NZDF General discussion thread

[MrConservative]

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....

We will have to wait until April then Toby. Only then we will find out the direction planned and generally whats going on. Remember that the White Paper is not the definitive plan. It is the final discussion document and government public relations mechanism before the select committee process produces its report and then on to Cabinet.

 

[MrConservative]

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?

But of course Gibbo we are not there for war - its all about sharing the aroha. We can't send nasty warlike things - our new army doctrine is the Keith Locke Doctrine "It'll be all kapai Akmed - let me give a you hug. Do you want some lentils?"

 

[recce.k1]

KiwiRob: Yes the Armoured Pinzgauers (AP's) were bought a few years ago. Whilst sending LAV's might not be practical (eg I suspect previously there weren't enough LAV trained/qualified support personnel seeing the Army was stretched with peacekeeping whilst at the same time trying to introduce into service the new LAV technology etc. Presumably by now that's mostly been rectified) at the very least one would think the AP's could be sent.

Mind you, a simpler solution may be to lease some more armoured Humvee's off the US. Presumably NZ has the turreted version? (If so Gibbo's concern of non-turreted armoured Hilux's would appear quite valid to me). Or at least add to the rear of the convoy a Humvee with turret, to defend the Hilux's from a rear attack etc.

Having said that, the AP's don't have a turret either so maybe they would make reasonable Hilux replacements but wouldn't replace the turreted Humvee etc.

But at the end of the day if a convoy is attacked on a narrow path/track etc, we're still talking about wheeled vehicles that can't easily turn around (which is what happened). Perhaps then also something tracked would be sensible for these type of threat environments.

But obtaining something tracked would probably take too long to evaluate, procure and upskill on etc. Send over the LAV's then. With their stabalised gun, FLIR, smoke grenades etc, any insurgents would take a real hammering by return fire and have less time to counter attack due to the precision return fire etc.

 

[Todjaeger]

KiwiRob: Yes the Armoured Pinzgauers (AP's) were bought a few years ago. Whilst sending LAV's might not be practical (eg I suspect previously there weren't enough LAV trained/qualified support personnel seeing the Army was stretched with peacekeeping whilst at the same time trying to introduce into service the new LAV technology etc. Presumably by now that's mostly been rectified) at the very least one would think the AP's could be sent.

Mind you, a simpler solution may be to lease some more armoured Humvee's off the US. Presumably NZ has the turreted version? (If so Gibbo's concern of non-turreted armoured Hilux's would appear quite valid to me). Or at least add to the rear of the convoy a Humvee with turret, to defend the Hilux's from a rear attack etc.

Having said that, the AP's don't have a turret either so maybe they would make reasonable Hilux replacements but wouldn't replace the turreted Humvee etc.

But at the end of the day if a convoy is attacked on a narrow path/track etc, we're still talking about wheeled vehicles that can't easily turn around (which is what happened). Perhaps then also something tracked would be sensible for these type of threat environments.

But obtaining something tracked would probably take too long to evaluate, procure and upskill on etc. Send over the LAV's then. With their stabalised gun, FLIR, smoke grenades etc, any insurgents would take a real hammering by return fire and have less time to counter attack due to the precision return fire etc.

Honestly, I am not sure that the NZLAV would be appropriate either. I could be mistaken, but I believe that that ADF use the Bushmaster IMV instead of the ASLAV in Afghanistan. From what I understand, on some of the more remote and less developed roads the ASLAV is not able to travel on. Given that the NZLAV is essentially that same size as an ASLAV, but approximately 6,000 kg heavier, I suspect it would have similar if not greater problems operating on unimproved roads or offroad.

-Cheers

 

[recce.k1]

Well, you're most probably correct there Todjaeger, in that NZ is operating in a largely undeveloped area, thus the assessment has been LAV's wouldn't be entirely suitable to warrant their deployment. But I would suggest some do operate, with certain limitations, if not for the experience gained (otherwise how else can one self improve and inter-operate with other units etc).

Of course the question could be asked (but the answer is obvious) why the LAV was sold to the public as being the best fit for the Army etc. Clearly though, the answer is another type is required, urgently, eg possibly Bushmaster now (but with flexible purchasing to secure a new generation type mid stream etc).

In other news, updates on P3 and C130 upgrades, and OPV no 1 might be delivered for Christmas! Lucky RNZN! Planes and patrol boats running two years late | Stuff.co.nz

 

[MrConservative]

Thanks for directing me to that article in the Dominion Recce.

I find that this is a very interesting line from Dr Mapp regarding Project Protector: “The talks involved tens of millions of dollars.”

So he must be talking about a significant system and design failure if that is the case. We know that Canterbury will cost at least $20 million to fix so she can deliver 85% of her capability. What has not been talked about are the costs to be incurred over the OPV’s issues which are said to be fundamental.

However, the sheer gall of this statement from one of the people truly liable for this sad saga in the first place Labour defence spokesman Pete Hodgson who said the delays were "comprehensively unsatisfactory" and that Parliament's foreign affairs and defence select committee needed to investigate because “holdups were no doubt causing problems for the Defence Force.” I would say that if we investigated the whole defence direction of the NZDF in policy terms over the last decade that itself has been "comprehensively unsatisfactory."

 

[swerve]

Maybe NZ should have bought the Enforcer 8000. Might have been cheaper in the long run.

 

[recce.k1]

Maybe NZ should have bought the Enforcer 8000. Might have been cheaper in the long run.

Alas the previous Govt stipulated that the budget for such a vessel would only be US $100M, which of course ruled out a number of more capable vessels. The six short list contenders were BAE systems (Britain), Blohm and Voss (Germany), DSA (Australia/Netherlands), Singapore Technologies Marine, Tenix Defence (Australia) and Vosper Thornycroft (Britain).

When Tenix (now BAE Australia) won the contract, second place tenderer DSA took out a law suit (but to no avail). Which was a shame that they came second (or lost out) because DSA partnered with Royal Schelde to offer the Rotterdam class Landing Platform Dock (LPD), (which I understand the Enforcer 8000 is the export concept of the Rotterdam)?

So thanks to typical political interference, and for the sake of a few more tens of million dollars, the RNZN lost out on the more capable (in many respects) LPD etc.

Despite that, fast forward to today and the RNZN which has never had a decent sealift vessel before, is pretty much pleased with the Ro/Ro vessel it now has (ah, but what might have been eh)!

IMO the only question remaining is, for a maritime nation with direct obligations to smaller island nations nearly and down south, plus those with Australia etc, is whether relying one one sealift vessel will be sufficient. Personally I would suggest the RNZN have two, whether the second is simply another HMNZS Canterbury ... or something more capable a la the Enforcer 8000 etc.

There is navy talk of a possible JSS type vessel to replace the replenishment tanker HMNZS Endeavour. Presumably that means something that apart from fuel and water would be able to carry some army personel, cargo, vehicles and helos. I presume sealift or ship-to-sea transfer wouldn't be part of that i.e. the vehicles would dissembark at a port. If so my ideal RNZN would then be the two sealift vessels and the Tanker/JSS type. This also follows the current RAN model (two sealift and one strategic lift type vessel) albiet a bit smaller in scale and size, especially to what Australia is now buying (two massive LHD's plus a third strategic lift vessel plus their tankers etc). So for NZ the existing Canterbury would also be the navy's primary training ship as well as sealift, but with a second sealift vessel also available for con-current civil emergencies etc, or to resupply NZDF elements operating in various locations in the region (whilst the other vessel is in dry dock) etc. Granted RNZN and RAN sealift elements work together and compliment each other at times, but I feel NZ has enough areas to look after to warant a second dedicated sealift vessel.

There's some related discussion on the RNZN thread at the moment (Mr.C., any links to that German MHD 10000 you are referring to? Can't seem to find anything etc).

 

[MrConservative]

Alas the previous Govt stipulated that the budget for such a vessel would only be US $100M, which of course ruled out a number of more capable vessels. The six short list contenders were BAE systems (Britain), Blohm and Voss (Germany), DSA (Australia/Netherlands), Singapore Technologies Marine, Tenix Defence (Australia) and Vosper Thornycroft (Britain).

When Tenix (now BAE Australia) won the contract, second place tenderer DSA took out a law suit (but to no avail). Which was a shame that they came second (or lost out) because DSA partnered with Royal Schelde to offer the Rotterdam class Landing Platform Dock (LPD), (which I understand the Enforcer 8000 is the export concept of the Rotterdam)?

So thanks to typical political interference, and for the sake of a few more tens of million dollars, the RNZN lost out on the more capable (in many respects) LPD etc.

Despite that, fast forward to today and the RNZN which has never had a decent sealift vessel before, is pretty much pleased with the Ro/Ro vessel it now has (ah, but what might have been eh)!

IMO the only question remaining is, for a maritime nation with direct obligations to smaller island nations nearly and down south, plus those with Australia etc, is whether relying one one sealift vessel will be sufficient. Personally I would suggest the RNZN have two, whether the second is simply another HMNZS Canterbury ... or something more capable a la the Enforcer 8000 etc.

There is navy talk of a possible JSS type vessel to replace the replenishment tanker HMNZS Endeavour. Presumably that means something that apart from fuel and water would be able to carry some army personel, cargo, vehicles and helos. I presume sealift or ship-to-sea transfer wouldn't be part of that i.e. the vehicles would dissembark at a port. If so my ideal RNZN would then be the two sealift vessels and the Tanker/JSS type. This also follows the current RAN model (two sealift and one strategic lift type vessel) albiet a bit smaller in scale and size, especially to what Australia is now buying (two massive LHD's plus a third strategic lift vessel plus their tankers etc). So for NZ the existing Canterbury would also be the navy's primary training ship as well as sealift, but with a second sealift vessel also available for con-current civil emergencies etc, or to resupply NZDF elements operating in various locations in the region (whilst the other vessel is in dry dock) etc. Granted RNZN and RAN sealift elements work together and compliment each other at times, but I feel NZ has enough areas to look after to warant a second dedicated sealift vessel.

There's some related discussion on the RNZN thread at the moment (Mr.C., any links to that German MHD 10000 you are referring to? Can't seem to find anything etc).

It was on the The Aviation Forum Mr Recce. The link to the info is:

http://www.armada.ch/05-5/complete_05-5.pdf

The MHD 100000 was proposed by HDW for the Portugal MRV project probably 4-5 years ago. That vessel design is no longer on the TKMS website but has sort of grown into the larger MHD-150 and MHD-200 vessels. Still those plans must be laying around someones desk at TKMS.

 

[fixdeluxe1]

If a new government came into power in New Zealand and had the vision of making New Zealand a regional power, what could they to to make this happen?

New Zealand's army is very well trained as in equipt with modern weapon such as:

Armoured Vehicles

105 x NZ Light Armoured Vehicle (NZLAV)
352x Pinzgauer Light Operational Vehicle (LOV)

Missile Systems

12 x Mistral anti-aircraft missile
24 x Javelin Anti-Tank Guided Missile (ATGM) launchers

Support Vehicle

Unimog trucks
Army Tractors
Recovery Vehicles, etc

Fire Support/Artillery

34 x 105 mm L118 Light Gun
50 x 81 mm mortar
42 x 84 mm Carl Gustav recoilless rifle M3
M72 Light Armour Weapon

Weapons

Browning 12.7 mm M2 machine gun
L7A2 FN MAG 58 7.62 mm GPMG
C9 Minimi 5.56 mm Light Machine Gun
M203 grenade launcher
F88 Austeyr 5.56 mm assault rifle
SIG P226 9 mm pistol

The Navy consists of:

Frigates

2 ANZAC class

Support
1 Muli-Role Vessel
1 Replenish ship

Patrol
2 OPV
4 IPV

Other
1 Hydrographic survey
1 Dive support/mine countermeasures

I personally would like to see about 50 tracked IFV in the NZ army. The NZ navy needs to increase the number of frigates to 4 and add another MRV so that they can project power.

The RNZAF is a large topic. We know that the RNZAF does not have a strike wing but one may evolve in the future. It would not be to hard to start a strike wing within the RNZAF. Obviously a new base would have to be constructed specifically for the fighters. Once this is done the best option would be to talk with the UK and USA and organise training for pilots and ground crew. While they are being trained, 20-30 second hand fighters could be purchased for several billion dollars. When the pilots and ground crew are trained they can then set up a training structure.

Merged "What could New Zealand do to become a regional power?" AND "NZDF under change of Govt" threads.
-Preceptor

This is my personal feelings on how the under-armed NZDF should be equiped,in rememberance that they did posses fighters(A-4 Skyhawks) and armour(FV101 Scorpions).

100x Fv101 scoripios-They would suit the "fast-attack" and "humanitarian aid protection" doctrines of the NZ Army.They will also allow some much needed medium anti-tank fire support.

25x Leapoard 2 MBT's-They have pinzagers,why not a german main battle tank.The german military and government should be more than happy to supply these time-tested and battle proven tanks to NZ.They would allow us to contest against enemy armour and we only need a few since they are reliable and rugged.

30-55x F-15E strike eagles- There was a deal supposedly to go down between the US and NZ for some F-16's but since we are "Nuclear-Free" and do not permit many US warships into our waters because they are nuclear powered and because Helen Clark is a useless defence politician we lost the deal at the last momment,even though we were getting them for nothing because the US wanted us to be able to defend out overseas troops and provide fire support.I think that having a fighter-bomber instead of just a fighter would allow us to Have CAS and air defence capibility all in one without having different aircraft and having to spend more.I am sure the US would be more than happy to supply us with some if not other nations who are decomissioning them.

2-4x C-130 "Spooky" gunship- We already have some Hercs,but they are transport only.If we had a transport/gunship NZ would hold a very handy trick up it's sleeve in terms of foreign deployment especially in afgahnistan were we could para-drop troops in then provide fire support to them without needing other aircraft.US supplies them to other nations,so we should be able to get them.


G-36 Assault Rifle- Should replace F88 Austeyr's becuase they are adpatable and can perform many different tasks as well as being ambidexterous to allow both-handed shooters as standard,I own a semi-automatic version and quite frankly,it's more sturdier than many people think.It also comes with the capibility to have a large cap-magazine and bipod for easy conversion to a support fire role.

FIM-92 Stinger Missile- This great weapon they could probably find somewhere in afganistan,that's how many the US sold to the mujahadeen.Allows infantry to shoot down aircraft which is needed in the absence of good AA systems and fighter aircraft.

And that's it.All these are possible to aquire at the present time with only slight increases in the defence budget and political wits.

Fixdeluxe1

 

[MrConservative]

This is my personal feelings on how the under-armed NZDF should be equiped,in rememberance that they did posses fighters(A-4 Skyhawks) and armour(FV101 Scorpions).

100x Fv101 scoripios-They would suit the "fast-attack" and "humanitarian aid protection" doctrines of the NZ Army.They will also allow some much needed medium anti-tank fire support.

25x Leapoard 2 MBT's-They have pinzagers,why not a german main battle tank.The german military and government should be more than happy to supply these time-tested and battle proven tanks to NZ.They would allow us to contest against enemy armour and we only need a few since they are reliable and rugged.

30-55x F-15E strike eagles- There was a deal supposedly to go down between the US and NZ for some F-16's but since we are "Nuclear-Free" and do not permit many US warships into our waters because they are nuclear powered and because Helen Clark is a useless defence politician we lost the deal at the last momment,even though we were getting them for nothing because the US wanted us to be able to defend out overseas troops and provide fire support.I think that having a fighter-bomber instead of just a fighter would allow us to Have CAS and air defence capibility all in one without having different aircraft and having to spend more.I am sure the US would be more than happy to supply us with some if not other nations who are decomissioning them.

2-4x C-130 "Spooky" gunship- We already have some Hercs,but they are transport only.If we had a transport/gunship NZ would hold a very handy trick up it's sleeve in terms of foreign deployment especially in afgahnistan were we could para-drop troops in then provide fire support to them without needing other aircraft.US supplies them to other nations,so we should be able to get them.


G-36 Assault Rifle- Should replace F88 Austeyr's becuase they are adpatable and can perform many different tasks as well as being ambidexterous to allow both-handed shooters as standard,I own a semi-automatic version and quite frankly,it's more sturdier than many people think.It also comes with the capibility to have a large cap-magazine and bipod for easy conversion to a support fire role.

FIM-92 Stinger Missile- This great weapon they could probably find somewhere in afganistan,that's how many the US sold to the mujahadeen.Allows infantry to shoot down aircraft which is needed in the absence of good AA systems and fighter aircraft.

And that's it.All these are possible to aquire at the present time with only slight increases in the defence budget and political wits.

Fixdeluxe1

There is absolutely no point in NZ having a main battle tank. We got rid of the FV101 in the nineties possibly before you were born. We have got enough vintage equipment in the NZDF, why would we want more. Thirty F-15 Strike Eagles would cost probably US$3 Billion or 5.5b in NZ money. The hourly operation costs would be huge. You have not outlined anything maritime in your shopping list. How on earth you are going to transport your MTB's and IFV's when you invade Disneyland?

 

[recce.k1]

Hey fixdeluxe1. If we had MBT's then we might as well base them in Australia i.e. closer to any potential action and allied heavy airlift as otherwise we'd have difficulty in transporting them anywhere quickly etc. Plus it seems the old NZ Army Centurion tanks in the 50's/60's didn't cope with the boogy swamps and terrain of the Waioru training ground (and certainly the roads at the time). Better perhaps then to aim for a medium or light tank of the 90mm to 76mm calibre armament (like the NZ Army's M41 Walker Bulldogs of the 60's-80's era - and then NZ only had a dozen) and that might see more utility in SE Asia possibly.

The FV101's were used more for reconnaisance, so perhaps you might get some support for new generation tracked types for the likes of the QAMR (to replace their Pinzs?) etc, but certainly not 100, we only had 26 FV101's from memory, so we'd probably be looking at a similar number, if ever etc.

What could be handy, and possibly for NZ over in Afghanistan (although realistically it probably wouldn't warrant such a deployment), would be some tracked howitzers to reinforce the patrol elements. There's some good discussion of late over in the Australian Army thread on what they are wanting to purchase. Perhaps you could have a good read there and let us know your thoughts etc. One problem though is it simply might be easier to replace the cheap NZ Army 105mm howitzers (rather than go tracked howitzers), so maybe that would be worth looking into. I understand NZ were going to buy 155mm howitzers in the 80's (until the Lange administration took power in 84) so perhaps this still reflects Army thinking etc.

 

[Todjaeger]

This is my personal feelings on how the under-armed NZDF should be equiped,in rememberance that they did posses fighters(A-4 Skyhawks) and armour(FV101 Scorpions).

100x Fv101 scoripios-They would suit the "fast-attack" and "humanitarian aid protection" doctrines of the NZ Army.They will also allow some much needed medium anti-tank fire support.

25x Leapoard 2 MBT's-They have pinzagers,why not a german main battle tank.The german military and government should be more than happy to supply these time-tested and battle proven tanks to NZ.They would allow us to contest against enemy armour and we only need a few since they are reliable and rugged.

30-55x F-15E strike eagles- There was a deal supposedly to go down between the US and NZ for some F-16's but since we are "Nuclear-Free" and do not permit many US warships into our waters because they are nuclear powered and because Helen Clark is a useless defence politician we lost the deal at the last momment,even though we were getting them for nothing because the US wanted us to be able to defend out overseas troops and provide fire support.I think that having a fighter-bomber instead of just a fighter would allow us to Have CAS and air defence capibility all in one without having different aircraft and having to spend more.I am sure the US would be more than happy to supply us with some if not other nations who are decomissioning them.

2-4x C-130 "Spooky" gunship- We already have some Hercs,but they are transport only.If we had a transport/gunship NZ would hold a very handy trick up it's sleeve in terms of foreign deployment especially in afgahnistan were we could para-drop troops in then provide fire support to them without needing other aircraft.US supplies them to other nations,so we should be able to get them.


G-36 Assault Rifle- Should replace F88 Austeyr's becuase they are adpatable and can perform many different tasks as well as being ambidexterous to allow both-handed shooters as standard,I own a semi-automatic version and quite frankly,it's more sturdier than many people think.It also comes with the capibility to have a large cap-magazine and bipod for easy conversion to a support fire role.

FIM-92 Stinger Missile- This great weapon they could probably find somewhere in afganistan,that's how many the US sold to the mujahadeen.Allows infantry to shoot down aircraft which is needed in the absence of good AA systems and fighter aircraft.

And that's it.All these are possible to aquire at the present time with only slight increases in the defence budget and political wits.

Fixdeluxe1

A few things I wished to point out, though some other members have already touched upon some things.

Everything in this list is either an air combat asset, or a ground combat asset. There is no naval element of any sort, as well as any form of support assets. Was this an oversight, or are the considered unneeded by the poster?

The second major point to consider is a budgetary one. In real terms, NZ spends ~0.6% GDP on defence. What this means, is that the NZDF budgetary estimate through 2010 in real terms is only for ~NZ$1.3 billion. While the situation is improving, without a drastic (and short of a major war al a WWII) increase in funding for the NZDF, the items indicated could not be operated, nevermind acquired. Also to keep in mind, while many would consider a nation having defence spending of 1.8% GDP in real terms realistic, that is still effectively tripling current NZ defence spending.

More to follow.
*****
Okay, now for some additional commentary.
*****

It had been estimated several years ago that for NZ to operate 24 combat jets, it would cost ~NZ$200 million yearly. IIRC the original estimate or a link to it was provided somewhere on DT circa 2007. The is the operating cost, not the initial acquisition cost which is normally significantly greater. Therefore, if NZ were provided with combat jets, it would need to increase the defence budget by a sixth just to operate them. Also, no one at the point seems remotely interested in providing free fighters to NZ... Another example to consider is the recent order by the RAAF for 24 F/A-18F Super Hornets. Estimates place the total cost to be ~A$6 billion to purchase the aircraft and operate them for 10 years. Effectively working out to an expenditure of some A$600 million annually if averaged out over a decade. While I do not recall exactly was the current exchange rate between Oz and Kiwi dollars, such an expenditure would seem to be approximately half of the current actually spending of the NZDF. And this is for 24 aircraft which I am not sure would be as expensive as getting new (or new-ish) F-15 Eagles, nevermind 30-55 of them. Therefore, as presented there is IMO no chance of it happening.

As for the NZDF getting the Stinger manpack SAM... I have to ask, why? The NZDF already has a manpack SAM, the Mistrial. I do not see a particular advantage to the NZDF in making such a change from an already existing weapon. I have a similar point of view with respect to replacing the Austeyr with the G36.

-Cheers

 

[Todjaeger]

Hey fixdeluxe1. If we had MBT's then we might as well base them in Australia i.e. closer to any potential action and allied heavy airlift as otherwise we'd have difficulty in transporting them anywhere quickly etc. Plus it seems the old NZ Army Centurion tanks in the 50's/60's didn't cope with the boogy swamps and terrain of the Waioru training ground (and certainly the roads at the time). Better perhaps then to aim for a medium or light tank of the 90mm to 76mm calibre armament (like the NZ Army's M41 Walker Bulldogs of the 60's-80's era - and then NZ only had a dozen) and that might see more utility in SE Asia possibly.

The FV101's were used more for reconnaisance, so perhaps you might get some support for new generation tracked types for the likes of the QAMR (to replace their Pinzs?) etc, but certainly not 100, we only had 26 FV101's from memory, so we'd probably be looking at a similar number, if ever etc.

What could be handy, and possibly for NZ over in Afghanistan (although realistically it probably wouldn't warrant such a deployment), would be some tracked howitzers to reinforce the patrol elements. There's some good discussion of late over in the Australian Army thread on what they are wanting to purchase. Perhaps you could have a good read there and let us know your thoughts etc. One problem though is it simply might be easier to replace the cheap NZ Army 105mm howitzers (rather than go tracked howitzers), so maybe that would be worth looking into. I understand NZ were going to buy 155mm howitzers in the 80's (until the Lange administration took power in 84) so perhaps this still reflects Army thinking etc.

Hi Recce, I have had some thoughts on this, although in some cases, it is more of repeating some items that had been brought up earlier in this thread.

Personally I feel that the conversion of Army to the wheeled LAV and complete retirement of a tracked APC/AFV capability was a mistake. As has been observed, wheeled AFVs cannot match the manueverability of tracked vehicles when offroad or on very poor road areas. Afghanistan would be a case in point, where Kiwi troops could use and armoured vehicle capable of providing fire support. Unfortunately, it seems that LAVs cannot reliably negotiate areas of Afghanistan and therefore are not deployed there... This situation to my mind is no better than when the NZDF had problems operating old M113's during the UN deployment to the Balkans during the 1990's. Granted this is water over the dam now but it does make one question the thinking and assumptions behind prior decisions.

What I would like to see is the NZDF start to phase some form of tracked APC/AFV back into service. This could be either a complete replacement for the NZLAV, or perhaps just limited numbers, sufficient to equip a training establishment and then perhaps QAMR. Personally I would prefer a complete replacement of the NZLAV, but I do admit, I have never particularly liked the design for use by anything other than recon units.

Given that Australia appears to be moving (slooooowly...) towards selecting a new tracked APC or IFC to replace their M113's, it might be possible for the NZDF to jointly participate. Or perhaps order some additional examples of whatever Australia selects, assuming the design is appropriate in terms of use, capability and cost.

My personal preference would be on a vehicle along the lines of the Swedish CV90 series. There are a few different options available in terms of armament and capability, but the two main versions seem to be IFV's armed with either a 30mm or 40mm cannon (CV9030 or CV9040 respectively) with 3 crew and 8 passengers, a match for the current NZLAV. Of particular interest though is that two variants which have been trialed but not ordered are the CV90120-T, which is essentially a light tank armed with a 120mm cannon and the CV90 AMOS, which is equipped with twin 120mm mortars.

The adoption of such a design or family of designs, would give Kiwi troops greater manueverability particularly in remote or rough areas, as well as potentially greater armour protection and fire support.

As for the replacement of the 105mm howitzers with some form of SPH... Perhaps, perhaps not. I do agree that the 105mm should likely be replaced, the question then becomes, by what? I do not think that NZ should really move towards a tracked SPH unless the NZDF also makes moves towards re-establishing some form of armored combat capability, either via IFVs as suggested above or perhaps getting tanks. My reasoning behind this is it makes little sense at least to me, for howitzers, which should not be directly engaging hostile forces, to have greater mobility and armoured protection than those force elements which might well be called upon to directly combat enemies. When one considers the development of SPH's, this was done to allow artillery to keep up with mobile combat elements, if the NZDF does adopt SPH's, it could result in the rest of Army struggling to keep up with the artillery...

Assuming that there is no movement back towards tracked vehicles, I would suggest instead that the NZDF look to replacing the 105mm Hamels with the M777 lightweight towed 155mm howitzer in use by the US and Canada, and is being acquired by Australia as well. While the 155mm howitzer is ~ twice the weight of the current L119 105mm guns, it is a distinctly more modern gun with greater range and firing a larger (and more common) projectile.

If there is movement to re-establish tracks vehicles, then I would rather see the NZDF look at some vehicle mounted AMOS instead of 155mm SPH's. A 120mm vehicle-mounted AMOS has a max range of 10+ km, which is comparable to the current 11.4 km of the 105mm howitzer but being a 120mm mortar bomb the shell itself will have a greater area of effect. Of perhaps greater interest is that the AMOS also has a direct fire capability with a range of ~1.5km.

These are just my thoughts anyway.

-Cheers

 

[Twickiwi]

I love the idea of NZDF having CV90 IFV (say 36) with organic direct fire support of CV90120-Ts (say 12?), creating a mobile heavy infantry battalion. I genuinely think it would be beneficial and possibly even useful at some point.

Here's the issue- Are the NZLAVs going to be scrapped or are we going to increase the fighting size of the army by a 1/3? One of the criticisms of the NZLAVs is that with their 25mm turret they aren't wholly suitable for moderate-or-less-threat peace-keeping arenas. If we replace the NZLAV with the CV90 it would be even less suitable, meaning it would get even less use for our vehicles.

Say we do just create a new armoured infantry battalion (say the NZ 19th Armoured Regiment)? That would mean 2 battalions of RNZIR (1 NZLAV equipt, 1 light role) and a new Armoured infantry unit, and NZLAV equipt QAMR squadron. NZDF will need to support and maintain the new battalion (either by organically increasing the size of a logistics battalion or a new one at a time when there are resources issues around maintaining existing NZLAVs). The NZDF will need to be able to deploy the CV90s -either C-17s or heavy Landing craft/ JSS replacement for HMNZS Endeavour, or station them in Australia or a combination of these.

Dept of Defence is reportedly looking at swapping NZLAVs for Stryker variants for a more balanced vehicle fleet. If that happens there might be some turretless LAVs light enough to be deployed by NZs C130.

If you look at NZ's military history the country has specialised in light infantry (both mounted and dismounted), mostly to do with the cost, but also because our allies thought our troops were better suited to that role (Winston Churchill for one). The NZ Army would look distinctly heavy with both CV90s and LAVs and only one light infantry battalion. The light Bat would get most of the Asia-Pacific based work where IFVs and IMVs are not that useful. A rebalancing would require either stripping down the size of the mounted infantry units from 3 to 2 coys/squad.s and keeping the light role RNZIR at 3 rifle coys or increasing to 4. Alternately it would just be easier to increase the size of the RNZIR to 3 battalions with 1 LAV equipt and 2 light role battalions.

So if you look at the probable impact of procuring the CV90 it might require a doubling of the size of the NZ Army and significantly increasing the procurement budget of the RNZAF and RNZN, and maybe a permanent base in Australia. Chuck in some Bvs Vikings and some Bushmasters and I'm in- where do I sign?:tasty

 

[jchan77]

Some good Saab products for the NZDF

Erieye AWACS --- [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOaxi2G0aNI]YouTube - SAAB - ERIEYE - Explained[/ame]

Skelder UAV --- [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiBvsP6Czg0]YouTube - Saab AMBUSH Promotional Video[/ame]

CEROS 200 --- [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCcv4YoNEu8]YouTube - Saab CEROS 200[/ame]

Trackfire RWS --- [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiaB80v1DPk]YouTube - SAAB Trackfire RWS[/ame]

Gripen --- [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-3MACYJ5AI]YouTube - SAAB JAS-39 Gripen Promotional Video[/ame]

Gripen NG --- [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTtq8vPDdwI]YouTube - Gripen NG DEMO video[/ame]

Giraffe AMB radar --- [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzmG6tTulvo]YouTube - Saab Giraffe AMB Radar[/ame]

 

[Todjaeger]

jchan77, can you explain how/where these items will integrate with the existing NZDF equipment and force structure, or how the items in question would be paid for?

Some of the items are essentially 'big ticket' items which are neither inexpensive to purchase or operate and have no comparable position within the current force structure.

Is one assuming that there would be a budgetary increase to support existing capabilities and provide for the entry into service of the linked items.

Also, how would such a force structure work operational with NZ allies?

-Cheers

 

[Sea Toby]

Erieye AWACS --- YouTube - SAAB - ERIEYE - Explained

Skelder UAV --- YouTube - Saab AMBUSH Promotional Video

CEROS 200 --- YouTube - Saab CEROS 200

Trackfire RWS --- YouTube - SAAB Trackfire RWS

Gripen --- YouTube - SAAB JAS-39 Gripen Promotional Video

Gripen NG --- YouTube - Gripen NG DEMO video

Giraffe AMB radar --- YouTube - Saab Giraffe AMB Radar

Great purchases for Sweden. Unfortunately, NOT for New Zealand. Are you a Saab salesman?

 

[Cadredave]

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?

Hi Kiwi Rob,
Yep we have the armoured LOVs in NZ, why are we using Hiluxs in Astan (North east region of Bamiyan) the same reason US Spec Ops use them they are one of the very few vehicles that can get around on the goat tracks, river beds and other tracks that the PRT call roads, this is the reasons why Lav & armoured Lovs are not over there, another reason the Lovs have not gone is simple it has a 2.5 ltr Diesel pushing a 5.5 ton body unloaded add troops, ammo, food, water, for a 28 day patrol well you can work out the maths, bear in mind as well these vehicles are operating at the same altitude or higher than Mount Ruapehu. Believe me they work & the patrols swear by them, the guys are well trained to counter ambushes etc the amour on the hilux is the front windscreen, and added plates to protect those inside.

 

[MrConservative]

Hi Kiwi Rob,
Yep we have the armoured LOVs in NZ, why are we using Hiluxs in Astan (North east region of Bamiyan) the same reason US Spec Ops use them they are one of the very few vehicles that can get around on the goat tracks, river beds and other tracks that the PRT call roads, this is the reasons why Lav & armoured Lovs are not over there, another reason the Lovs have not gone is simple it has a 2.5 ltr Diesel pushing a 5.5 ton body unloaded add troops, ammo, food, water, for a 28 day patrol well you can work out the maths, bear in mind as well these vehicles are operating at the same altitude or higher than Mount Ruapehu. Believe me they work & the patrols swear by them, the guys are well trained to counter ambushes etc the amour on the hilux is the front windscreen, and added plates to protect those inside.

Dr Mapp is sending 3 LAV's to A/stan to back up the NZSAS according to the Christchurch Press 13/11/09.