NZDF General discussion thread

[Norm]

LAV111 Trailers

[... good to see that the Army is at last allowed to acquire their own heavy transporters for the LAV's (rather than rely on commercial arrangements), the Mercedes Actros 3248.
Would have thought a few more would have been useful to transport several LAV's to ports for loading onto the HMNZS Canterbury or RAN vessels, even for major exercises (however maybe in time I suppose ..... or perhaps commercial arrangements will be kept especially for loading up for exercises but it will be the Mercedes 3248's that are actually deployed hence why only 4)? Again being COTS presumably the money was found easily within the budgets (except presumably they won't end up in places like Kabul seeing they won't have protected cabs etc).

Agree in NZ we are thankful for small mercies ,the Army has aquired some more trailers outlined in your post but sadly its not going to set the world on fire, 4 , must be some logic there ,NZ's population 4.4million therefore lets get 4 trailers!

Heavy Transporters
The Army has taken delivery of four purpose-built low bed semi-trailers, each able to carry more than 26 tonnes. The trailers have their own engines powering hydraulic systems for a widening deck, landing legs, main ramps and an on-board winch. The rear two axles are self-steering and the deck lowers on the air bags for loading. The trailers are designed to carry the Light Armoured Vehicle (LAV) with the deck widened. They can also carry other in-service vehicles, the 20 tonne Swing Thru and 20’ ISO containers at the standard deck width of 2.5 metres. Inoperable vehicles can be winched on and off the lower deck and short portable ramps are provided to allow one or two axles of a light vehicle access to the upper deck, depending on its length and weight. New tractor units have also been ordered. After a competitive tender process, the Mercedes Actros 3248 was selected. It is a commercial off the shelf 8x4 tractor unit with a wide range of advanced features to assist the drivers. Integration of tractors and trailers will occur early in 2010 and drivers will be trained on the combination soon after. These heavy transporters will be operated by selected personnel of the Royal New Zealand Army Logistics Regiment Driver trade and experience with this new combination will help inform the LTCP.

Link

ttp://www.nzdf.mil.nz/news/publications/one-force/4/army-technology.htm

 

[recce.k1]

Well that last line there Norm ("...this new combination will help inform the LTCP") sorta suggests perhaps more could be on the way, or perhaps with the experienced gained in using these COTS tractors and trailers maybe something else MOTS wise might be in the pipeline? Or simply these COTS tractors and trailers could one day be carrying other new deployable logistic/support systems or specially fitted out modular containers (eg field hospital, network/comms etc)???

Occassionally see the commercial trucks and trailers carrying a LAV, sometimes 2 or maybe 3 such truck/trailers - simply assumed they were heading to the Port of Napier on some of the by-pass routes outside of the Linton surrounds .... unless these were off for repairs somewhere? Mind you haven't encountered any for a while but will try and find out (if anyone I know is allowed to talk about it)

Edit: come to think about it a more likely reason for these commercial arrangements could have simply have been Army driver training and/or evaluation of certain commercial trucks such as the Mercedes etc. As Reg says, the LAV's should be able to self deploy to ports (presumaby they have the range without having to fill up en-mass at a BP station on the way. Imagine that, the pie warmer would run out of stock in no time and that would p-off the locals)!

 

[shanes_world_05]

Those Merc Actros

Hey guys,
Saw one of those actros 8x4's with a lav on on Monday parked up on a layby in Lower Hutt. I know from previous experience with Cableprice that their parts are abit dear so I hope they arent giving trouble already.
And no to poke at any of you cos I wouldnt but isnt it sad when we are discussing the acquisition of a small number of prime movers (not that logistics and vehicle recovery isnt important) but other nations get to discuss buying mortars, MBT's or frigates.
As a dive into the impossible but should we be needed in a moderate or god forbid high threat environment could we add say spike ER or something alike to the LAV's turrets? Maybe stinger or Mistral? Just thinking cos it might be cheaper than buying abrams or leo's. Still pretty defensive but might add some sting.
LAV's come in just after I left so dont know.

 

[RegR]

For a small defence force with even smaller aqquisitions anything new that comes along is interesting and yes even hauler units. Agreed in larger militaries 4 x units would not even make the army news but hopefully it is just the start of more to come. I could not help but notice in the article that the new swinglifts are heavier therefore them + the current trucks can only really lift little more then an empty container(not much use empty) so hopefully new actros to accomodate them are also at cableprice. Which would in turn lead to the unimog/MB2228 replacement and would also bring new armoured versions as seems to be the international trend. I suppose watch the aussie project overlander for some ideas as no doubt MOD will be looking at its results for candidates, although my vote is still for mercedes, hav'nt let us down yet.
I doubt we would ever get anything bigger than the 25mm turret but if we tried swapping our LAVs with the americans maybe could aqquire MGS or even some anti-tank LAV, the yanks could be keen on our LAVs as they currently don't have our variant.

 

[recce.k1]

And no to poke at any of you cos I wouldnt but isnt it sad when we are discussing the acquisition of a small number of prime movers (not that logistics and vehicle recovery isnt important) but other nations get to discuss buying mortars, MBT's or frigates.

Oh we've thrashed out these sorts of things (probably to the extent that the Aussies here are probably sick to death of our pie in the sky ideas) So time to talk about some nuts and bolts good 'ol logistics support, the stuff that those younger posters here whom advocated a larger NZ military than almost the ADF seem to forget needs to be taken into account!

On a serious note then on LAV-III's and the potential sale of around 30 or so in deep storage, I recall one final reason for the 105 LAV-III's were because some were to "take the place" of the 20 odd FV101 Scorpion FSV's .... so could this mean NZ will continue to rely on the LAV-III for fire support? (Although wouldn't it be nice if it really meant the Govt would ok new FSV's properly tasked for that role)?

But I was reading recently about the short comings of the coalitions 5.56mm caliber weapons (M4/SA80 etc) in Afghanistan versus the larger caliber insurgent (eg AK47) weapons in terms of range - in some scenarios the insurgents could attack from greater distances making it harder for the coalition forces to counter them etc (although granted usually coalition forces carry some HMG's/sniper rifles etc). So in terms of NZLAV-III fire support, faced with another Bosnia type future deployment (i.e. where the "other side" could have their own FSV's or guided rockets etc), could the NZLAV-III's & their M242 bushmasters with an effective range of 3000m (and the Javelin with around a 2500m range) be 'out-ranged' by the "other-side"? If one thinks about it, this isn't an unlikely situation the NZ Army could face again?

Related to ridding the LAV's in deep storage, this Canadian article talks about at one stage, one-third of the Canadian LAV-III's being out of service (eg because of high usage in Afghanistan & normal wear and tear etc). With the NZLAV being the Army's main protected "personnel mover", and thus likely to be deployed on future higher end peace-keeping or enforcement missions, surely this needs to be taken into account (especially if the re-sale value, whatever that may be, will be less than purchasing new etc)? No doubt these things are being taken into account by the Govt and Defence .... but .....?

 

[tongan_yam]

Great tool for searching

Hi everyone

I don't want to hijack this - I don't post much at all but really value this online forum.

However I came across this online tool at wolframalphadotcom (sorry not able to post link). Wolfram Research are renown for their famous Mathematica math software and they tout wolframalpha as computational knowledge engine.

I know we often want answers to the statements we make and this engine is just amazing at the data it can pull from global databases. One search I did was a comparison of NZ vs Australian Army. The amount of detail is staggering and I think it will help in our conversations by bringing valid data. (they term our LAV's as armored personnel carriers)

Hope this helps - enjoy

 

[shanes_world_05]

Understood on the size issue. We can not and should not expect ourselves to match australia our countries of similiar GDP and population to ourselves given geographical isolation.
And yeah I love the look of those new Actros units. Having worked on Mercs abit I know they are solid trucks with world wide conditioning they are vehicles with a overriding performance focus and not so much on servicing and repair (although alot of stuff is like that). Cables have been a great supplier but at a cost. They would probably be my pick too all things considered.
And I am not picking at you guys more the situation NZDF is in as a whole.
My time with the army was probably at its worst when Timor had an unexpected strain on the army and NZDF as a whole. This was only a low threat environment (not at the start when indo intentions were still unclear) involving peace enforcement and keeping.
Say we are aligned with our traditional allies not in a low intensity conflict but a moderate or high intensity confrontation (not neccessarily conflict) over resources not idealogy as in the last time (still probably be dressed up as moral or idealogical reasons for effort). Our overall force package that could be contribute is vulnerable in a number of areas. Timor showed the vulnerability for having a nationwide military school. That which can maintain corporate knowledge of warfighting but not realistically practise against a serious threat nor in circumstances required (deployed not homeland defence). I saw Timor as a test which we passed but we could have done better at with a little study and abit more effort. Sounds like my exam results now actually.
Realistically I cannot see a threat emerging in our area of influence at any time soon. However we didnt in 1936 either. With defence vote at 1% I cannot see us allowing the funding to overcome the time imperative promptly enough to prevent the disproportionate casualty counts experienced in ww2 compared to allies. Apologies rant over. Hope you were at least having a good day.

 

[recce.k1]

Tongan yam - thanks been having a bit of a play with that search site (although yet to figure out anything startling for me to post about) but do post more interesting thoughts brother!

Shanes world - all good. And you're right with vote defence 1% of gdp, it's just not enough. With the changes to defence over the last 10-20 years whereby a range of capabilities declined to reach this 1% level flattened out ..... but with the operational tempo rising for all 3 services and faced with block obsolecence (just adding to the pressure) I do hope the defence leadership and govt, via this defence whitepaper planning process can make the case to increase expenditure over time. Common sense suggests it should be happening anyway i.e. with new capabilities (eg motorised army and associated logistics, navy on more operational depolyments plus new capabilities and air force both having to support all this whilst carrying out its routine patrolling duties) and the need to train and upskill personnel, as the govt has been saying recently, these additional costs haven't always been factored in properly and now need to be. The evidence so far seems to be if spending is retained at 1% then further capabilities will need to be cut (because of these new on-going cost increases to support these various new capabilities coming into service as per the last govt).

Once that's sorted defence (planners) and the govt can't stop. Further new capabilities are needed urgently eg ISTAR, UAV's for army (land operations support), air force (esp martime) and ultimately the navy (on board frigates and opv's), fast jet training for land and sea, additional air force heavy lift fixed wing and several more rotary & patrol/survellience, army fire support and so on. Both the Army and Air Force need new ground/air launched missile systems to shoot down 'enemy' UAV's - the sorts of things the NZDF could potentially encounter in the wider Asia-Pacific region (granted, air superiority will be provided by the allies in moderate or high intensity theatres - NZ won't be doing anything alone unless WW3 erupts wiping out allied bases etc).

Infrastructure also needs further improving such as navy dry dock enlargement etc, hardened command and control buildings (terrorist bomb/truck bomb/chemical threats etc), forward basing some assets or logistics/stores in the Oz Northern Territory & Pacific (hence sort out Fiji - an ideal location as per WW2/post-war etc). I'd like for Devonport naval base to move, but realise it's too impractical because of various reasons (costs plus employment opportunites for spouses etc), so instead build a second, smaller (as in less personnel based there), secure naval forward operating base with magazines there, 'nearby' (within a 100 miles) maybe but well away from civilian populations, (perhaps put the enlargened dry dock there instead, storage/marshalling facilities for the Army & sealift plus heli-landing spots and hanger?), plus is also a secure facility for visiting warships because in terms of modern day terrorism, the govt and population at large (in terms of peace of mind) would rather these naval combat assets be somewhere else away from eg Devonport & the heart of the city. By stroke of luck it also minimises the fear the peacenik activists would want to drum up. Win/win for Govt/NZDF and win/win for the public (peace of mind etc).

The key (eg funding priority) to all this is tieing things in with our closest defence partner eg Australia, I'm sure they'd welcome NZ to pull more weight in these areas. In terms of firepower that can be down the track more eg hook into ANZAC II project 2020's and 3 Frigates but rather than a 4th frigate, spend the money on a (top class for NZ's standards) medium size tactical sealift ship eg 15k+ tonnage with well dock and landing spots for up to 4 helos plus UAV's - gives the OZ/NZ Govt another mini-LHD type, well suited for Asia-Pacific joint "marine" ops (& use the Canterbury, because of its limitations more for strategic sealift for the army and backup tactical and more civilian eg DoC/Antarctic re-supply use etc). The RNZAF need some serious arming but that can be instigated on the P-3's and the medium range MPA over the next few years - new torps and stand off sea/land missile (plus the A109LUH and NH90's can take additional ordanance etc) .... in time the fast jets if reconstituted can lead into something more functional with the RAAF if the trends suggest we need that capability again, for defence and foreign policy objectives. As for the Army they need more manpower and associated support, I just can't see how wearing out the two battalions makes any real sense. The cost of all this? 1.5% gdp on defence in the mid 2010's, possibly rising back towards 2% into the 2020's .... and unlike when we spent 2% up to the mid-80's, we'd want to do it with fewer types (eg 3 Frigates not 4; air strike force? Instead of 1-2 sqns, perhaps 10 or so aircraft identical to Australia for joint support & training eg F18 SH's (maybe 8 or so F35 in another 20 years if OZ does committ to the F35???) because we've got to support these properly, not piece meal & ad hoc like in the past. Ok rant over!

 

[recce.k1]

Foward basing NZLAV's in Australia - why not?

:idea2 Here's a solution to the question of whether to sell 30+ NZLAV's in deep storage AND ensuring that NZ can deploy them rapidly (with allied heavy airlift until NZ buys its own one day) to support a NZ (or contribution to the proposed joint ANZAC) Ready Reaction type Force/ High Readiness Company (etc).

Forward base these NZLAV's (in deep storage) in one of the Australian Northern Territory staging posts (bases). Simple!

This will ensure the number in service in NZ already, can continue with their day-to-day taskings such as training and exercises etc (i.e. forward basing some or all of the surplus LAV's will not affect day-to-day operations & maintenance programme scheduling for the NZ based vehicles).

Meanwhile in Australia, periodically key NZ Army personnel (eg maintenance and crew personnel) can hitch a ride in a RNZAF C130 or 757 and test run these LAV's to ensure they are functioning (and thus ready to be deployed at short notice). Secondly these NZLAV's could be utilised further, for when NZ exercises in Australia i.e. the NZLAV's are already there thus saves on the logistical costs and effort to transport them over from NZ and then back again.

Question: will they ever need to be deployed again at short notice? Of course, history demonstrates that. And now that the NZ Army is finally acquiring NZLAV combat service support vehicles and systems, if and when the need arises, it now appears that NZ will be able to deploy the NZLAV with confidence.

Question: who would use these forward deployed NZLAV's? As above, the NZ Army's ready/advanced deployment Company. Certainly the NZSAS Afghanistan support LAV's could have come from this pool (if it were in place). Or put it this way, certainly the next NZSAS deployment be that urban based and/or possibly if they weren't urban based now they have another toolset in their inventory.

Naturally the NZ Army personnel (whom aren't based within the Oz NT of course) are airlifted out from their NZ bases by the RNZAF, as they are now, it's just that a number of NZLAV's (& supplies) are there waiting for them when they get to the NT Staging Post.

Question: How then are these forward based LAV's deployed into trouble spots? The answer is they can be airlifted out at short notice (but exactly how depends on where the trouble spot is and who is involved) eg if in SE Asia/Asia, NZ would most likelt be involved with Australia thus via RAAF or coalition C17's. Alternatively if somewhere close to NT eg East Timor again, then RNZAF C130's could hop them over. Then again if it were a NZ only operation (eg SAS in Kabul, then possibly RAAF/USAF C17's - hitch a ride or else if timing allows, a charted Antonov etc. It's alot easier for all parties concerned to do this from the Oz NT than NZ. (And if it is a major deployment any additional can come via sea from NZ on the Canterbury etc).

Question: How does this relate to the proposed ANZAC joint force? The answer is it fits in perfectly as a NZ contribution (thus ensuring political goodwill and slaps on the back for the pollies)! The public intent of the ANZAC joint force is for Army stabalisation deployments (and air/sea support) within the Pacific region - Timor Leste is now considered on the perimter of the Pacific (in terms of NZ public/govt perceptions, as well as the important Pacific Forum & regional political community etc). Being closer to Singapore and SE Asia also reinforces NZ's FPDA committments.

So what's the precedent to do this? Well NZ deployed 4x M113's to East Timor in 1999 by RNZAF C130 (and then RCAF C130's) to support the first NZ troop waves. (Another 21x NZ M113's were then shipped over).

How many NZLAV's need to be forward based in Australia? That's a question for the NZ Army to know (I'm not the expert).

But here's what the NZ Army has deployed overseas previously:

1994 - 26x M113's to Bosnia (admittedly not "rapidly", but I'm just noting numbers).[*1].
1999 - As mentioned above 4x M113's to ET via C130 and 21x M113 via sealift).[*2].
2004 - 18x NZLAV's to Australia for exercise Predators Gallop (via sealift).[*3].
2009 - 3x NZLAV's to Afghanistan (NZSAS support).

So as per above there is a demonstratable precedent. (Just guessing maybe 20-30 LAV's ought to be forward based in Australia - which coincides with the 30+ in deep storage awaiting a sale)?

Incidentally if one were to be "political" about the total NZLAV numbers (and the selling off the surplus LAV's), I didn't realise the National Govt in June 1999 settled on 104 wheeled Infantry Mobility Vehicles. [*4]. So perhaps the new National Govt wouldn't like to be reminded of this (however the LAV sale sounds more like an ACT support Party initiative to me due to their economic ideology of less Govt fiscal responsibility/liability (but that's just my opinion) and the fact that ACT questioned the number of wheeled NZLAV's when purchased [*5] so now they can follow thru with their axe etc?

The Govt just needs to think outside the square. The benefit to the Govt is reduced costs/logistics to transport NZLAV's from NZ in the future (it will happen again), greater success of meeting of Govt foreign policy objectives/outputs (by the NZDF) and the recognition at Govt-Govt levels that NZ is taking aspects of defence seriously (very important to NZ poliies when they get :smash over their heads by other nations Heads of state & officials etc about NZ not pulling its weight etc)! After all for the NZ Govt the most obvious example to them is Singapore basing howitzers in NZ (and other assets elsewhere), it can be done and is publically acceptable. Sheesh, we'll all rather tired of hearing about NZDF annual-report after annual-report outlining where policy failures are occuring and this idea to me sounds like a positive way to rectify some of these failures - it just needs Govt buy-in to make it happen, after all defence can't recify these failures without the additional funding to make these ideas viable etc.

Sources: http://epress.anu.edu.au/sdsc/timing/pdf/ch07.pdf
[*1] pp 129, [*2] pp148, [*3] pp 143, [*4] pp 134, [*5] pp 139.

 

[t68]

Just trying to get a handle on the recent purchase of 4 low loader trailer for transport of the NZLAV, mainly why are you getting widening decks or are these to be shared with the engineers moving plant equipment as well. I know its not exiting talking about trucks and trailer but just trying figure the logic out

Here a clip on how we move them here in oz,

[nomedia]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqX_l_d_6B4[/nomedia]

 

[Norm]

Order of Battle

Hi everyone

I don't want to hijack this - I don't post much at all but really value this online forum.

However I came across this online tool at wolframalphadotcom (sorry not able to post link). Wolfram Research are renown for their famous Mathematica math software and they tout wolframalpha as computational knowledge engine.

I know we often want answers to the statements we make and this engine is just amazing at the data it can pull from global databases. One search I did was a comparison of NZ vs Australian Army. The amount of detail is staggering and I think it will help in our conversations by bringing valid data. (they term our LAV's as armored personnel carriers)

Hope this helps - enjoy

Tongan_yam , you might find this link helpful [also similar on Wikipedia],interestingly in the document for the NZDF White Paper review submissions the Minister of Defence did not go into the equipment nos,why Norm wonders ,perhaps the embarrassingly small number may have given the general populas cause for concern!
Defence Capability Directory | Asia Pacific Defence Reporter

 

[RegR]

Just trying to get a handle on the recent purchase of 4 low loader trailer for transport of the NZLAV, mainly why are you getting widening decks or are these to be shared with the engineers moving plant equipment as well. I know its not exiting talking about trucks and trailer but just trying figure the logic out

Here a clip on how we move them here in oz,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqX_l_d_6B4

The new low loaders were not purchased purely for movement of LAV it is just one of the options. They will be operated by Transport not battalion so will be used for movement of a wide range of equipment for other units, they also have container locks so the deck wideners will just give them a further range of uses

 

[MrConservative]

Tongan_yam , you might find this link helpful [also similar on Wikipedia],interestingly in the document for the NZDF White Paper review submissions the Minister of Defence did not go into the equipment nos,why Norm wonders ,perhaps the embarrassingly small number may have given the general populas cause for concern!
Defence Capability Directory | Asia Pacific Defence Reporter

Thanks for the link Norm. There are a few inaccuracies / ommissions in it if we want to get picky.

Also Recce can you post up the other Chapters from the ANU research pertaining to NZ/OZ. I use to have some of it on an old Laptop now recently deceased. As for Max Bradfords statement back in June 1999 about 105 IFV's, that is what they wanted and Max was keen on an 80%/20% mix. I think they wanted around 70 to 80 odd wheeled and the rest in tracked.

Speaking of Max. He was a real defence advocate. Though his biggest problem was that he could not articulate well enough to the public to get their buy in (nor handled the electricity reforms for that matter). However, along with Creech, Shipley and McKinnon (son of former CGS General McKinnon) who were the Govt bigwigs at the time, all were staunchly pro US and Aust, and us working closely with them. They were committed to getting Defence back in order after Ruth Richardson walked all over Warren Cooper in the early 1990's and Jim Bolger didn't care or never quite had the mental wearwithall to understand it, and allowed Defence to be cut to the point that there was no flesh on the bone. I have always wondered the big - what if. What if Shipley could have snuck home in 1999 and Clarke failed. I dear say we would be in far better shape as a Defence Force today.

 

[recce.k1]

@Mr C, here's the link:
http://epress.anu.edu.au/sdsc/timing/pdf/whole_book.pdf

Yeah, I'm pretty sympathetic to Max Bradford's efforts as DefMin at the time, he certainly pushed hard (it's pity he wasn't defmin earlier instead of Warren Cooper, who didn't seem to do much ... MB could have got the rebuilding programme underway alot earlier but the publication above explains alot of the difficulties defmin's like MB had, which were the economy and a very, very fragile coalition govt stiffling replacement programme initiatives). Fortunately this doesn't seem to be the case this time currently (except for the time it's taking etc)!

In other news from the Asia Security Summit:
Defence Minister signals focus on humanitarian missions
and
Beehive - Humanitarian and Disaster Relief in the Asia-Pacific: Shangri-La Dialogue

 

[recce.k1]

Defence Whitepaper - public summary of submissions released

Radio NZ: Submissions urge for return of air strike capabilities.
The government's chosen the arrival of its newest Navy ship to release a summary of submissions sent to its Defence Review that was started last year.
Submissions urge for return of air strike capabilities

Calls to reinstate air force strike wing
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/stories/2010/06/11/124809c952be
A senior defence academic is backing pleas to reinstate New Zealand's air combat capability.

The Associate Minister of Defence, Heather Roy, on Friday released a summary of submissions to a Government review of the defence forces, which began last year.

Of more than 600 submissions, 175 ask for the reinstatement of the RNZAF's air strike capability, which was scrapped by the former Labour government.

But Ms Roy says that would be difficult to achieve.

"There is this romantic idea I suppose that it's a great thing to have. Given that they are no longer flying it's much harder to reinstate that."

She says the real challenge in the defence review is funding.

The Air Force Skyhawk jets were mothballed by the previous Government in 2001. Their sale is still pending.

A senior lecturer from the Military Studies Institute, Lance Beath, says the decision was poorly thought out.

Dr Beath says the economic returns from the development of maritime resources could help fund a new combat wing.

MoD website: Summary of Submissions.
http://www.defence.govt.nz/pdfs/defence-review-09-consultation-summary-submissions.pdf

As expected public submissions support increasing defence spending and one-third call for the return of multi-role strike aircraft (seems like this issue won't go-away, despite Heather Roy's lackadaisical response)! The Radio NZ audio item above is worth listening to (especially Lance Beath's comments and at least he is coming up with alternatives in terms of funding an air strike force).

 

[RegR]

Just saw on the news that NZ has opted out of helping the aussies in a training role in south Afghanistan and will continue with the PRT in Bamyian. Now with the Dutch pulling out and leaving the Aussies to stick it out I think in true ANZAC spirit we should hand the PRT over to Afghans/civis/another nation(as has been slated anyway), ramp it up and deploy at least a LAV company group to assist our ANZAC brothers in their region until their eventual withdraw.
I understand there have been casualties with the Australians and our government is probably a little hesitant to send our soldiers into harms way but lets be honest, this is what the defence force trains for and no doubt the battalions are keen to get in amongst it and help the diggers.
I know for a fact guys have left our army to chase the action overseas due to a lack of combat for our forces(and also a lack in pay) so the willingness is there, they just need the nod. Im not saying our contribution in Baymian has not been worthwhile I just beleive we have set it up enough now for it to be handed over to others and for us to move on and help our closest ally.
Baymien is a relatively stable region now and a gradual withdraw has been mooted anyway but now I think another area needs assistance and fittingly it could be (another) ANZAC operation.

 

[KiwiRob]

I agree with you to a point, war fighting is what soldiers train for but this isn't a war of our making, NZ is not threatened in any way, this is an American issue of their making and we should be getting the hell out as soon as possible after we finnish the job in Baymian as best we can.

 

[Todjaeger]

I agree with you to a point, war fighting is what soldiers train for but this isn't a war of our making, NZ is not threatened in any way, this is an American issue of their making and we should be getting the hell out as soon as possible after we finnish the job in Baymian as best we can.

I have to disagree with this here...

The US-led invasion of Afghanistan came after the Taliban refusal to hand over Osama bin Laden who was being given sanctuary in that country, as well as Al Qaeda being allowed to operate training camps and other facilities. Afghanistan in general was a safe haven for a network terrorists involved in the September 11th attacks in New York and Washington D.C. and since then, there have been other incidents around the world involving affiliated groups.

Between the fact that Afghanistan is the source for much of the world's illicit opiates, and that Afghanistan was, and could again become a failed state/safe haven for terrorist groups, it makes it not just, "an American issue".

As for NZ not being "threatened" in any way... This might be true, if one only is speaking in a direct sense, i.e. an Al Qaeda-affiliated terror bombing in Auckland, for instance. In an indirect sense, I do no think anyone could reasonably agree that NZ has not been impacted by the September 11th attacks in the US, the London Tube bombing, the train bombin in Madrid, or the Bali bombings in Indonesia. While no Kiwi might have actually been physically hurt or killed in any of the above incidents (it is hard to know for sure, since thousands of people were injured or killed) such events have had a negative effect across the globe in terms of travel, trade and even just what most people would consider their normal level of comfort and safety.

Something to think about, at least.

-Cheers

 

[recce.k1]

Actually kiwis (who happenned to be there at the time) were killed in the London Tube bombing, Bali, 9/11 (I think) but not Madrid.

One time recent NZ resident and former US intelligence officer Paul G Buchanan (and someone who doesn't always toe the official US/NZ Govt line on foreign policy) regularly writes respectful or sometimes thought provoking articles about NZ related security and intelligence issues on the (mainly left wing) kiwipolitico.com blogsite but he also writes on the (again mainly left wing) scoop.co.nz news/commentary site.

Eg at scoop back in Jan, he wrote some persuasive arguements for NZ having a presence in Afghanistan, it's well worth a read in terms of this debate and how some people might feel (so would be interested to know if anyone agrees/disagrees with his assessment).
Scoop: Paul Buchanan: Why The NZDF Is In Afghanistan

(And if anyone is interested in his latest writing on the events of the past week or so):
Scoop: Paul Buchanan: Two Sides of the Afghan COIN

 

[stryker NZ]

Actually kiwis (who happenned to be there at the time) were killed in the London Tube bombing, Bali, 9/11 (I think) but not Madrid.

One time recent NZ resident and former US intelligence officer Paul G Buchanan (and someone who doesn't always toe the official US/NZ Govt line on foreign policy) regularly writes respectful or sometimes thought provoking articles about NZ related security and intelligence issues on the (mainly left wing) kiwipolitico.com blogsite but he also writes on the (again mainly left wing) scoop.co.nz news/commentary site.

Eg at scoop back in Jan, he wrote some persuasive arguements for NZ having a presence in Afghanistan, it's well worth a read in terms of this debate and how some people might feel (so would be interested to know if anyone agrees/disagrees with his assessment).
Scoop: Paul Buchanan: Why The NZDF Is In Afghanistan

(And if anyone is interested in his latest writing on the events of the past week or so):
Scoop: Paul Buchanan: Two Sides of the Afghan COIN

Recce is right on Dr Buchanan a lot of his articles are very interesting and if you ever get a chance to speak with him its well worth it. Just wish he still worked at Auckland uni i would have loved to have him as a supervisor.