Unless we find bucket loads of oil in the Southern Basin and become rich like Norway we will never be able to afford to pay for a combat force, people just need to be realistic about the situation, we don't need a combat force, the government has moved on, the Airforce has moved on it's a non issue. It's only defence junkies and dreamers who want it back.
NZDF General discussion thread
- Thread starter NZLAV
- Start date
Guy Fawkes
New Member
That gives you around half the combat aircraft of Australia, a country that has about 4-5 times your population.
Not very realistic in light of the fact that the RNZAF retired all of their combat stirke aircraft years ago and show no inclination to buy more.
With the sale of the Skyhawks and the Aermacchis, there is not even hope that some of either aircraft might be reactivated for training purposes and give you a strike capability.
According to the link below--
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/stories/2009/10/08/1245cd660b2b
the US company will be sending representatives to inspect the aircraft, since it was years since the deal was made. So there is still a chance that they will not be bought.
Well there is a group that wants NZ to regain their strike force on bebo. The leader has been writing countless letters to Wayne Mapp and I think that the Aermacchis are coming back soon. The leader said that Wayne was vague in his replys.
bebo.com - Profile from We Want Our Air Force Back <kiwiairforce>
The Leader made his own defence plan like this
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Defence Plan Approx $14bil with DS increase from 1%GDP to 2-2.5%
The New Zealand Defence Force will be able to defend New Zealand from any threat including a foreign nation. Our strategic geographical location provides NZ with a huge military advantage. Only a carrier based fleet would be a threat. Therefore New Zealands combat forces will be focused around defence against a carrier fleet from the north. This may seem a little to far, but China has already said that they have an interest in the Pacific, Asian militaries are growing, and therefore NZ will prepare for anything. Our forces will be primarily equipt for NZ defence and to assist our allies.
Defence in General:
- To protect our nation
- To protect our allies
- To show our power and pride
- To guarentee a safe, secure nation.
A new air force base will be built in Auckland to base combat squadrens, a new navy base will be built in Wellington to base half the fleet and a new army base will be built in the north of NZ.
Equipment Levels/Projects (Please note this is projected for next generation eg. for the government in power in 20 years time) :
Army: (Costs ~$3billion today's currency)
Armour:
38 Main Battle Tanks (Probably British due to the same geography of our two nations)
50 Wheeled Infantry Fighting Vehicles (Similar to current NZLAV)
50 Tracked Infantry Fighting Vehicles ( Probably British, similar to Warrior, due to the price and multi-role)
300 Infantry mobility vehicles ( Humvee similar - Can take a large range of weapons, are cheap and versatile)
Indirect Fire:
24 105mm Guns
6 155mm Guns
6 Self-propelled guns
50 81mm mortars
Fire Support:
60 Medium Range Anti Armour Weapons (Javelin or similar)
~ 300 Light anti-armour weapons
Anti-Air:
24 Short-range (15km) Systems (Crotale or similar)
Other:
Associated support vehicles, etc
Navy: (Cost: ~$4-4.5bil [not including options])
4 Modern Frigates (German design or FREMM - Used for naval blockade and escort)
2 Multi-Role Vessels (Current design, but larger and uparmed.)
2 Fleet Tankers/Replenish
4 Offshore Patrol Vessels (Used for patrol of Ross Sea and Pacific ocean)
8 Inshore patrol vessels (2 to be based in each region for patrol)
12 Naval Helicopters (NH90 due to long range)
If finances are avaliable in 3-5 years, a submarine capability will be established.
Air Force:
Combat : ( ~$6bil [not including options])
36 Modern Western Fighter Aircraft ( F-35 or Eurofighter)
18 Light strike/training jets (BAE Hawk)
6 Armed Attack Helicopters (Tiger ARH)
Maritime Patrol:
6 Maritime strike aircraft (P-8 Poseidon - long range and payload)
Fixed-wing Transport:
8 eavy transportation aircraft (8 A400Ms)
Rotary Transport:
12 Medium sized helicopters (NH90 - Great for heavy lift)
16 light helicopters (A109 - Cheap and versatile)
Light Aircraft:
12 Turbo prop with light strike capability (Brazilian Super Tucano - Perfect for light strike and surveillance. The Brazilians currently use them to patrol the vast Amazon)
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles:
6 remote controlled reconnaissance UAVs (MQ-1 Predator - Armed with AGM-114 Hellfire missiles and in use since 1995, has seen combat over Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bosnia, Serbia, Iraq, and Yemen.)
Basically, the army is using the same type of equipment, but more of it, with some teeth added like tanks, 155mm's, etc. The Navy is operating the same vessel types, just more in order to be able to provide a naval blockade.
Now the air force is the force that will be the biggest change. To re-establish the combat capability, an order of the light/training jets will be placed and negotiations with Britian will take place. While this is happening, a base will be constructed in Auckland. A British commander will be recruited to be the Chief of air force and will be the base commander at Auckland, as currently no one in New Zealand is capable of this. Negotitions for training by British"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So his defence plan is a little more than mine, well... the RNZAF could purchase 18 second hand USAF F-16C or RAAF F/A-18A. I think this sounds more sensible right?
You have been persistent with this post as it is on a number of NZ threads. So you must be champing at the bit for a critique.
Fighters: We really don’t need them, not a single one. You are asking for 20 to 30 of them. You have not stated what these “fighters” are for. I suppose what you really mean is an aircraft for the traditional RNZAF strike roles as Anti-ship, CAS and Interdiction. Then again I would say what you really would need and were very keen to do this (And no doubt you are) is the F/A-18E and no more than 16-18, which is enough for a deployable Squadron and a conversion flight. It would also slot into a RAAF deployment. On the other hand you have to be realistic about the cost. Thirty F-16E’s at USD80m a pop would cost US$2.4Billion or well over NZ$3 Billion. My view is that the RNZAF only needs enough ‘strike’ capability at present to sustain wider NZDF joint training. There are ways that we could do this cheaper. For instance there are rumours that a training Sqd of RSAF T/A-50’s could one day be based at Ohakea which could invite an offset deal to work up frigates and infantry. Just a rumour but nonetheless an interesting option.
Maritime Patrol: The P-3 does not make sense. Aren’t you mean to be planning for the future? Why on earth would you put the P-3 down on this list of yours when it will be gone by the end of next decade. I suggest you revise that and put down the P-8A. The Govt has signalled its ‘interest’ in UAV’s for some of this capability. A mix of a maritime UAV and P-8A would make
more sense if you are planning for the future.
AWACS: Again no. We have huge distances between us and anybody. It is extremely remote that a any non US Carrier group would get anywhere close to NZ undetected to put one into practice.
Cargo Transport: I would like to know why you want 10 A400’s or C130J’s. The A400’s proposed asking price is creeping up to near on 140m Euro’s. With the Kiwi strengthening to the USD the C130J is becoming more affordable.
Ground Radar: I would like to know specifically when would, the NZDF require this. I don’t see a need for the Giraffe.
UAV’s: Reaper is good. I can buy that. Probably has more utility for the NZDF than these “fighters” you are after. Personally, I am more interested in the Predator C Avenger programme as it seems GA are looking to give it both a CAS/Interdiction role and maritime surveillance capability. Which may make it a very useful, and cost effective platform for the NZDF.
One thing I did notice is that you are obviously very keen on Saab products. I checked out your website. $12 Billion invested in Defence over 5 years is just not politically achievable. An extra $5-6 Billion above LTDP funding over 10-15 years is more realistic.
I take it that the school holidays are on at present.:roll2
I think it can be taken as a given N.Z. is not going to spend mega bucks on defence equipment.
What you have now and what is in the immediate pipeline is what you will have to fight with.
I would be very, very surprised if N.Z. ever once again fields a squadron of fighter /strike aircraft.
There is one major asset N.Z. has for its own defence, one that any invading country with designs to take over N.Z. would find impossible to counter.
N.Z. has a possible ( 100,000 ? ) well armed deer hunters. All these hunters are skilled with firearms,they all have good bush survival skills, and are very loyal kiwi citizens, they also know the country they hunt in.
We all know that N.Z. will never be invaded in our life times, but if anyone is stupid enough to try a combination of cranky deer hunters, kea parrots, trained attack sheep and the All Black rugby supporters will make short shift with any invader stupid enough to try.:lol3
What you have now and what is in the immediate pipeline is what you will have to fight with.
I would be very, very surprised if N.Z. ever once again fields a squadron of fighter /strike aircraft.
There is one major asset N.Z. has for its own defence, one that any invading country with designs to take over N.Z. would find impossible to counter.
N.Z. has a possible ( 100,000 ? ) well armed deer hunters. All these hunters are skilled with firearms,they all have good bush survival skills, and are very loyal kiwi citizens, they also know the country they hunt in.
We all know that N.Z. will never be invaded in our life times, but if anyone is stupid enough to try a combination of cranky deer hunters, kea parrots, trained attack sheep and the All Black rugby supporters will make short shift with any invader stupid enough to try.:lol3
I would be surprised if the new White Paper addressed NZ $ 2 billion in new acquisitions over the next ten years. Considering new C-130s run close to NZ $150 million each, with P-8 Poseidons running higher, New Zealand will be lucky to replace what they have now on a one to one basis. I would figure one and a half billion will go to Hercules and Orions replacements. Which leaves about NZ$ 500 million for other new equipment for the army and navy. The navy is looking at replacing their replenishment oiler, hydrographic ship, and diving tender. If the navy plays their cards right they might get all three for less than NZ$ 200 million.
There is no money for larger buys.... One wonders whether New Zealand can afford to replace the equipment they have. Of course they do, but not to go on a large spending spree....
While i would like to see New Zealand double the size of its defence forces, to do that they will need to spend twice as much as they do for defence. As it is, New Zealand should spend enough to sustain what they have.... Or find cheaper solutions with smaller aircraft in a mix of high-low planes.
There is no money for larger buys.... One wonders whether New Zealand can afford to replace the equipment they have. Of course they do, but not to go on a large spending spree....
While i would like to see New Zealand double the size of its defence forces, to do that they will need to spend twice as much as they do for defence. As it is, New Zealand should spend enough to sustain what they have.... Or find cheaper solutions with smaller aircraft in a mix of high-low planes.
Last edited:
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I'd be suprised too if it were a measely NZ $2 billion (over the next 10 years).
Trouble is the RNZAF will reach obsolecence point for some of it's most critical deployable aircraft within that 10 years (C130H/P3K). Good progress has been made in other critical areas (helos) so that's mostly taken care of. So major expenditure is still required. Fortunately these times when high expenditure is required (i.e. in proportion to the rest of the defence budget) occurs every 30-40 years, so in theory this is just another point in time where the bullet has to be bitten, in amongst a couple of decades of minimal capital expenditure for the air force (especially without the budgetary pressures of having to maintain a maritime/interdiction attack force etc).
Coupled with advances in UAV technologies and other cheaper medium range muti-task types (cargo/survellience/training), as well as the above bread and butter requirements, the RNZAF does justify its case to be allocated a major slice of the next defence 10 year LTDP (2010-2020) to get some decent assets to support Govt foreign policy (and from 2020-2030) that would be the Navy's time). (As an aside, publically, these 10 year LTDP's should have an accompanying projected 30-40 year LTDP for major air and sea assets etc).
The previous administration's and defence's 10 year LTDP was largely on the right track (as per the govt's decree) except to be realistic for NZ's actual needs the then NZ $3 billion figure should have been at least 50% higher (eg $4.0-4.5b) and that would have seen the additional money needed for Project Protector to have been done properly and the air force to have its C130H's replaced with C130J's (ironically C130J's appear to be back on the agenda after being mooted quite seriously some 10 years ago - from what I've also heard although from a lower level etc) and some other ods and sods.
So assuming finance and/or off-set opportunities exist, for the next 10 years I'd be seeing whether some NZ $3+ b would be realistic for a smaller pool of 4x C130J/3x P8 plus buy into UAV programme and possibly lease a C17 or two, and have a few more transport helos and a few medium range multi-task aircraft etc. That would ensure NZ has the minimal reliable means to meet (ever increasing) Govt taskings. (I'm not figuring in Naval helos though as "we" as in the public, have no idea what the Govt options are for the Seasprite mid-life upgrade time etc). The Navy and Army needs (unless the Govt were to expand the Army?) could most probaly be met by that figure of approx $500M or abit more over the next 10 years etc (as suggested there, SeaToby).
If I were as astute Govt, seeing that US-NZ intelligence sharing is to be mended, it would make sense then in this era of ISR etc, that NZ joins into some sort of US-Aust PACIFIC survellience system, monitoring surface (and undersea) objects, to support a wide range of Govt requirements from the military/intelligence aspect down to the "whole of Govt" EEZ/ customs/ crime/ terrorism/ piracy/ refugee/ boat asylum/ natural disaster type aspects etc. So presumably, the current and future NZDF assets plug-in as they do now (alongside the traditional ground based monitoring systems the US and NZ run in NZ etc).
For some elements of NZ society they'd be choking on their tofus but that's missing the point - NZ cannot keep an effective eye on the regional EEZ's and rescue zones (what's the figure 4% or something etc) so it makes sense economically and practically to join in with others who do have the means. Military/intelligence gathering is simply the price we pay. Except we're already doing that. So what's the issue?
So could a NZ Govt (and Australian Govt) be astute enough to work in some sort of deal with the US for this greater cooperation? Such as a foreign/defense aid programme? For the US does this with other countries including Israel (this report states presumably US $ 30 billion over 10 years), woah!
For the US "down under" it could be maybe US couple or few billion or so. For NZ (and Australia) buys the survellience asset (eg it may be some P8's and/ or UAV's and of course other assets eg Frigates/OPV's etc) but the US pays for the technology (electronics, survellience technologies etc), as technology costs can be the real killer cost wise etc.
To me there would be other compelling reasons. Practically speaking the US has the money to ensure its assets (eg P-3 currently etc) are regularly upgraded with state of the art technologies (and weapons etc). For Australia these upgrades don't happen quite as often but for NZ its alot worse (eg NZ P3's still have some 1960's ASW technologies). So the three nations will never have exactly the same technology thus abilities etc. Operationally this must be a nightmare. Especially for the US, it's just as easier for the US to say "no thanks, we'll do the task ourselves" (and not both with the kiwis, perhaps possibly in some areas maybe even the aussies - this is just a loose example etc), but in all this doesn't bode well for joint operating effectiveness nor is it possible for the US to have assets, personnel and support on hand to operate everywhere that Australia and NZ does in its surrounds.
Geo-politically the cost to provide NZ-AUS with regular upgrades on some types of systems etc, would probably be outweighed by the fact that Uncle Sam, with help from Aus and NZ assets operating normally in their natural Pacific environment (along with the usual passing US, UK, French asset etc) are effectively providing a multi-faceted security blanket for the region and ultimately are keeping "other" emerging powers "out" of a wide area in terms of the ability to monitor what's happening for military and civilian purposes etc. (And before some types of people in NZ cough out more tofu or rant at their saved snails) by ensuring the wider region here is monitored, thus ensuring no possible arms are trafficked in or invited in by a regional Island govt etc, is a win-win as "we're" all keeping the peace, so to speak.
For a peaceful region, without undue external destabalising influences, is a prosperous region.
That's what the "people" want, right?
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Army considers swapping some of its LAV fleet
BUT .... Is this actually realistic, is the Army off again on some sort of crazy tangent again (like it did with its unexplained requirement for 105 LAV's in the first place)? Now it seems the NZLAVIII is not directly compatible (chassis wise) with the Canadian LAVIII (as kinda touted publically when the NZLAVIII's were bought?). The article states the NZLAVIII's are more in common with the US Stryker, that's interesting, as in why would the US Army be interested in buying a number of turreted NZLAVIII's when they don't operate such a type? Although the Canadians have the same turret I believe, is the chassis important if they wanted a few more (to supplement the types deployed to Afghanistan)?
Don't get me wrong, if the NZ Army can get some variants such as command and control, ambulance, engineering and additional troop, then in theory that sounds good.
Although I'm concerned in that a better option would be a dozen or so tracked vehicles so NZ could deploy anywhere where there are terrain variations etc. Talking of deploying if NZLAVIII variants are obtained, they'd better be used/deployed (unlike thus far LAVIII wise), so whilst the HMNZS Canterbury can ship them, it stands to reason that there will be some occassions where rapid air deployment would be needed. C17's as well then anyone? Otherwise they'll be another potential white elephant.
I wonder if this is a Govt/Treasury initiative or the Army sensing an opportunity to acquire a better capability with (sensibly) less budgetary outlay etc?
[Also just for fun ... no offence intended to the DefMin! But he has recently stated that NZDF should not have assets that don't get used eg Air Combat Force.
So with a small change to his quote above:
This is all very interesting and exciting. Personally I'm not sure about whether it's worth the effort to sell surplus LAVIII's (why not give the surplus LAV's to the Territorials - that would boost recruiting! After all the Govt is relying a lot on the Territorials now to deploy overseas) however the idea to "swap" or somehow obtain other useful LAVIII variants would be better move, and give the Army better support capabilities for NZDF deployments etc.
BUT .... Is this actually realistic, is the Army off again on some sort of crazy tangent again (like it did with its unexplained requirement for 105 LAV's in the first place)? Now it seems the NZLAVIII is not directly compatible (chassis wise) with the Canadian LAVIII (as kinda touted publically when the NZLAVIII's were bought?). The article states the NZLAVIII's are more in common with the US Stryker, that's interesting, as in why would the US Army be interested in buying a number of turreted NZLAVIII's when they don't operate such a type? Although the Canadians have the same turret I believe, is the chassis important if they wanted a few more (to supplement the types deployed to Afghanistan)?
Don't get me wrong, if the NZ Army can get some variants such as command and control, ambulance, engineering and additional troop, then in theory that sounds good.
Although I'm concerned in that a better option would be a dozen or so tracked vehicles so NZ could deploy anywhere where there are terrain variations etc. Talking of deploying if NZLAVIII variants are obtained, they'd better be used/deployed (unlike thus far LAVIII wise), so whilst the HMNZS Canterbury can ship them, it stands to reason that there will be some occassions where rapid air deployment would be needed. C17's as well then anyone? Otherwise they'll be another potential white elephant.
I wonder if this is a Govt/Treasury initiative or the Army sensing an opportunity to acquire a better capability with (sensibly) less budgetary outlay etc?
[Also just for fun ... no offence intended to the DefMin! But he has recently stated that NZDF should not have assets that don't get used eg Air Combat Force.
So with a small change to his quote above:
It could easily read:
Last edited:
Sounds like a great trade to me. While the Kiwis ordered the 25-mm. Bushmaster turret version of what the Americans call the Strykers, the Americans have waited to buy these versions to buy the others first. Now that the USA is interested in buying Stryker turret versions, there is a small window opening to trade the Kiwis turret versions for the other versions. A trade of up to thirty would seem appropriate. New Zealand Army wins, the US Army wins, everyone wins. Doing this suggested trade would round out the fleet of LAVs with usable equipment.
Keep in mind the other Stryker versions are of less weight, and can fit into a Hercules easier. In an event, the Hercs could bring the first Strykers while the Canterbury will bring the NZ LAVs.
This isn't far fetched. In my opinion it's a reasonable option. I'm for trading?
Keep in mind the other Stryker versions are of less weight, and can fit into a Hercules easier. In an event, the Hercs could bring the first Strykers while the Canterbury will bring the NZ LAVs.
This isn't far fetched. In my opinion it's a reasonable option. I'm for trading?
Plan Rethink and an example of another person's plan for the RNZAF
Ok... P-8s are not needed because NZ doesnt have submarine threats. Why P-3s? NZ doesnt need state of the art planes but they should still use P-3s BUT with latest generation avionics, computer technology and improved engines. Future P-3s should also be armed.
I've been told to be more realistic as we are talking about NEW ZEALAND.
"Of course, if New Zealand isn't in any threat or danger and fighters are prabably freaking expensive. I was told that Second hand F-16s from America would do. Just buy 18 of them."
A friend of mine
I was also told that the JF-17 was a good idea but I don't know if that'll be good or otherwise awkward. Imagine John Key buying JF-17s while the West watches awkwardly...hahahaha. Well brightside is that the JF-17 is about ...15 million dollars each or something...
I could only recommend single engine fighters as double engine fighters would be a little too much for NZ to handle or maintain.
I don't mind about what UAVs, NZ would buy.
Website? you mean this--->>>> bebo.com - Profile from We Want Our Air Force Back <kiwiairforce>
Well, this website is not mine. It's a group that wants the RNZAF to bring back it's air combat force. The leader of the group has been writing countless letters to Wayne Mapp and told people that Mapp's replies were very vague. The leader had a plan even bigger than mine.
Here
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defence Plan Approx $14bil with DS increase from 1%GDP to 2-2.5% 427 days ago
The New Zealand Defence Force will be able to defend New Zealand from any threat including a foreign nation. Our strategic geographical location provides NZ with a huge military advantage. Only a carrier based fleet would be a threat. Therefore New Zealands combat forces will be focused around defence against a carrier fleet from the north. This may seem a little to far, but China has already said that they have an interest in the Pacific, Asian militaries are growing, and therefore NZ will prepare for anything. Our forces will be primarily equipt for NZ defence and to assist our allies.
Defence in General:
- To protect our nation
- To protect our allies
- To show our power and pride
- To guarentee a safe, secure nation.
A new air force base will be built in Auckland to base combat squadrens, a new navy base will be built in Wellington to base half the fleet and a new army base will be built in the north of NZ.
Equipment Levels/Projects (Please note this is projected for next generation eg. for the government in power in 20 years time) :
Army: (Costs ~$3billion today's currency)
Armour:
38 Main Battle Tanks (Probably British due to the same geography of our two nations)
50 Wheeled Infantry Fighting Vehicles (Similar to current NZLAV)
50 Tracked Infantry Fighting Vehicles ( Probably British, similar to Warrior, due to the price and multi-role)
300 Infantry mobility vehicles ( Humvee similar - Can take a large range of weapons, are cheap and versatile)
Indirect Fire:
24 105mm Guns
6 155mm Guns
6 Self-propelled guns
50 81mm mortars
Fire Support:
60 Medium Range Anti Armour Weapons (Javelin or similar)
~ 300 Light anti-armour weapons
Anti-Air:
24 Short-range (15km) Systems (Crotale or similar)
Other:
Associated support vehicles, etc
Navy: (Cost: ~$4-4.5bil [not including options])
4 Modern Frigates (German design or FREMM - Used for naval blockade and escort)
2 Multi-Role Vessels (Current design, but larger and uparmed.)
2 Fleet Tankers/Replenish
4 Offshore Patrol Vessels (Used for patrol of Ross Sea and Pacific ocean)
8 Inshore patrol vessels (2 to be based in each region for patrol)
12 Naval Helicopters (NH90 due to long range)
If finances are avaliable in 3-5 years, a submarine capability will be established.
Air Force:
Combat : ( ~$6bil [not including options])
36 Modern Western Fighter Aircraft ( F-35 or Eurofighter)
18 Light strike/training jets (BAE Hawk)
6 Armed Attack Helicopters (Tiger ARH)
Maritime Patrol:
6 Maritime strike aircraft (P-8 Poseidon - long range and payload)
Fixed-wing Transport:
8 eavy transportation aircraft (8 A400Ms)
Rotary Transport:
12 Medium sized helicopters (NH90 - Great for heavy lift)
16 light helicopters (A109 - Cheap and versatile)
Light Aircraft:
12 Turbo prop with light strike capability (Brazilian Super Tucano - Perfect for light strike and surveillance. The Brazilians currently use them to patrol the vast Amazon)
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles:
6 remote controlled reconnaissance UAVs (MQ-1 Predator - Armed with AGM-114 Hellfire missiles and in use since 1995, has seen combat over Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bosnia, Serbia, Iraq, and Yemen.)
Basically, the army is using the same type of equipment, but more of it, with some teeth added like tanks, 155mm's, etc. The Navy is operating the same vessel types, just more in order to be able to provide a naval blockade.
Now the air force is the force that will be the biggest change. To re-establish the combat capability, an order of the light/training jets will be placed and negotiations with Britian will take place. While this is happening, a base will be constructed in Auckland. A British commander will be recruited to be the Chief of air force and will be the base commander at Auckland, as currently no one in New Zealand is capable of this. Negotitions for training by British pilots will be undertaken, and 36 new pilots will be sent Britian with their new commander to train. Once trained, they will come back and the 36 fighters will be purchased.
By spending ~$13 billion over 3-5 years, we will be a very powerful force, and due to our location, will successfully be able to defend our nation, and have pride in our armed forces, letting them be the representatives of our nation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was thinking that their plan was alittle too big for the NZDF to handle.
Ok... P-8s are not needed because NZ doesnt have submarine threats. Why P-3s? NZ doesnt need state of the art planes but they should still use P-3s BUT with latest generation avionics, computer technology and improved engines. Future P-3s should also be armed.
I've been told to be more realistic as we are talking about NEW ZEALAND.
"Of course, if New Zealand isn't in any threat or danger and fighters are prabably freaking expensive. I was told that Second hand F-16s from America would do. Just buy 18 of them."
A friend of mine
I was also told that the JF-17 was a good idea but I don't know if that'll be good or otherwise awkward. Imagine John Key buying JF-17s while the West watches awkwardly...hahahaha. Well brightside is that the JF-17 is about ...15 million dollars each or something...
I could only recommend single engine fighters as double engine fighters would be a little too much for NZ to handle or maintain.
I don't mind about what UAVs, NZ would buy.
Website? you mean this--->>>> bebo.com - Profile from We Want Our Air Force Back <kiwiairforce>
Well, this website is not mine. It's a group that wants the RNZAF to bring back it's air combat force. The leader of the group has been writing countless letters to Wayne Mapp and told people that Mapp's replies were very vague. The leader had a plan even bigger than mine.
Here
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defence Plan Approx $14bil with DS increase from 1%GDP to 2-2.5% 427 days ago
The New Zealand Defence Force will be able to defend New Zealand from any threat including a foreign nation. Our strategic geographical location provides NZ with a huge military advantage. Only a carrier based fleet would be a threat. Therefore New Zealands combat forces will be focused around defence against a carrier fleet from the north. This may seem a little to far, but China has already said that they have an interest in the Pacific, Asian militaries are growing, and therefore NZ will prepare for anything. Our forces will be primarily equipt for NZ defence and to assist our allies.
Defence in General:
- To protect our nation
- To protect our allies
- To show our power and pride
- To guarentee a safe, secure nation.
A new air force base will be built in Auckland to base combat squadrens, a new navy base will be built in Wellington to base half the fleet and a new army base will be built in the north of NZ.
Equipment Levels/Projects (Please note this is projected for next generation eg. for the government in power in 20 years time) :
Army: (Costs ~$3billion today's currency)
Armour:
38 Main Battle Tanks (Probably British due to the same geography of our two nations)
50 Wheeled Infantry Fighting Vehicles (Similar to current NZLAV)
50 Tracked Infantry Fighting Vehicles ( Probably British, similar to Warrior, due to the price and multi-role)
300 Infantry mobility vehicles ( Humvee similar - Can take a large range of weapons, are cheap and versatile)
Indirect Fire:
24 105mm Guns
6 155mm Guns
6 Self-propelled guns
50 81mm mortars
Fire Support:
60 Medium Range Anti Armour Weapons (Javelin or similar)
~ 300 Light anti-armour weapons
Anti-Air:
24 Short-range (15km) Systems (Crotale or similar)
Other:
Associated support vehicles, etc
Navy: (Cost: ~$4-4.5bil [not including options])
4 Modern Frigates (German design or FREMM - Used for naval blockade and escort)
2 Multi-Role Vessels (Current design, but larger and uparmed.)
2 Fleet Tankers/Replenish
4 Offshore Patrol Vessels (Used for patrol of Ross Sea and Pacific ocean)
8 Inshore patrol vessels (2 to be based in each region for patrol)
12 Naval Helicopters (NH90 due to long range)
If finances are avaliable in 3-5 years, a submarine capability will be established.
Air Force:
Combat : ( ~$6bil [not including options])
36 Modern Western Fighter Aircraft ( F-35 or Eurofighter)
18 Light strike/training jets (BAE Hawk)
6 Armed Attack Helicopters (Tiger ARH)
Maritime Patrol:
6 Maritime strike aircraft (P-8 Poseidon - long range and payload)
Fixed-wing Transport:
8 eavy transportation aircraft (8 A400Ms)
Rotary Transport:
12 Medium sized helicopters (NH90 - Great for heavy lift)
16 light helicopters (A109 - Cheap and versatile)
Light Aircraft:
12 Turbo prop with light strike capability (Brazilian Super Tucano - Perfect for light strike and surveillance. The Brazilians currently use them to patrol the vast Amazon)
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles:
6 remote controlled reconnaissance UAVs (MQ-1 Predator - Armed with AGM-114 Hellfire missiles and in use since 1995, has seen combat over Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bosnia, Serbia, Iraq, and Yemen.)
Basically, the army is using the same type of equipment, but more of it, with some teeth added like tanks, 155mm's, etc. The Navy is operating the same vessel types, just more in order to be able to provide a naval blockade.
Now the air force is the force that will be the biggest change. To re-establish the combat capability, an order of the light/training jets will be placed and negotiations with Britian will take place. While this is happening, a base will be constructed in Auckland. A British commander will be recruited to be the Chief of air force and will be the base commander at Auckland, as currently no one in New Zealand is capable of this. Negotitions for training by British pilots will be undertaken, and 36 new pilots will be sent Britian with their new commander to train. Once trained, they will come back and the 36 fighters will be purchased.
By spending ~$13 billion over 3-5 years, we will be a very powerful force, and due to our location, will successfully be able to defend our nation, and have pride in our armed forces, letting them be the representatives of our nation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was thinking that their plan was alittle too big for the NZDF to handle.
Sorry but the above post is very confusing. What exactly are you proposing here?
You have a link to some nameless group on Bebo. You also say that they (this group) write to Dr Mapp on countless occasions and that he is vague in reply. Not surprising he is being vague after all he has to be seen to be diplomatic.
Could you edit all the garbage (and that’s me being diplomatic) that relates to the Bebo link shopping list and half-baked ideas and put across your own opinions. There is so much wrong with their ‘idea’s’ that I frankly don’t know where to start.
Ranger Coy & then the POE Coys of both RF Battalions were disbanded for one reason only budget cuts from 94 - 99 it was the same reason all live firing for the two RF Bn was halted the only unit still live firing at this time was 1NZSAS, It is a capability that is still waiting for the minister to approve but with the recession & now a Def review who knows what will eventuate from it, personally I would drop everything to get back into that role
The Ranger Company went first in January 1990 and was only ever at two-thirds of establishment. Then the POV got the axe. Your right Cadre Dave it needs to get done pronto.
fixdeluxe1
Banned Member
My opinion
Fixdeluxe1's VIew's:
In terms of foreign deployment,I suggest NZ could not support the naval capacity the user who started this thread orginally suggested.The Air Power from the RNZAF could be correct,and NZDF may purchase some strike aircraft in the future.The Land forces units could be correct as in SF and Conventional Units.
This would be my opinion:
1xFrigate
Some patrol Craft/Light combat boats
2xC130 Hercules
1500-1800 NZDF Infantry
80-100 SAS
Attilery Battalion
Support weponry and a rotating shift of troops for the occupation.
Fixdeluxe1's VIew's:
In terms of foreign deployment,I suggest NZ could not support the naval capacity the user who started this thread orginally suggested.The Air Power from the RNZAF could be correct,and NZDF may purchase some strike aircraft in the future.The Land forces units could be correct as in SF and Conventional Units.
This would be my opinion:
1xFrigate
Some patrol Craft/Light combat boats
2xC130 Hercules
1500-1800 NZDF Infantry
80-100 SAS
Attilery Battalion
Support weponry and a rotating shift of troops for the occupation.
fixdeluxe1
Banned Member
Fixdeluxe1's Opinion:
In my opinion the NZDF has very poor foreign deployment capabilities,let alone domestic defence.They only have barely a company contingment in Afghanistan let alone another warzone.The best New Zealand could contribute to the war effort would be it's SAS and some transports.
This is what I think that deployment would look like(an Iraq like scenario with a conventional invasion followed by a horrible capitalist,hieracrial coallition occupation force who think that CEO's of privately owned oil companies come before arab civillians and relegious beleifs).
1500-1800 Infantry (with Steyr AUG's,SAW's,Javelins,Carl Gustav's,humanatarian aid etc)
80-120 SAS Troopers(With round the clock transport,choice of weapons and actual combat missions)
An attilery battery(20-30 Peices and an Anti-Air unit with outdated low-level french AA Missiles)
2xP-3K Orions(For transporting the men and UN Aid)
45-50 NZLAVS(1 engineering unit for bridges and bases,others standard combat 25mm)
1xC130 Hercules(For transporting the NZLAV's)
1 Iriqouis Heli
It's essentially the NZSAS who will be the spearhead,and the only army unit that need be present.The aircraft are for transport only(supplies,weapons,vehicles & troops).
The main strategy will be intergrated support of other coalition forces(JTF).NZSAS will fight for and capture an area and the other infantry will secure and hold it.The LAV's will be used as APC's and Recon vehicles but will not see much combat(NZDF has only 105 of them).NZSAS may be used by larger members of the coalition to perform clandestine missions behind enemy lines like sabotage & recon.
The NZ Task Force will be based with the AUSDF.They will provide the much lacked by NZ air support alongside the United States.NZ May have rotations like afghanistan with territorials getting a peice of the action.
NZ Task force will not be financed for more than 6mths-1yr.
That summs it all up,NZDF is a light infantry force with little naval and aerial capabilties.Dosen't suit the small 2 Islands NZ actually geographically is.
Cheers
Fixdeluxe1
In my opinion the NZDF has very poor foreign deployment capabilities,let alone domestic defence.They only have barely a company contingment in Afghanistan let alone another warzone.The best New Zealand could contribute to the war effort would be it's SAS and some transports.
This is what I think that deployment would look like(an Iraq like scenario with a conventional invasion followed by a horrible capitalist,hieracrial coallition occupation force who think that CEO's of privately owned oil companies come before arab civillians and relegious beleifs).
1500-1800 Infantry (with Steyr AUG's,SAW's,Javelins,Carl Gustav's,humanatarian aid etc)
80-120 SAS Troopers(With round the clock transport,choice of weapons and actual combat missions)
An attilery battery(20-30 Peices and an Anti-Air unit with outdated low-level french AA Missiles)
2xP-3K Orions(For transporting the men and UN Aid)
45-50 NZLAVS(1 engineering unit for bridges and bases,others standard combat 25mm)
1xC130 Hercules(For transporting the NZLAV's)
1 Iriqouis Heli
It's essentially the NZSAS who will be the spearhead,and the only army unit that need be present.The aircraft are for transport only(supplies,weapons,vehicles & troops).
The main strategy will be intergrated support of other coalition forces(JTF).NZSAS will fight for and capture an area and the other infantry will secure and hold it.The LAV's will be used as APC's and Recon vehicles but will not see much combat(NZDF has only 105 of them).NZSAS may be used by larger members of the coalition to perform clandestine missions behind enemy lines like sabotage & recon.
The NZ Task Force will be based with the AUSDF.They will provide the much lacked by NZ air support alongside the United States.NZ May have rotations like afghanistan with territorials getting a peice of the action.
NZ Task force will not be financed for more than 6mths-1yr.
That summs it all up,NZDF is a light infantry force with little naval and aerial capabilties.Dosen't suit the small 2 Islands NZ actually geographically is.
Cheers
Fixdeluxe1
NZPRT Patrol damned lucky!
NZDF - New Zealand Provincial Reconstruction team involved in contact in Afghanistan
Armoured Toyota utes - what a joke!?! I guess the Hummer provided the bulk of the returning fire!?! How the hell do you shoot from a Toyota ute without leaving the vehicle or exposing yourself?
NZDF - New Zealand Provincial Reconstruction team involved in contact in Afghanistan
Armoured Toyota utes - what a joke!?! I guess the Hummer provided the bulk of the returning fire!?! How the hell do you shoot from a Toyota ute without leaving the vehicle or exposing yourself?
What about having an unkillible Toyota ute?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lrk6vsb77xk]YouTube - Top Gear - killing a Toyota pt 1 - BBC[/ame]
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Be curious to know who the insurgents were (eg NZ Herald say they were Taliban or were they crime/drug traffickers etc). Perhaps Taliban then seeing RPG's were involved? If so they're stepping up their presence etc. And were they "passing thru" or were they protecting something? Hopefully NZDF with reinforcements searched the area afterwards etc.
Time to send the LAV's over then? Or acquire something else suitable for the environment that offers better protection? Otherwise we're all watching a slow motion train wreck in the making (with these Hilux's etc). Why should it take some deaths before Defence and Govt get their act together?
Also I wonder whether the NZ Army's small UAV's could be deployed yet "to see over the hill" to discretely spot those insuregents when vehicles are on patrol in unfamiliar territory etc?
Perhaps what NZ really also needs are some cheap scout helos, like the Aussie Army's Kiowa's. Or seeing the air combat force is gone, go buy some Tiger ARH's now that the Aussie ones have been mostly sorted out etc. NZDF Tiger's would seem practical in the context to which the Army deploy nowadays (and since the time of the first Timor deployment etc).
Time to send the LAV's over then? Or acquire something else suitable for the environment that offers better protection? Otherwise we're all watching a slow motion train wreck in the making (with these Hilux's etc). Why should it take some deaths before Defence and Govt get their act together?
Also I wonder whether the NZ Army's small UAV's could be deployed yet "to see over the hill" to discretely spot those insuregents when vehicles are on patrol in unfamiliar territory etc?
Perhaps what NZ really also needs are some cheap scout helos, like the Aussie Army's Kiowa's. Or seeing the air combat force is gone, go buy some Tiger ARH's now that the Aussie ones have been mostly sorted out etc. NZDF Tiger's would seem practical in the context to which the Army deploy nowadays (and since the time of the first Timor deployment etc).
So we have Hilux tally wagons for our boys and girls in astan, I would have thought at the very least we would be using some of the armoured Pinzgauers we were supposed to be buying for overseas missions. More to the point have we actually bought the armoured Pinzgauers we were supposed to be buying?
With the new White paper, I would be surprised if New Zealand increased any of its defense assets outside of cyber attack and defense. Current defense assets will be difficult to replace, much less adding any. There will be no new air combat squadrons, or another battalion of troops. There won't be any additional warships or patrol ships. Replacements maybe, but no new additional units. There is no political will and no taxpayer will to spend much more on defense. Period....