NZDF General discussion thread

[recce.k1]

Yes, the forward air control/observer example is a great one and (hopefully) a practical one for the public to understand in light of NZ's PRT committments (and is one skill the NZ Army have raised as important in past ACF reviews).

The MB339's could be used for basic training here in NZ with the Army (and perhaps key Army personel could attend some advanced training "courses" in Australia with their army and air force, seeing as they have the aircraft types that are commonly found on operations nowadays).

I'm unsure whether the MB339's were ever fitted with LGB's (the A4's still had to rely on ground forces to provide targetting info, didn't they?) thus whether again, training is thus with dumb bombs but this probably isn't an issue at the end of the day.

Y'know, if National (or even Labour, if Phil Goff's comments came into fruition) were to reactivate the MB339's for training, well, why not also simply reactivate some of the A4's as well? They were scheduled for retirement around 2007-2011? but were parked up in 2001. The most basic maintenance is being done on them in case of sale, thus if you were to get one again flying tomorrow they would have basically have another 6 years of life in them, surely (or is this a little simplistic)? You wouldn't reactivate them all thus the air force would have a few aircraft for any hard to get spares. After all they are for sale for someone else to operate! By my count there are 4 TA-4's two seaters, they could come in useful. Note this is simply an off the wall suggestion (and not intended to be a restored ACF - as an ACF would need a heck of alot more money put into it which no politcal party is willing to do at present)!

By the way, came across DPF's blog site posting on National's recent defence policy and ACF mutterings http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/08/nationals_2005_defence_policy.html If you scroll down you'll find some interesting postings from the regular contributors there both for and against. Some good postings from some people and some typically anti postings from those that continue to use the unlikely scenario of NZ ever being invaded to justify knocking NZ's need for an ACF etc. (Note - if anyone decides to put their own 2c worth on the DPF site, without coming across as a censor, please be mindful of whether you link back to DT - I read a few of the NZ politcal blogs occassionally and all I can see is alot of bullying and ranting from the activist types across the politcial spectrum and I'd hate to see their bs on these pages. Mind you Ithere's a few people here thaf can dish it back I suppose)!

 

[Stuart Mackey]

Do you mean they have attack choppers or use the MB339 in a light attack role in terms of functional light attack capability? Any RNZAF light attack capability would almost be based on an armed L/UH, could we afford better? like the Tiger attack chopper well choppers make more sense easy to transport can be based in most terrains, less time to set up as opposed to jets that need runways, etc.

I refer you to Todjaeger's comment. I would add the old saying "Fight as you train, train as you fight".

 

[Investigator]

Comments deleted.

 

[Markus40]

Yes NZ doesnt have immediate enemies to be keeping an eye on, however NZ does have an obligation in many ways to maintain all 3 areas of defence effectively in line with our treaty and alliance partners. Much of what has happened in the past is a result of neglect and stupid mindless short sighted defence planning by both parties. Labour has to take the cake on this with the disbandenment of the ACF.

To maintain those alliances requires a continuous upgrading and replacing of existing assets to keep pace with our allies and partners. I dont believe we are quite there on that, but NZ has come along way in achieving this goal. Despite the negative feed back on the ACF coming back it is worthy mentioning that NZs relative isolation as a nation surrounded by a large Maritime area, in many respects demands some form of ACF ability. This is in respect to training the other 2 branches of the armed services, and as well as maintaining to some degree a viable air element that is able to intercept and interdict element s on the sea and even a possible air emergency such as terrorism, having such air combat elements in place will ensure NZ does keep up with its own ability to look after itself. I think those points are the main issues for argueing for bringing back a ACF that caters to NZs needs.

As much as i favour dusting off the MB339s and bringing back a fast pilot training programme, i think personally that there needs to be a clear directive from the government as to the future policy of Air Combat in this country, so funds would be allocated in the long term direction of Air Combat. Not just to bring the MB 339s back because they are rotting away in a hanger. So to integrate the Air combat debate would require long term policy change in my way of thinking before a possible return of the MB339. But as has been said before they are better than nothing, but thats not a good enough reason in having them reinstated. Cheers.

Training is good, but even the best training in the world didn't stop the tragedy of the US bombing of the British in Afganistan recently.

We often train with the Australians and with other countries under the 5 power defence arrangement - each participant providing the others with something extra. I'm sure all of them have attack fighters. The extra costs of NZ providing its own fast attack jets for training is something that National will consider if they win - no firm evidence in the helpful posts above that they will. NZ has to make its own mind up on whether to have strike aircraft or modified Jet trainers or none of the above.

We are one of the most fortunate nations on earth in having no natural enemies with the capacity to invade and take over our country. The countries (or groups of countries) that could, have no interest in doing so. BTW we have been outside of ANZUS and the protection of the US for 20 years and nary an invasion threat! Yes, I'm one who says let's not make up non-existent enemies as a rational for wasting money. It is fun to play armchair military planner - but if we were really competent we would be in the job already. I'm not. Are you?

 

[Todjaeger]

Training is good, but even the best training in the world didn't stop the tragedy of the US bombing of the British in Afganistan recently.

We often train with the Australians and with other countries under the 5 power defence arrangement - each participant providing the others with something extra. I'm sure all of them have attack fighters. The extra costs of NZ providing its own fast attack jets for training is something that National will consider if they win - no firm evidence in the helpful posts above that they will. NZ has to make its own mind up on whether to have strike aircraft or modified Jet trainers or none of the above.

We are one of the most fortunate nations on earth in having no natural enemies with the capacity to invade and take over our country. The countries (or groups of countries) that could, have no interest in doing so. BTW we have been outside of ANZUS and the protection of the US for 20 years and nary an invasion threat! Yes, I'm one who says let's not make up non-existent enemies as a rational for wasting money. It is fun to play armchair military planner - but if we were really competent we would be in the job already. I'm not. Are you?

For some, it seems that the approach to NZ defence needs is whether or not NZ can be invaded or conquored. For a few, the answer is "yes!" and therefore the NZ must be significantly upgraded. For others, the answer seems to be "no," and therefore the capabilities can be let run down or eliminated, depending on economic conditions, etc. I personally think that neither type situation is accurate, and thus both approaches to NZDF funding and planning are flawed.

Incidentally, NZ isn't outside of ANZUS, at present the US and NZ have each elected to suspend treaty obligations between themselves. the A-US and A-NZ portions of ANZUS remain in effect. As such, a threat to NZ is of interest to Australia, which I think is the source of some periodic exasperation on the part of Australia.

What I believe would be a more balanced approach to NZ defence issues would be to have an analysis done (a new White Paper for 2008?) where threats in the immediate vicinity of NZ are looked at and what would be required to meet those threats. At the same time, I feel NZ needs to look at what can threaten NZ interests in the immediate area, regionally and globally, and determine what is needed to respond to those as well. Once it is determined what is required to meet different scenarios, along with how reasonable the response is relative to the probability of the scenario, then NZ can start working towards that kind of defence force.

-Cheers

 

[Investigator]

Comments deleted.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

Training is good, but even the best training in the world didn't stop the tragedy of the US bombing of the British in Afganistan recently.

Ahh, the red herring.

We often train with the Australians and with other countries under the 5 power defence arrangement - each participant providing the others with something extra. I'm sure all of them have attack fighters.

Those exersizes assume a basic level of competency in warfighting and exist to improve on that. It is our responsibility as an independent nation to provide at least a basic level of competency, and we are failing to do that. The lack of the ACF, and the competencies it can provide across the forces, is only one failing.

The extra costs of NZ providing its own fast attack jets for training is something that National will consider if they win - no firm evidence in the helpful posts above that they will. NZ has to make its own mind up on whether to have strike aircraft or modified Jet trainers or none of the above.

No one has once suggested that such a choice is anyones other than that of NZ.

We are one of the most fortunate nations on earth in having no natural enemies with the capacity to invade and take over our country. The countries (or groups of countries) that could, have no interest in doing so. BTW we have been outside of ANZUS and the protection of the US for 20 years and nary an invasion threat! Yes, I'm one who says let's not make up non-existent enemies as a rational for wasting money.

I see this idea of an Invasion of NZ idea floating around, and to be honest it depresses me that people lack the imagination to look outside our own vicinity and look at other issues that would have an impact on our way of life and independence. That people dont is either ignorance or simple lack of intellectual rigor. I would remind you of the presence of German warships operating in or near NZ waters during both world wars and the ships they sank, at a time when we were protected by the most powerfull navies in the world. It is also worth remembering the impact on our economy and way of life in the event of any disruption of our markets or the main trade routes. If we are not prepared to defend our own way of life what will we defend?

It is fun to play armchair military planner - but if we were really competent we would be in the job already. I'm not. Are you?

Given that none of our politicans are experts on the matter either, I propose that the current CDF be minister of defence. But untill that day, I shall question the judgement of politicians who have demonstrated no more knowledge in the matter than any person on this forum, and often as not, a lot less.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Im not an Army expert, but has anything been done to look at a replacement for the melting Styers?

I'm not sure of NZDF's plans with respect to the Steyr rifles, but one thing I AM sure of is that they are not "melting".

The Steyr AUG rifle has been tested constantly over many years of service with a great number of nations (Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Austria and Ireland are merely the "major users" of this rifle that I can think of "off-hand").

I personally operated this weapon (F-88A1, F-88 'S' and F-88C) over a period of 6 years and never once did I experience a significant problem with the weapon.

There was a well known problem with the quality of "blank" ammunition provided to Australian soldiers (due to the low propellent levels I believe) which led to reliability issues (stoppages primarily) however this was NEVER a problem when "front line" live ammunition was fired through the weapon.

The F-88A1 Steyr also has a reputation for "misfires" but the overwhelming majority of these are caused by sloppy weapons handling. It should be illustrating that the number of "UD's" (unlawful discharges) increased exponentially within the Australian Army when the 13 week basic training course (conducted at Kapooka) was "modified" to a short course...

Weapons handling, not the design of the rifle, is the major issue with the Steyr rifle in the Australian Army. The weapon (as originally designed) comprehensively out-performed the M16A2 in trials in Australia in the late 80's...

You don't hear too many issues with the M16A2 though...

 

[Aussie Digger]

Shortly there after you ended NZs involvement in ANZUS (Australia "New Zealand" United States). Again, NZ did not get invaded by any country after your so called security guarantee lapsed. Was it worth the handfull of NZers lost in the Vietnam war? I think so. Is it worth hundreds of millions more spent (per year) on an air combat force? No!

NZ is able to meet the non-existant threat to NZs immediate vicinity. We can do that armed with a rubber ducky and a can of air freshener. I think we should have a greater capability than that.

Does NZ have any interests beyond it's shores?

If so, what does it plan to do about those interests?

How does it propose to meet these responsibilities?

Does NZ envisage it's forces participating in a warfighting scenario, either as a "homeland defence" issue or externally?

Afterall even relatively "moderate" warfighting scenarios experienced at present require capabilities that NZ simply does not possess.

To date NZ (like Australia) has not had to deploy a land force (beyond Special Forces elements) on a warfighting mission in the modern era (ie: since Vietnam).

Even a relatively "mild" warfighting environment such as Afghanistan has required modern capabilities such as UAV capacity, "guided" in-direct fire support (ie: "guided artillery munitions, attack helicopters, fixed wing aerial support etc), yet NZ has NONE of these capabilities.

I seriously question NZ's ability to operate in a war fighting scenario of ANY intensity let alone a middle to high level and THIS issue more than "fixed wing combat" issues should be addressed as a priority.

IF Timor had "exploded" and turned into a conflict as opposed to a peace keeping operation, could NZ have support it's forces "in-country" adequately?

Has anything changed since 1999 (apart from the elimination of the biggest capacity it had to support it's deployed forces, it's air combat force...) in terms of NZ's overall fire support capacity?

Fact is, sooner or later a "peace keeping" mission will turn ugly, just as it did in the infamous "Blackhawk Down" issue. NZ would hopefully possess the capability to support it's own forces in such a situation and not rely on others to bail it out....

 

[barra]

We often train with the Australians and with other countries under the 5 power defence arrangement - each participant providing the others with something extra

Give me one example of "something extra" that New Zealand provides any of the other four powers. New Zealands contribution in the region is at the point of becoming irrelevant and that is a great shame. I was at a briefing last year for an upcoming IADS exercise, the speaker was detailing a list of the players and what they were contributing, when he got to NZ the comment was " ...and NZ is sending a boy scout with a pocket knife". Everyone had a good old laugh but the point is serious. I have asked the question before on these kiwi threads and been ignored, is NZ's lack of defence spending due to lack of political will or is the NZ economy unable to support the purchase of weapons to properly arm the three services to a meaningfull level?

Hooroo

 

[Todjaeger]

I had never heard that NZ "elected" to suspend ANZUS. Can you provide such a link? We elected a government (and reelected subsequent National and Labour governments) that continued the anti-nuclear policy - and that will not change with a change in NZ goverment. Even the pro-National Nzers posting on this board would be in the minority if they wanted that.

It was the US who said we should take it or leave it. From what i've heard, living in NZ for my 36 years, is that when we decided to ask the Americans whether the USS Buchannan was nuclear armed or powered and you said that you would "neither confirm not deny" we decided to say no to the visit.

Shortly there after you ended NZs involvement in ANZUS (Australia "New Zealand" United States). Again, NZ did not get invaded by any country after your so called security guarantee lapsed. Was it worth the handfull of NZers lost in the Vietnam war? I think so. Is it worth hundreds of millions more spent (per year) on an air combat force? No!

Indeed, the event that precipitated the suspension of treaty obligations between the US and NZ was the US refusing to declare whether any visiting USN ships carried nuclear weapons. As far as I am aware, NZ interest in whether USN vessels carried nuclear weaponry as part of policies and interests which led to the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone. It is of course New Zealand's right as a sovereign nation to enact such policies banning entry, production or use of nuclear weaponry and power sources within NZ home waters or on NZ soil. It is also the right of the US to refuse to make public which vessels do, or do not carry such weaponry and for security reasons is sensible in doing so.

In my opinion, both nations overreacted to a degree, but perhaps instead of using the word "elected" I should have used the word "chose" or "decided" instead. Since if the policies and sentiment which led to the Nuclear Free Zone were not given such importance, then nuclear power and potential weaponry on USN vessels would likely not have become an issue. And again, as both countries are sovereign states, they are entitled to their respective decisions.

If there had been some threat to NZ, Australia would have become involved, due to the Australia - New Zealand treaty obligations still in effect as well as common interests and heritage. As a practical matter, the US would likely also have gotten involved even with the mutual suspension of the obligations since it would most likely be in the best interests of the US in preventing one state annexing or absorbing another.

I have some more thoughts and opinions on the NZ nuclear stance and Nuclear Free Zone, but they are more of a political perspective therefore I won't post them here. If someone is interested, PM me and we can discuss that.

NZ is able to meet the non-existant threat to NZs immediate vicinity. We can do that armed with a rubber ducky and a can of air freshener. I think we should have a greater capability than that.

If you truly believe the above, then I can only think that you are having a failure of imagination as to what can constitute a threat to NZ. A threat to NZ does not mean solely a threat of invasion as it has all too often been portrayed. Threats to NZ consist of whatever can have a negative impact on the way of life or lifestyle of New Zealand and her people. As such, anything which can interfere with NZ's ability to trade, import or export goods and resources would constitute such a threat. Similarly, anything which reduces NZ's available natural resources without benefitting NZ constitutes a threat. Or if there are things introduced to NZ which are harmful, that can also be a threat. These are all real types of situations which happen to countries everyday and cannot be met "armed with a rubber ducky and a can of air freshener."

As I have mentioned on other NZ-themed threads, NZ currently appears to lack the capability to determine via radar and other long range detection methods the number of vessels operating within the New Zealand EEZ. One thing I would be curious to find out, is how close to the NZ coastline an oceangoing surface vessel could get, before the NZDF or government detected it. That distance is of particular interest if the vessel was making an effort to close undetected, because that could allow smuggling of illicit substances onto New Zealand. Not unlike what the North Korean ice ship Australia found with heroin aboard appears to have been trying to do.

Also, one must not forget that not all threats to NZ interests and the NZ way of life will be within the immediate vicinity. Agriculturally NZ is self-sufficient and is an exporter, but currently needs to import a number of raw materials, natural resources, as well as finished goods and fuels. Should events occur that threat these sources, or NZ's ability get the needed products etc from these sources NZ would either need to take action to remove the threat(s), rely on other countries to take action for NZ, or do without them. Depending on the situation, that can determine which choice NZ decides upon but the better prepared the NZDF is, the more often the first choice can be available.

For those considering leaving NZ over politics. Please do so. New Zealand is for people who want to be New Zealanders. If you want to be foreign, be foreign. No shame in it.

Not quite sure what the intent of this was... but I see nothing inherently non-Kiwi in heeding the advice Lord Baden-Powell, "Be Prepared," it is afterall the hundreth anniversary of the Scouting Movement.

-Cheers

 

[recce.k1]

I'm not sure of NZDF's plans with respect to the Steyr rifles, but one thing I AM sure of is that they are not "melting".

For the NZ perspective on the Steyr "problems" please see the article http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=123&objectid=10460421 (which is a two pager). I've read some of the Australian online newspaper articles, and this NZ article also reflects the views posted in other DT forums (and the ADF) that the issue is a beat-up.

 

[recce.k1]

Give me one example of "something extra" that New Zealand provides any of the other four powers. New Zealands contribution in the region is at the point of becoming irrelevant and that is a great shame. I was at a briefing last year for an upcoming IADS exercise, the speaker was detailing a list of the players and what they were contributing, when he got to NZ the comment was " ...and NZ is sending a boy scout with a pocket knife". Everyone had a good old laugh but the point is serious. I have asked the question before on these kiwi threads and been ignored, is NZ's lack of defence spending due to lack of political will or is the NZ economy unable to support the purchase of weapons to properly arm the three services to a meaningfull level?

Hooroo

In terms of contributions, the ACF was probably NZ's most effective contribution to the FPDA exercises for many decades. Nowadays NZ tends to send one P3 or one ANZAC Frigate to exercises in the region, which in comparision to the other 4 participants is a rather small contribution. Perhaps once the Navy's OPV's join the fleet, possibly the Govt could decide to send both Frigates and perhaps once the P3 mission managament upgrade is complete, the Govt could consider sending two or three P3's but realistically that would be about it in terms of combat capable assets for the timebeing.

In terms of NZ's lack of defence spending, since no-one has responded to you previously, here are my views:

* Small economy (approx NZ$52B annual appropriated govt expenditure, of which defence received approx 4% of core govt expenditure, approx 1.3% of gdp, for the year ending June 2007. Source: Jim Rolfe's "Cutting their cloth: NZ's defence strategy" publication). The reality is, a small economy will mean the NZDF can't afford to have the the best equipment it needs if you were to compare us with Australia for example. The other issue is, because the govt funding pool is so small, there are many competing demands from other areas such as health and education and social services etc (and unfortunately it is all too easy for govt's to make "popular" choices by downplaying defence and using the money elsewhere).

* Differing perception of threats to NZ's interests (I'll quote again from Jim Rolfe at the end of this. Very useful to put NZ's perspective in context).

* In my mind the MMP voting system has played a small but significant part in this since its introduction in 1996. Govt's are now coalition affairs and the smaller parties can now weild alot of power. For example the current Labour Govt based its defence policies on the result of the Beyond 2000 select committee defence review in the late 1990's. The working group consisted of politicans from various minor parties as well as the two major parties (in fact the then National Govt was a minority in the working group) and they advocated the re-orientation of the concept of a balanced defence force into a niche defence force (in this case the prioritising the Army), questioned the need for an ACF (some parties even suggested using armed helicopters instead as these would also have a dual civil defence utility. Mind you their idea of armed helicopters wouldn't be Apache's or Tiger's, probably civilian types with MG's mounted out of the door). Thinking about Mr Investigator's comments knocking National's coalition woes in the 1990's and how that affected defence spending, I suppose in defence of Labour then for Mr Investigator, the 1999-2002 Labour coalition with the Alliance as their main support party would have been the main reason why the ACF was disbanded. The Alliance Party included alot of your typical anti-establishement, pro-revolutionary, socialist, working class activist types and these guys were as anti-defence, anti-SIS, as you can get (if not more than the Greens, god bless their cotton-picking red souls)! So fractured politics and the prominence of good ol' ("ex")commies throughout the NZ landscape are contributing reasons!

* The current Govt has refocused the NZDF away from the "balanced force" concept towards the Army being the primary niche focus for re-equipping. Navy and Air Force to better support Army deployments eg purchase of tactical sealift ship and upgrades or replacement of C130 and utility helicopter fleets. (Naval and Air Force maritime patrol forces maintained though). This attracted alot of flak from the Opposition at the time however post 9/11 events (terrorism, increase in small-scale regional interventions involving Australia and NZ etc) by shear coincidence occurred (or fluke as these weren't forecast) thus providing the Govt practical justifications for the change in direction. Current Opposition party now acknowledging this change being useful in today's context (although also suggesting a slightly different emphasis on requirements etc, and even the Australian Govt is focusing on expanding the Army because of the emergence of low intensity conflicts that will take many years to resolve etc). Thus you won't necesarily see greater NZ involvement in multi-national defence warfare exercises but more of the NZ Army assisting with the Australian Army in regional troublespots. Granted the NZ Army is still lacking alot of supporting firepower, logistical support and effective reconnaisance. Some of this the current Govt is looking into but hopefully a change of Govt will speed things up and look at other options.

Finally here's Jim Rolfe's "strategic context":

"New Zealand is 2,000 kilometres (1,200 miles) from its nearest neighbour, Australia, and that neighbour is friendly. The distance from threat colours New Zealand's attitude to the need for armed force. The country sees the utility of armed force for its own self-defence in an abstract way (but feels no sense of threat), understands that some international issues require armed force if they're to be resolved satisfactorily, and wants to be a good international citizen. Therefore, it sees practical utility in using armed force at appropriate times to participate in international affairs.

There's a recognition that peace, both in the immediate region and in the wider international arena, is important for New Zealand's own wellbeing. Regional peace is particularly important because the country has a large Polynesian population (around 9%,in 2006) and because there's a potential flow-on effect from regional instability to national security. In 2006, New Zealand sent small military contingents to East Timor, Solomon Islands and Tonga in response to violence in those countries and was prepared to evacuate citizens from Fiji following the December 2006 military coup d' etat. None of the deployments was large but, in conjunction with deployments further afield in Afghanistan, Lebanon, Bosnia and Sudan, they demonstrate that New Zealand is prepared to use its armed forces to secure regional and international stability".

 

[recce.k1]

Anzus

Hi Todjaeger, I'm interested in your thoughts on "the NZ nuclear stance and Nuclear Free Zone" etc. There's many aspects to this issue and it would be good to hear about it from an outside perspective. (I'm sure no-one will mind your political perspectives - after all the ANZUS breakdown was highly political. In fact look no further than most of the NZ related discussions here and there are plenty of political perspectives, they all inter-link).

For anyone else, here's a link to the full ANZUS treaty http://australianpolitics.com/foreign/anzus/anzus-treaty.shtml .
Does anyone have a problem with this treaty? (Investigator, from your perspective, any issues)? Looks pretty harmless to me. Alot of mention of making an effort to resolve things peacefully and using the United Nations etc. US, Australia and NZ to consult if an attack on their own territory or interests in the Pacific occurs (consulting might seem trivial but after NZ and Australia's experiences early WWII of being left out of discussions between the great powers, getting around a table to talk is actually quite important). Hmm, no mention of Australia and NZ being required to fight the US's wars further afield eg in Vietnam or the Middle East etc (Hmm, why did certain politicians and peace groups in the 1980s' tell the public this is what would happen if we didn't get out of ANZUS and ban the US Navy from NZ)?

 

[Investigator]

Comments deleted.

 

[Markus40]

I found an interesting article about the Steyr on a website.

Steyr AUG is one of the most advanced and reliable rifles in the world. Australian Army was the first major nation to adopt AUG as its main infantry rifle. During 184-96 when the initial trials began, many people were sceptical about performance of this "plastic" rifle. The Steyr , which is manufactured locally in Australia under a licence name F-88 is made of polymers which resemble steel in their durability. The testing which was conducted on the AUG actually cost nearly as much as developing the rifle itself! It was the first "tourture-testing" of its kind. During this , the rifles were fired underwater, immersed in mud for days and then fired, put in ovens for days at a time and then fired , a Unimog was driven over one F-88 30 times before anything snapped and even than the rifle was able to fire, metal rods were hammered into the barrel and then the guns were fired. Finally the Steyr AUG was given to the hardest climate on earth - Australian outback - even there the rifles performed flawlessly. This reliability can probably only be matched by the AK or in any case very few weapons.

There has been several myths about Steyrs "melting" during firing - these are largely myths. The only case which I am aware of a Steyr actually melting was in 1995 in Singleton. It occurred during a battalion firing exercise. After the shoot was over , one of the firing range safety officers collected all spare ammunition he could find - 25 magazines in all. He fired them one after the other on full-automatic. Needless to say the gun jammed due to the barrel expanding from all the heat generated and part of the polymer stock melted.

It was than estimated that the rifle heated up to 500 degrees Celsius - conventional rifles would jam long before that. Other than in the extreme case stated above , the F-88 is not prone to "just melt".

Question is if the Steyr is put into automatic firing mode like what was demonstrated, can the polymer melt?? Cheers.

I'm not sure of NZDF's plans with respect to the Steyr rifles, but one thing I AM sure of is that they are not "melting".

The Steyr AUG rifle has been tested constantly over many years of service with a great number of nations (Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Austria and Ireland are merely the "major users" of this rifle that I can think of "off-hand").

I personally operated this weapon (F-88A1, F-88 'S' and F-88C) over a period of 6 years and never once did I experience a significant problem with the weapon.

There was a well known problem with the quality of "blank" ammunition provided to Australian soldiers (due to the low propellent levels I believe) which led to reliability issues (stoppages primarily) however this was NEVER a problem when "front line" live ammunition was fired through the weapon.

The F-88A1 Steyr also has a reputation for "misfires" but the overwhelming majority of these are caused by sloppy weapons handling. It should be illustrating that the number of "UD's" (unlawful discharges) increased exponentially within the Australian Army when the 13 week basic training course (conducted at Kapooka) was "modified" to a short course...

Weapons handling, not the design of the rifle, is the major issue with the Steyr rifle in the Australian Army. The weapon (as originally designed) comprehensively out-performed the M16A2 in trials in Australia in the late 80's...

You don't hear too many issues with the M16A2 though...

 

[Markus40]

AD made a suggestion that i do agree with and that is NZ doesnt have the capability to pull its weight. Hes right. We dont. However i need to add that Labours Military strategy is one where we reduce the capability of our forces so we are able to do the job of a few things really well, instead of a defence force that has a broader capability but lacks the depth of expertise and capability. PLUS keep our forces as a UN Peace Operations force than one that has a decent military capability.

This raises a few questions. Is New Zealands defence forces one that is purely based on a Peace keeping theme, or one that has military capability. Yes, we can argue that NZ is in a benign location in the world but is this good enough justification to drag the chain on military comitments with other partners, such as Australia.? Quite simply the US cant interoperate with us because we just dont have anything other than the ANZACs that is Militarily relevant. Is our forces one that is a reflection of our pacifist government? If the government can scream and holler over Air NZ taking our allies to Iraq, i mean who do we identify ourselves with? I mean the USAF can pick up our SAS and gear and transport them to Afganistan to fight a foreign war, so whats going on?

Keeping in mind that Project Protector is not a per say "Front Line Military purchase" but is in actual fact an "extension" of the RNZN "protecting " NZ from rogue trawlers and illegal customs activities. It has no Military significance and has nothing to do with the true meaning of a Military ability in its current form. Thats what worries me. If we add proper search radar on our OPVs and proper self defence weapons as well, and adding the same to the MRV, along with a third frigate, then i would have to cough up my comments.

If a UN peace keeping mission got ugly not only would we not be able to defend ourselves but we would not be able to defend the populace that we were trying to defend due to the UN mandate that has no active involvement in becoming part of a war. We could only watch and duck for cover. Cheers.

A lot of good, well thought out posts above.

A few selected comments:

Aussie Digger: I've posted before that i'm personally in favour of paying extra taxes to fund a third Frigate (second hand ANZAC or another vessel). That would increase our contribution to keeping our sea lanes open and supporting operations many thousands of kms from our shores.

You mentioned you would like NZ to "possess the capability to support it's own forces in such a situation (peacekeeping mission turning ugly) and not rely on others to bail it out". I note that in the support Australia is giving Afganistan (which I praise your country for doing - well done) you have not supplied any attack helicopters or fighter planes or artillery pieces. If the mission turned ugly you would rightfully expect your coallition partners to bail you out. I'm not criticising Australia, i'm stating that if Australia doesn't do what you expect NZ to do, then why should we do it? (see operation slipper on the Aust defence website) Having these assets at home do not help your forces in any immediate (or several hours later) firefight.

I thought you had previously posted that NZ does not face any likelyhood of invasion. Therefore an air combat force is not a priority for NZ. Any contributions in that area would be charity. No one should be forced to pay charity. Did I dream that?

You refer to East Timor. If it had exploded in flames and Indonesia had re-invaded it would not have made one iota of difference to our country (subject to any deaths of NZ military personnel). We are helping a country several thousand kms from our shores because we are nice people, not because it increases or reduces our security (it may reduce Australia's security if you are afraid of your neighbour - starts with I and ends with ndonesia (I stole that)). I support the mission and the funds expended on it but it is charity for us. It is not our neighbour.

Todjaeger: You have said that if NZ was threatened there would be some US involvement (implication being to support us). From the rhetoric of the time I know the US did not envisaged that - let's not make it up. They wouldn't even train with the NZ military (they still require some sort of presidential decree to allow NZ to be part of any training with US forces as part of the mix) or formally meet the NZ Prime Minister (to keep in thread that included the National Prime Minister) for several years. The fact there was no need for the US to support us shows that NZ has lived in a benign strategic environment over the last 20 years. Don't claim you would have helped without any evidence that says you would have! Easy to say, impossible to prove.

Barra: You are right. NZ doesn't really have anything extra to provide. I should have said that the rest of the partners do not lose anything by NZ offering support to protect Singapore and to separately protect Malaysia. If you have X% and some one offers you anything additional - you benefit.

 

[Markus40]

You are not the only one confused. I dont believe for a minute that NZ cant maintain a well supported and well armed defence force that covers the 3 armed services, and one that contributes well to other friendly forces in our region such as Australia. It doesnt have to be big, but it certainly needs to be well armed and capable. We may not be even able to carry out our own operations in our region, but if we can carry out our missions alongside our allies with proper hardware and weapons without having to "dig into the barrell of our friends to survive" would show the world that we have the ability to take care of ourselves and our allies. Having our own Military communications satelite would have gone along way. Cheers.

Give me one example of "something extra" that New Zealand provides any of the other four powers. New Zealands contribution in the region is at the point of becoming irrelevant and that is a great shame. I was at a briefing last year for an upcoming IADS exercise, the speaker was detailing a list of the players and what they were contributing, when he got to NZ the comment was " ...and NZ is sending a boy scout with a pocket knife". Everyone had a good old laugh but the point is serious. I have asked the question before on these kiwi threads and been ignored, is NZ's lack of defence spending due to lack of political will or is the NZ economy unable to support the purchase of weapons to properly arm the three services to a meaningfull level?

Hooroo

 

[Investigator]

Comments deleted.

 

[Investigator]

Comments deleted.