I wonder if thats an indication of the number of actual SAS deployed (3 LAV at 7 mounts each) out of the 70 personnel sent.
NZDF General discussion thread
- Thread starter NZLAV
- Start date
Yep and those Lav will be operating in the Kabul area where the SAS are based, not in Bamiyan or to the North east where the two recent contacts have occured. makes sense to send added protection for the troopers mind you I bet they wish they were carrying out there tasks in the mountains & valleys instead of the streets of Kabul
Last edited:
Hmm yes all very interesting stuff. Good on Mr. Mapp and John Key for doing so I might add.
I'm a little confused with your required aircraft there fixdeluxe :crazy
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
The P3 orions in the rnzaf inventory are maritime patrol aircraft.. not transports. I suppose they may have provision for supply loading? I doubt it would be much (someone correct me if I am wrong)
one engineering unit to supply 50 lavs? ok but I doubt this would be sufficient as they also provide recovery support etc, if that one engineering lav was to be disabled it could put us in a bit of a pickle
1 c130 to transport 50 lavs? If you are suggesting we were to use one herc to transport 50+ lavs even to australia that would be unfeasable let alone across the world as they have to be totally stripped down mainly for weight reasons. Assuming it takes 3 days round trip for 1 herc which may be optimistic it would take 5 months + to transport 50 lavs to a middle east theatre.
1 iriqouis? There is no way 1 iriquois would be enough to support 2 thousand troops.
10-12 iriquois or 5 or 6 Nh-90s (coming next year) is a more realistic amount.
The gear required has already been posted. but.
where are we now then?
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An attilery battery(20-30 Peices and an Anti-Air unit with outdated low-level french AA Missiles)
1x Multi role 757 (For reasupply, transport etc etc.)
45-50 NZLAVS(3 engineering units for bridges and bases, others standard combat 25mm)
3-4xC130 Hercules(For general support and transport roles, if we were to use these to transport the lavs we would need all of them working around the clock for a couple of months)
10-12 iriquois or 5 - 6 Nh-90s (for troop support transport casevac etc etc.)
It would probably take the te kaha less time to do 2 round trips with lavs than it would to transport them one by one in a herkybird and a far more likely scenario.
Finally I think you are underestimating our forces considerably, if the proverbial hits the fan we will be there with bells on getting the absolute maximum from our antiquated equipment
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the "grounded" response there Cadredave. For the NZ PRT I can see then that NZLAV's won't be totally suitable for the rugged and undeveloped environment in Bamiyan etc. I can see then that the Hilux does have some advantages (and after all one doesn't bemoan the NZSAS operating stripped down Pinz' variants despite the reduced protection etc). No doubt something else with better protection could be used but no doubt it would also be another lightly armoured type (i.e. not heavy wheeled nor heavy tracked due to the poor "roading" & weight issues etc).
Anyway it seems then that NZ does have some "gaps" with the types of vehicles that can be deployed into less benign areas etc. I still recall the aftermath of the firefight incident in ET when the LAV was being sold to the public, that it might have been the PM at the time saying that even tracked vehicles won't have reached the spot where the NZ death occured. So any thoughts by some of us here on NZ acquiring a tracked APC/IFV to supplement the LAV's is one issue (and who knows but I doubt it isn't a Defence priority due to the LAV purchase, but common sense suggests the Defence Whitepaper should take an open view on this etc), but another issue is the need for something lighter and mobile, whatever that may be, with better armoured protection and ideally some defensive firepower that can fit into where the Armoured Pinz's should have etc.
As for the NZSAS to receive some NZLAV's for protection in an urban environment - excellent - great to know that they will be deployed for the safety of the troops. I do also hope they get extra protective measures (I take it that one NZLAV is still with the manufacturer, as reported some years ago, to allow testing of new technologies or protection etc). No doubt Defence will be taking their utmost care to ensure it is a successful (LAV) deployment, as no doubt the pollies will be interested in its success etc. It should be another notch in the SAS's skillset operating there in Kabul (but in some respects it seems to me to be the opposite of how they tend to operate i.e. seeking and tracking etc) but I guess it perfectly fits into their other CT role etc.
Anyway it seems then that NZ does have some "gaps" with the types of vehicles that can be deployed into less benign areas etc. I still recall the aftermath of the firefight incident in ET when the LAV was being sold to the public, that it might have been the PM at the time saying that even tracked vehicles won't have reached the spot where the NZ death occured. So any thoughts by some of us here on NZ acquiring a tracked APC/IFV to supplement the LAV's is one issue (and who knows but I doubt it isn't a Defence priority due to the LAV purchase, but common sense suggests the Defence Whitepaper should take an open view on this etc), but another issue is the need for something lighter and mobile, whatever that may be, with better armoured protection and ideally some defensive firepower that can fit into where the Armoured Pinz's should have etc.
As for the NZSAS to receive some NZLAV's for protection in an urban environment - excellent - great to know that they will be deployed for the safety of the troops. I do also hope they get extra protective measures (I take it that one NZLAV is still with the manufacturer, as reported some years ago, to allow testing of new technologies or protection etc). No doubt Defence will be taking their utmost care to ensure it is a successful (LAV) deployment, as no doubt the pollies will be interested in its success etc. It should be another notch in the SAS's skillset operating there in Kabul (but in some respects it seems to me to be the opposite of how they tend to operate i.e. seeking and tracking etc) but I guess it perfectly fits into their other CT role etc.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
NZ Defence Whitepaper
The NZ Defence whitepaper isn't due to be completed until next year, but the DefMin Dr Wayne Mapp has made public some initial thinking to the RNZNVR on naval matters. Blue Water capability to be retained and planning is under way on the ANZAC replacements ...
Also, as part of the Whitepaper the Govt intends to address the issue of the decreasing numbers of Reserve Forces (and other means to get interested school leavers into training eg Gap Year, as the Aussies have, plus better Employer Support etc). Some "shocking stats" at:
Beehive - Territorial Force Employer Support Council Function
It seems greater use of reservists is envisaged, which sounds reasonable considering the Regular Forces are stretched with various deployments etc.
The NZ Defence whitepaper isn't due to be completed until next year, but the DefMin Dr Wayne Mapp has made public some initial thinking to the RNZNVR on naval matters. Blue Water capability to be retained and planning is under way on the ANZAC replacements ...
Source: Beehive - Speech at HMNZS Ngapona Mess Dinner
Also, as part of the Whitepaper the Govt intends to address the issue of the decreasing numbers of Reserve Forces (and other means to get interested school leavers into training eg Gap Year, as the Aussies have, plus better Employer Support etc). Some "shocking stats" at:
Beehive - Territorial Force Employer Support Council Function
It seems greater use of reservists is envisaged, which sounds reasonable considering the Regular Forces are stretched with various deployments etc.
DEFENCEMASTER05
New Member
New Zealand Defence Force
The New Zealand Defence Force is nothing but disgraceful, and the preceeding Labor Government destroyed what was left of the New Zealand Airforce, their Navy is a hollow force. New Zealand has only two friages when they had the option of buying an extra two. I understand that New Zealand doesn't have the economy of Australia, but still New Zealand should be able to afford to have a respectable defence force. New Zealand can not rely on Australia. This is what New Zealand needs to do.............buy these capabilities.
26 strike fighter aircraft.
10 more army helicopters.
2 more surface ships two air warfare destroyers will be fantastic.
1 assault carrier ship.
8 naval helicopters.
This would be a great start for New Zealand in it's rebuilding of it's defence forces. New Zealand needs something and deserves a better defence than it has already.
The New Zealand Defence Force is nothing but disgraceful, and the preceeding Labor Government destroyed what was left of the New Zealand Airforce, their Navy is a hollow force. New Zealand has only two friages when they had the option of buying an extra two. I understand that New Zealand doesn't have the economy of Australia, but still New Zealand should be able to afford to have a respectable defence force. New Zealand can not rely on Australia. This is what New Zealand needs to do.............buy these capabilities.
26 strike fighter aircraft.
10 more army helicopters.
2 more surface ships two air warfare destroyers will be fantastic.
1 assault carrier ship.
8 naval helicopters.
This would be a great start for New Zealand in it's rebuilding of it's defence forces. New Zealand needs something and deserves a better defence than it has already.
Latest Army news out today 18 Nov 09,
Counter Terrorist Assult Group to change name to Commandoes on 5 Dec, to better reflect the nature of the tasks the groups operators undertake, although the story does not say what additional tasks that they will under go it is an important first step I believe in getting the (Ranger / POE) capability back and so long over due.
Hopefully they will move into green roles like Amphid, parachuting, cliff assault, good times ahead for the soldiers now coming thru.
Thats great news i have advocated a few times on this forum for a Ranger school for the NZ army it,s great to see a new exciting oppurtunity like this becoming a reality.
fixdeluxe1
Banned Member
I was "born" in 1987.
There is point in having a MBT,and that is Direct Fire Support and Anti-Armour roles.They will equalize the battlefield for NZ,You cannot rely on the Australians and Americans to bail you out.
I am sure the deal would not cost that much,especially if we source them from other countries who are deomming them.US would probably have a large discount for us.
As for Naval/Maritime units,I did forget but I wasn't talking about that so I will add here:
Maybe a Destroyer(3 Maximum)
Transport Ships(Just Kitted out freight ships)
Amphibious APC's and beachead landing craft.
That should deal with you queries.
Its not so much buying the aircraft, its the huge expense of operating fighter aircraft New Zealand can't afford.
What good are amphibious APCs when the transport ships don't have well docks? While you may want the army to be a marine corps, the New Zealand army isn't trained as a marine corps.
New Zealand will be lucky to replace their two Anzac frigates. If New Zealand can't afford three frigates, how do you suppose New Zealand will be able to afford three destroyers which cost at least twice as much as a frigate?
Even though I agree with some of your proposed requisitions (and because i'm an opinionated shi!t) I feel I must point out that the NZDF having 50+ f-15s is wayyy over kill and would cost billions!
Dont you think that 25 - 30 f-16s or gripens would be suitable to do the job required? You mentioned you would prefer f-15's because of their fighter/bomber capabilities but the fact is F-16's and Gripens are also multi-role fighter bombers and more than sufficient to support NZ troops or augment an allied force. While the f-15 is superior in air to air gun using dogfights the chances of this happening are slim to nil.
Also you might want to check your sources on the U.S f-16 deal. The reason we didnt get the f-16s had nothing to do with losing the deal, the deal didnt happen because helen swamp donkey clark axed the ACF and the once in a life time deal at the same time:splat
You are correct however on the count of them giving them to us for nothing though. They were going to effectively 'swap' them for our skyhawks and off the skyhawks to the RSAF.
I'm not meaning to sound condescending or pick at your post either mate just thought I should share
*edit*
not 100% free there were costs but relatively small.
Last edited:
exported_kiwi
New Member
Yeah, it was about NZD1Billion and they were going to be leased rather than purchased outright if memory serves. Yep, Helen should've been lynched for that one, ugly old she - man hehehe!
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Probably a good move to change the name, although me personally I quite liked it, but it is a mouthful (I know its a typo that there's an extra "T" in there - Counter Terrorism Tactical Assault Group - and granted people just used/said the acronym. But it seemed easily confused with the Police's anti-terrorist Special Tactics Group (whom incidentally have been likened to "Nazi storm-troopers" by elements of society and then parroted by the media thanks to a rather big botched anti-terrorism law incident a couple of years ago), so it's in the Army/SAS best interests to quietly distance themselves, ahem, make themselves better known and easily understood by the wider populance! Sure won't harm recruiting with a name like that!
Unfortunate accident kills RNZAF officer....
Air force casualty 'awesome all-round Kiwi bloke' - family - National - NZ Herald News
Workmate of mine (ex RNZAF himself) reckons it may have been a 'marker' round - that's the only explanaton for the second guy being so close yet getting away so 'lightly'. Would also explain perhaps why the guy was putting a stake in the ground next to it - I wouldn't imagine you'd do that with a HE round!?!
For those 'non-kiwis' a 'Barry Crump' attitude is basically the last sort of attitude you'd want around unexploded ordnance - but I'm sure this chap was anything but that - they'll be referring to his personal life away from work. RIP!
Air force casualty 'awesome all-round Kiwi bloke' - family - National - NZ Herald News
Workmate of mine (ex RNZAF himself) reckons it may have been a 'marker' round - that's the only explanaton for the second guy being so close yet getting away so 'lightly'. Would also explain perhaps why the guy was putting a stake in the ground next to it - I wouldn't imagine you'd do that with a HE round!?!
For those 'non-kiwis' a 'Barry Crump' attitude is basically the last sort of attitude you'd want around unexploded ordnance - but I'm sure this chap was anything but that - they'll be referring to his personal life away from work. RIP!
Last edited:
I may be wrong, but as I recall the Air Combat Force was going to cost $700 million over ten years to operate. However, when the ACF was cut the arts budget increased $70 million that year. In other words, the arts are more important to fund than operating the air combat force.
The picture that comes into my mind is that the no good no account lazy beatnik aritsts are sponging off the national dole is welcomed, wheras the average joe hard working technical maintenance workers aren't. Beatniks win, geeks lose....
The picture that comes into my mind is that the no good no account lazy beatnik aritsts are sponging off the national dole is welcomed, wheras the average joe hard working technical maintenance workers aren't. Beatniks win, geeks lose....
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
They were retired after Timor.
A excerpt from Ross Ewing's (former RNZAF Skyhawk pilot) book, Topped Gun.
"When the East Timor Crisis broke in September 1999, 75 Squadron (RNZAF) was in Malaysia and, because of a potential air threat over Timor, from Indonesia, the squadron remained on standby in Malaysia for over two months".
Occassionally I have said that NZ Defence is too secretive, and whilst that may irritate some people when I say that, I am merely pointing out that secrecy can work against Defence. As in the above. The public did not know that the RNZAF ACF was on standby in case ET errupted. So when the change of Govt at the time said that one of the reasons for scrapping an expensive ACF was that it was "never used", the media reported those comments and the public accepted what they were being told. It's a pity then that perhaps the media didn't ask the next obvious question what would have happenned if ET did errupt and for example Indonesian air and sea assets sunk troop ships with NZ'ers on board, or straffed troops on the ground etc. That would have made the "never used" arguement less credible etc.
And on the other hand, if people were told that the ACF was on standby for ET at the time, the counter arguement of "never used" wouldn't have held so much weight (and may not have been able to be used as a justification by the then PM etc).
Also after ET and when the then change of Govt occurred, and the F16 lease scrapped, in 2000 the then Govt said the Skyhawk ACF still had a future till 2007 (which was the date they were to be phased out once the F16's were fully operational etc). One then assumed other options would be looked at etc.
It came as a complete suprise and shock to the public and the servicemen and women of the RNZAF (but probably not to defence planners) when in early 2001 the then Govt announced the ACF would be scrapped by the end of that year. This was never signalled in the then Govt's election manifesto back in 1999. (Imagine during the campaign of the Nov 1999 Election, Labour said they would scrap the ACF, despite ET being on tenderhooks at the time, there is no way they could have publically announced that and got away with it, the then Govt, media and people would have dicredited Labour's defence approach. Luckily they kept their agenda secret then).
So despite breaking the Norwa agreement earlier and of course 9/11 (where I have heard again the ACF were on standby but I cannot verify that claim) the ACF were stood down. IMO it was a deliberate gamble taken by the Govt that could have come undone for various reasons (eg 9/11) but fortunately they got away with it.
If I sound too harsh, here's another way of putting it.
Military experience of former PM and her two defence ministers = zero.
Experience of former PM and her two defence ministers protesting against the military = some 30-40 years first as student protestors in the late 60's (Vietnam), 70's (nuclear free Pacific), 80's (ANZUS) etc. Thankfully the main player has exited NZ politics.
Last edited:
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Do you think the NZ government would have retired the A-4's even if they'd been used for CAS or similar in ET? I'm thinking they still would have, or at least tried, they simply would have exchanged "never used" with "hardly ever used".
Maybe someone needs to remind the NZ government of an old adage. "If you wish for peace, prepare for war", more properly written as "Si vis pacem, para bellum"
Maybe someone needs to remind the NZ government of an old adage. "If you wish for peace, prepare for war", more properly written as "Si vis pacem, para bellum"