A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Yeah, but they still use the F-88 remember... :shudder
NZDF General discussion thread
- Thread starter NZLAV
- Start date
Stuart Mackey
New Member
Oh, there are ways to use it with the bayonet, (learned that one the hard way) not very flashy though, but it was never desgned for it of course. I think that the last service rifle to be any good at that sort of thing was the old SMLE.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I know, I did plenty of bayonet training in my day, I still remember shouting out the old, "in out, en garde, high port, butt strike, slash, parry etc".
I have to agree here, exponential increase on population and finite resources adds to conflicts. How these conflicts play out will dictate defence policies of countries in the ensuing years of this century.
Developed countries with their pace of technology are starting to look at mining the sea beds, this I understand has already been done, and like most developed countries especially those that are trying to catch up to the affluent western countries the seas become potential resources to mining companies that can reap the economic benefits. There really is no place on this earth that wont come under the hammer for companies that can exploit its resources. NZ and its surroundimg oceans are no exception.
A Chinese sea mining operation just outside the NZ EEZ might be able to wreak havoc to ecosystems our fisheries and pollute our seas this is where I see a maritime ACF might be a welcome addition.
I still believe we live in a world of gunship diplomacy, neighboring or regional countries tend to respect the means of effective defence forces at your disposal, not whether your a peace loving country if you take that tact, then we really must mean it, when we sing our national anthem "God defend NZ" because NZders wont do it.
Which came with a nice long bayonet. I remember bayonet drill with it in school cadets. Now I'm showing my age!
Tas
I remember running around with a .303. Any punishment meted out included raising the 303 by the end of its barrel at arms length.
Some things never change.
Infantry still assault enemy position by foot to try and overrun enemy positions.
30-round mag can be used up pretty quick and in some situations you simply cannot stop to reload. So, better to have a rifle that already has bayonet attached.
Also when your whole section or platoon runs out of ammo, would you just surrender? What if they are not taking prisoners?
There's an interesting gadget:
I once came across the website of a company that made "sharpened" muzzles designed stabbing. No kidding, I can't find it now, though. Anyone else seen this?
Infantry still assault enemy position by foot to try and overrun enemy positions.
30-round mag can be used up pretty quick and in some situations you simply cannot stop to reload. So, better to have a rifle that already has bayonet attached.
Also when your whole section or platoon runs out of ammo, would you just surrender? What if they are not taking prisoners?
There's an interesting gadget:
I once came across the website of a company that made "sharpened" muzzles designed stabbing. No kidding, I can't find it now, though. Anyone else seen this?
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Good to know then that you now also support the inclusion of "fighter jets, AEW&C and submarines" assets into the NZDF!
Like you, I also say that "I could not have said it myself it better myself AD. I have nothing to disagree with"!
AD, i think NZDFs and the government here need to look at the "bread and "butter" issues in our forces if you can call it that, before looking at Tomahawks etc. When i say "bread" and "Butter" issues im talking about plugging the gaps that exist in our overall maritme forces such as an extra frigate and looking at upgrading self defence weapons on our OPVs and MRV and allowing a far greater use for them within the pure Navy role. Not just one where they are running round the oceans chasing trawlers and drug running and Customs ticket collecting, but a far better capability that is cohesive with the navys normal role.
Then there is a satelite for NZs own defence communications, which i think is is vital, when we are deploying our own forces abroad on any peacekeeping or deployment programs, rather than using other governments channels for our own defence uses. The extra javelins the army needs and a more advanced and expanded network for our anti aircraft capability. Not to mention up grading our own firepower abilities.
Recruiting is a major here as well, and we need to focus on our Defence force recruiting in the long term. And there is the question of our long range ability to place our army resources in areas further than the C130s can reach along with bigger payloads to sustain deployments along with some extra numbers. I agree that the A400M is the better aircraft for NZs needs for this and the sooner we have it the better off our forces will be in being able to look strategically at our ability to deploy. Plugging the biggest gap of all is in the Air defence and ground attack role, and this simply has to be addressed here. The excuse that NZ is in a benign region and we have no immediate enemies along with this false sense of security just doesnt wash any more, and we need to be able to look after our forces in the field. Period. Our Maritime ability at this point is pathetic and we need elements to carry out tasks that can meet threats in the future, not just patrol boats running round our oceans "blind".
Im also of the opinion that a UAV BAMS capability along with Australia would be a mighty asset to NZs maritime operations. A Harpoon armed P3 would also be some sort of deterent as well to our EZ along with BAMS. If you cant "see" you cant "know".
The option of loading our frigates with Tomahawks is a good long term option, and can be fitted for but not with the weapon but as long as the capability is there then this would be a major deterent and supplement to the Australian Navy. But lets spend our money on things that really count first, and put the money into these options and lets see if there is anything left over in the kitty, and go from there. Politically with this party talking about Tomahawks is like putting a red cloth to a bull. So as much as i think its a good idea, the masterminds in parliament are not going to see this as a politically correct option and dear Helen with her anti smacking bill, is less likely to deploy the big "stick" mentality when it comes to cruise missiles. Cheers.
Then there is a satelite for NZs own defence communications, which i think is is vital, when we are deploying our own forces abroad on any peacekeeping or deployment programs, rather than using other governments channels for our own defence uses. The extra javelins the army needs and a more advanced and expanded network for our anti aircraft capability. Not to mention up grading our own firepower abilities.
Recruiting is a major here as well, and we need to focus on our Defence force recruiting in the long term. And there is the question of our long range ability to place our army resources in areas further than the C130s can reach along with bigger payloads to sustain deployments along with some extra numbers. I agree that the A400M is the better aircraft for NZs needs for this and the sooner we have it the better off our forces will be in being able to look strategically at our ability to deploy. Plugging the biggest gap of all is in the Air defence and ground attack role, and this simply has to be addressed here. The excuse that NZ is in a benign region and we have no immediate enemies along with this false sense of security just doesnt wash any more, and we need to be able to look after our forces in the field. Period. Our Maritime ability at this point is pathetic and we need elements to carry out tasks that can meet threats in the future, not just patrol boats running round our oceans "blind".
Im also of the opinion that a UAV BAMS capability along with Australia would be a mighty asset to NZs maritime operations. A Harpoon armed P3 would also be some sort of deterent as well to our EZ along with BAMS. If you cant "see" you cant "know".
The option of loading our frigates with Tomahawks is a good long term option, and can be fitted for but not with the weapon but as long as the capability is there then this would be a major deterent and supplement to the Australian Navy. But lets spend our money on things that really count first, and put the money into these options and lets see if there is anything left over in the kitty, and go from there. Politically with this party talking about Tomahawks is like putting a red cloth to a bull. So as much as i think its a good idea, the masterminds in parliament are not going to see this as a politically correct option and dear Helen with her anti smacking bill, is less likely to deploy the big "stick" mentality when it comes to cruise missiles. Cheers.
Agreed. Now how about NZ being a regional power eh? I reckon maybe if they got F-16's and Tomahawk cruise missiles for their ANZAC class frigates they'd be a regional power.
What does everyone else reckon....
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
I think you'll find Marcus, that AD was taking the pXss about the Tomahawk! I think you'll even find that Australia will procede with caution down that path due to some of its near neighbours being upset at the mere suggestion a while back and the need to ensure no ensuing hi-tech arms race spirals out of control.
I've just remembered another Clarkism, seeing you mentioned the "benign environment" arguement about the time the ACF was being disestablished. Didn't the govt also muse that other countries would also be diestablishing their ACF's due to the end of the cold war and the lack of need for such high cost technology etc? Hmm, the surge in AC aircraft aquistions of our SE Asian neighbours has shown up that comment for the nonsense it was.
I've just remembered another Clarkism, seeing you mentioned the "benign environment" arguement about the time the ACF was being disestablished. Didn't the govt also muse that other countries would also be diestablishing their ACF's due to the end of the cold war and the lack of need for such high cost technology etc? Hmm, the surge in AC aircraft aquistions of our SE Asian neighbours has shown up that comment for the nonsense it was.
wow fighter jets, AEW&C and submarines are we talking about a fantasy military or are you being serious? I would love to know who is going to pay for all these toys, I certainly wouldn't want to pay more tax to get them. What other country our size has AEW&C's, we are not a wealthy country like people here believe us to be.
Stuart Mackey
New Member
I would be looking at renumeration myself, in fact I would put that at the top of the list.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Only AD and Investigator can say whether they were serious or not. Me? I'll give you an answer soon but I'd like to ask a question first.
If an opportunity arose whereby NZ could buy two new, Anzac type frigates for say, NZ$80M for both, would this be a good idea?
Also what if we wanted to have a four frigate navy again, thus spend instead, NZ$160M for four. Would this be a good idea?
(Incidentally I do agree with you in that NZ is not a wealthy country. We do have to be careful with what "we" spend our money on, be that on defence or other etc).
Last edited:
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
I'd agree with you that renumeration should be at the top of the list. Also, where did I read recently (newspaper? one of those nzdf monthly mags?) that some women were returning into the NZDF after having babies because the conditions have improved (and there are better daycare facilities on base). It seems to me that if we are losing qualified servicewomen from the NZDF once they have a baby, then any moves to support them (and their families) returning can only be good (and it could mean servicemen returning, if they were married to a servicewoman and both left for "family" reasons). Anyway that's just one practical example, renumeration, conditions, "family" support, allowances, educational opportunities (for all levels, not just officers), there's gotta be more - anything to encourage job satisfaction. The other issue, that many have touched upon here, is the high operational tempo that in particular the army and navy are facing. The more I think about it, despite the cost of establishing a third infantry battalion, even though it has been proposed and dismissed on occassions, this really ought to be a priority for either of the main political parties, seeing as they both now support the army first concept. Although the govt is addressing current recruitment and retention issues in the DSI, which is to be applaued, we still don't have enough troops considering the regional instability we are dealing with, and as others point out here, are only going to get worse as new powers emerge and the geo-political landscape changes with it.
Last edited:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I do apologise people, I meant to write, up to, but NOT including fighter jets, AEW&C and submarines"...
My little Tactom comment earlier, was of course, a jest...
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Umm... Singapore... They have all of the above currently or on order. Fighters: F-16, F-5, F-15 (on order?), A-4
AEW: E-2C Hawkeye, Gulfstream G550 (on order)
Submarines: Challenger (ex-Sjoormen), Vastergotland (on order)
Also approximately 60-70 thousand personnel on active duty I believe.
Population wise, Singapore is ~4.5 mil vs. NZ's ~4.2 mil. From an economic standpoint, Singapore's GDP is ~US$137 bil vs. NZ's GDP of ~US$108 bil, and spends about 5% of GDP on defence.
I know AD was jesting about the TacToms, and didn't mean that the above forces should be included in the NZDF, but it does illustrate what a country of similar population size and economic standing can do.
The security situation of Singapore is completely different from that of NZ, thus requiring a much of substantial defence force. Still, the large difference between the two forces does illustrate the very different priorities the two nations have.
-Cheers
Hmm Singapore is an tiny itty bitty country that doesn't have to fund thousands of km's of roads, power supply, infrastructure......over a large area and all other things associoated with a large landmass as opposed to a small city state plus we have a whole bunch of bludgers living off the few hard working people in NZ who have to pay for everything. Oh yeah that extra 30 odd billion in GDP also helps.
What is the going rate for an ANZAC or Meko on the second hand market, if we could get one for 80 million I think it would be a good idea, the next problem is where would we get one from, I can't see Australia selling us one of theirs.
F-15 Eagle
New Member
Does Australia and New Zealand work together on building ANZAC class firgates because thats what I heard? If it is true than I'm sure New Zealand can just build another one so they will have at least 3 firgates.
F-15 Eagle
New Member
In my opinion for New Zealand to become a regional military power I think they should have the following:
RNZAF: Well they may not need any fighter jets I think they should have some sort of attack helicopter in case their troops need to call in air support. They should also double they current invitory of aircraft, such as helicopters, transports and marinetime patrol aircraft.
RNZN: 2 Destroyers, 4 Firgates, and maybe 2 submarines.
RNZA: Buy up to 50 tanks and 80 artilley peaces to add to their 34 105mm Hamel guns.
I know this might be a radical idea to most people but its just an idea. What do you think of this?
RNZAF: Well they may not need any fighter jets I think they should have some sort of attack helicopter in case their troops need to call in air support. They should also double they current invitory of aircraft, such as helicopters, transports and marinetime patrol aircraft.
RNZN: 2 Destroyers, 4 Firgates, and maybe 2 submarines.
RNZA: Buy up to 50 tanks and 80 artilley peaces to add to their 34 105mm Hamel guns.
I know this might be a radical idea to most people but its just an idea. What do you think of this?