can be used as somewhat airsupport for our army. Another option would be the super Tucano. 16 of these would be ideal for the RNZAF, they would then have a light strike wing. No set up of any kind would be needed because they only need basic facilities like the current CT-4 trainers the RNZAF are using. Then in 2-5 years, purchase 5 hawk jet aircraft and advance from that. That would be a cheap and effective option right now. I don't see why the NZ government will not purchase a cheap PC-21 or Super Tucano.

 

[Markus40]

Re: NZ Armed Force.

Yes you are right, the military has been interferred with by the NZ political system and made worse by this governments stupidity in the Air Combat Force.

The National government was right up to their last election ready to buy the F-16 and 4 ANZACS. That would have put our military into something to celebrate about. I dont think i would sell the frigates, remember NZ got a good deal out of that, with employment and back hand contributions. However we desperatly need a third ANZAC for escort work for the extra ships the Navy will get and yes a 2nd MRV with proper self defensive weopons to protect itself in field of action.

I think NZ makes many stupid decisions with the military. For example, If I was the defence minister, I would sell the frigates and buy 5 more well armed MRV's. It would fit NZ much better. They would be armed with a 76mm oto melera cannon, harpoons anti-ship missiles, an air defence system, CIWS and 50cal mgs. It would be ideal and it would only cost $1billion.

 

[Rocco_NZ]

Yes you are right, the military has been interferred with by the NZ political system and made worse by this governments stupidity in the Air Combat Force.

The National government was right up to their last election ready to buy the F-16 and 4 ANZACS..

First point - the correct role of the military is to do whatever their democratically elected government tells them to do. No ifs or buts allowed. Anyone in the military that argues otherwise should be kicked out.

Second point - you don't know what you are talking about. I'm all for people that want to make reasoned arguments backed up by fact, but on that last point you've either misunderstood what someone else has told you or are making it up.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Big Reminder

Do not get personal when making comments.
Play the ball - not the player.

This is the second time this will have been mentioned, any further breaches and the post will be frozen for a few days ​

 

[Markus40]

Re: NZ Defence Quote

This forum is a way to express our views and values relating to the needs of the NZ defense forse. Im expressing mine and others are expressing theres. I call that a democratic way of putting forth our facts and logic. Maybe you forgot that.

I wasnt communicating with you and i wish to share with people who have similar views, not yours. If you dont want to enter in with good logic gentlemanly manners then dont bother. My last message still stands.

First point - the correct role of the military is to do whatever their democratically elected government tells them to do. No ifs or buts allowed. Anyone in the military that argues otherwise should be kicked out.

Second point - you don't know what you are talking about. I'm all for people that want to make reasoned arguments backed up by fact, but on that last point you've either misunderstood what someone else has told you or are making it up.

 

[Rocco_NZ]

This forum is a way to express our views and values relating to the needs of the NZ defense forse. Im expressing mine and others are expressing theres. I call that a democratic way of putting forth our facts and logic. Maybe you forgot that.

I wasnt communicating with you and i wish to share with people who have similar views, not yours. If you dont want to enter in with good logic gentlemanly manners then dont bother. My last message still stands.

Don't be offended. I am genuinly interested in how you reached that conclusion. Care to explain?

 

[Markus40]

Re: Political Aspect to the NZ Defense Forces.

To those that read this post it is a certainty that and has been mentioned before not by me but other politicians and Defense force personel that i am associated with both retired and on active duty, is that for too long the politicians have always overridden the needs and concerns of the Defense Forces needs for aquisitions and operations.

The National government in the early nineties never took the role of Defense seriously and it was this reliance on the Americans and Australians to do the job for us while we stood back and failed to commit resources that were relevant to military tasks. We in essence had to sponge off our allies to get through. The NZ forces capabilities and role and equipment faded into a "mist" and left them without the upgrades and reequipment that was needed. Just when the National Government lead under Jim Bolger in essence secured the contract for the F-16 and 4 ANZACs we had a new government hell bent on slashing what was left of our fragile capability to one where the nail was put in the coffin for our front line pilots at Ohakea. As our allies reeled in shock over this action it became quite clear that this government was intent on building a Defense force based on peace keeping and not war fighting. Helen Clark relation with the UN is quite clear and we are not pulling our weight with our allies when it comes to regional security.

Its only recently with a meeting with Phil Goff and his Australian counterpart that things MAYBE changing finally. With a limited upgrading and re equiping of the Armed Forces across the board it is becoming clear that this government MAY be serious about pulling our weight with our partners. However its far from complete and from those that i do know wish to see our forces restored to their full roles without having gaps in our ability to support our naval forces and and Army abroad when needed. But before this happens we are like a Sherman tank with a big sign written over the turret saying "Please take me out"!!

 

[Markus40]

Re: Question

You can read my next post and you will see. But hey dont take it personally will you unless you are a politician.!

Don't be offended. I am genuinly interested in how you reached that conclusion. Care to explain?

 

[Rocco_NZ]

Just when the National Government lead under Jim Bolger in essence secured the contract for the F-16 and 4 ANZACs we had a new government hell bent on slashing what was left of our fragile capability to one where the nail was put in the coffin for our front line pilots at Ohakea.

You've got your facts a bit mixed up. Bradford was told cabinet would either support a 3rd Anzac or the F-16s, not both. This was as much a comprimise forced by NZ First than anything else. Bradford chose the F-16s. You might recall that around the same time Deborah Morris was in tears on TV saying cabinet was bullying her etc. My understanding was that was related to the defence purchases. A 4th Anzac was never on the table.

 

[Markus40]

Re: Defense

Im pretty sure that Bolger would have sanctioned the idea if Bradford was going for it. I guess i have made my point about politicians like WP interferring in the process of our Armed Forces. Despite the numbers and desisions our Defense forces would have been in a much better position having taken the options open to them the way they were.

But as i have said the Defense forces progress in re equipment has been hampered by political medling. Thats my main message.

You've got your facts a bit mixed up. Bradford was told cabinet would either support a 3rd Anzac or the F-16s, not both. This was as much a comprimise forced by NZ First than anything else. Bradford chose the F-16s. You might recall that around the same time Deborah Morris was in tears on TV saying cabinet was bullying her etc. My understanding was that was related to the defence purchases. A 4th Anzac was never on the table.

 

[mug]

Its only recently with a meeting with Phil Goff and his Australian counterpart that things MAYBE changing finally.

Markus40 - I assume you're referring to that meeting they just had in Queenstown (poor sods)?

I couldn't find much regarding what was discussed there, so I'm curious as to why you think things are changing. Do you have any links or info relating to this?

 

[Rocco_NZ]

Markus40 - I assume you're referring to that meeting they just had in Queenstown (poor sods)?

Just the annual CDR meeting....

 

[Markus40]

e: NZ Defense.

Mug-If you go to our Defense Media for the Defense Forces web site you will get a caption on the out lines of what was being discussed.

Phil Goff went on TV with his Australian counterpart in Queenstown 2 weeks ago and said that NZ WILL pull its weight in this area. I must admit the Australian counter part was real cagey and cautious, however nothing in specifics was disclosed.

Also i didnt say things were changing , i said MAYBE.

 

[Whiskyjack]

I think that the NZ Army is close to the Structure that it needs to be. I’m not sure if everyone has seen one of Rocco’s posts that confirms the QA Regt will be a third force group in the NZ army, good news if the funding comes through to increase the size of the army by 1500, otherwise a bit of an empty gesture.

The Govt needs to follow the Australian example and give some certainty to the NZDF buy increasing funding every year. To do this and get the Defence Budget up to 1.4%-1.5% of GDP will allow for some options in, both Operational/Support and Capital. (it must be said thet the Govt is sort of dong this at the moment with the NZ$4.2b over 10 years)

IMO the Navy lacks a third combatant and a dedicated logistics sustainment ship (the Endeavour has limited stores capability and can not maintain a ‘taskforce’ speed of 18 knots).

The problem is how to fund the third combatant and if it is to make sure it has the common systems with the ANZACs to make sure it does not become a logistics and training headache for the RNZN.

It may be worth doing a study to see if is not worth funding a new class of three frigates to replace the ANZACs early, taking into account cheaper operating costs that new tech and lower crew costs may bring? Would also allow for greater availability. But I can’t see much change out of NZ$2.5b so one would have to say not likely.

The MRV looks to be a good ship, but IMO not ideal, I would like to see the NZDF create a expeditionary strategy integrating the Army and RNZAF (rotor) into a LPD. The ability to place a mix n’ match (tailored to the operation) army task force over an undefended (or lightly defended) beach and sustain it for 2-3 weeks is not unrealistic and would be welcomed by allies. This ability also may actually prevent more ‘issues’ in the South Pacific as well. As for fire support, the Army will obviously have the Javelin. 120mm mortars would also be well worth the cost something like the AMOS system. Another System I would like to se explored is the NLOS-LS (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/net-fires.htm) would allow for precision fire support either from land or sea (fitted to frigates, OPVs, MRV or future LPD) and would probably be a cost effective solution to Markus’ Tank scenario. Added to this the P3 with Block II Harpoon for strategic strike and a tactical UAV system to network in the fire support and the NZDF owns any situation in the South Pacific and is a welcome contribution to any coalition operation.

As for cost, take out the new frigates use the build up of the budget outlined above and it is affordable over a 10 year period