NZDF General discussion thread

[Paul G Buchanan]

NZ quitting Afghanistan?

The refusal to send 50 trainers to help the Australians and Americans in Oruzgam after the Dutch leave is a clear sign that the Key govt is planning an exit strategy by the end of 2011. That, plus the use of the NZSAS as a rugby World Cup protection force (talk about overkill! What happened to CTTAG?) indicates that National sees the ISAF mission as doomed. The WC gives it the perfect cover for the withdrawal of the SAS in line with the planned US drawdown beginning in July 2011 (and which now looks to be slowed considerably relative to previous timetables).

Key said that because the Oruzgam training would occur off-base, he could not allow it because the risks were too high. Yet we have just read reports of NZDF EOD personnel coming under attack near Khost, which is a high-risk zone quite removed from the relatively safe confines of Bayiman. So he appears to want to have it both ways--quietly offering troops in high risk zones outside of the publicly discussed PRT and SAS deployments, but unwilling to commit more troops to an essential advisory/mentoring role that could keep NZDF personnel in theater past 2011.

I foresee the US switching from an "inkblot" (seize, hold, build) strategy to a "drones and bones" strategy as part of the proposed drawdown/withdrawal of troops next year. I have outlined the contours of this latter strategy in the Scoop article mentioned earlier on page 108. Should that happen the NZSAS could still have a role to play in pursuit of an ongoing contribution to a mission that, as I said in the other article referenced, is actually quite important for international security over the long-term. But as things now stand, it looks to be over and out for the NZDF by the end of next year.

 

[steve33]

I have to agree Paul i think everyone will give up on building Afganistan and just resort to drones and bones trying to build up Afghanistan seems like trying to get a drunk to stand on there own two feet.

Even if western forces pull out of Afganistan it will never be a safe haven again for Al Qaeda because western governments do have the guts to put special forces in there combining with air assets if they locate a target that they want to take out.

Al Qaeda will always be looking to the sky if they are in Afganistan.

 

[Todjaeger]

An interesting article about the outcome of the Defence review.

The article suggests that the army (increase to 5,400) and airforce will be the big winners out of the review. In addition the ANZAC's won't get an upgrade in the near future as the Navy focuses on the tanker replacement. No MB339 it would seem to.

I'm treating this article with a touch of specitism at present, given that some of the comments by the Minister of Defence suggested that the Maritime domain would receive a greater emphasis.

Current me if I am mistaken, but much of that seems to be nothing more than a continuation of defence policies under the prior PM, Helen Clarke. Is this correct?

From what I recall, Army was felt to be the most important element of the NZDF, as troops could be deployed overseas on "peace keeping missions" which led to a drive to increase the numbers of personnel, while cutting down on the kit which could be used in high threat environs since the "peace keepers" are not sent to fight wars, therefore they do not need it. The other impression I had was that Air Force (really Air Service) and Navy were being provided with f*ck-all. At least until people started to realise that Navy had too few ships to accomplish more than limited patrolling and enforcement of NZ's EEZ claims, and that a number of those ships were a generation old and due (past due?) for replacement. Th RNZAF itself was also in a similar situation with almost the entire inventory being Vietnam-era aircraft. I find it somewhat ironic that the first aircraft replaced, the B727's, were actually amongst the newest (in design and service entry dates) aircraft in RNZAF service at the time of their replacement.

While I do await the release of the NZDF Defence Review, I feel more and more that some of the decision-makers in NZ wear rose-tinted glasses. That or they are unable or unwilling to speak plainly and truthfully to the people whom they are supposed to serve.

-Cheers

 

[steve33]

Current me if I am mistaken, but much of that seems to be nothing more than a continuation of defence policies under the prior PM, Helen Clarke. Is this correct?

From what I recall, Army was felt to be the most important element of the NZDF, as troops could be deployed overseas on "peace keeping missions" which led to a drive to increase the numbers of personnel, while cutting down on the kit which could be used in high threat environs since the "peace keepers" are not sent to fight wars, therefore they do not need it. The other impression I had was that Air Force (really Air Service) and Navy were being provided with f*ck-all. At least until people started to realise that Navy had too few ships to accomplish more than limited patrolling and enforcement of NZ's EEZ claims, and that a number of those ships were a generation old and due (past due?) for replacement. Th RNZAF itself was also in a similar situation with almost the entire inventory being Vietnam-era aircraft. I find it somewhat ironic that the first aircraft replaced, the B727's, were actually amongst the newest (in design and service entry dates) aircraft in RNZAF service at the time of their replacement.

While I do await the release of the NZDF Defence Review, I feel more and more that some of the decision-makers in NZ wear rose-tinted glasses. That or they are unable or unwilling to speak plainly and truthfully to the people whom they are supposed to serve.

-Cheers

By the looks of things you are right the leadership in New Zealand won,t spend stuff all on defence simply because they see it that they don,t have to it,s not an election issue they know having a miliatry with stuff all combat capability is not going to see them removed from office so quite honestly they really don,t care.

All we are going to see is more of what with saw with the clarke government forget about a strike wing for the airforce forget about any additional combat capability for the navy and the army will be equipped for peace keeping missions which give the public warm fuzzies reassuring everyone that we are a peace loving nation.

 

[Gibbo]

By the looks of things you are right the leadership in New Zealand won,t spend stuff all on defence simply because they see it that they don,t have to it,s not an election issue they know having a miliatry with stuff all combat capability is not going to see them removed from office so quite honestly they really don,t care.

All we are going to see is more of what with saw with the clarke government forget about a strike wing for the airforce forget about any additional combat capability for the navy and the army will be equipped for peace keeping missions which give the public warm fuzzies reassuring everyone that we are a peace loving nation.

When National won power this forum was buzzing with ideas on how much bigger & better the NZDF would be under National & that they would get jets, extra frigates; you name it. I was probably one of a few lone voices that foresaw largely a continuation of the same, and with the recession then hitting it looked even worse as far as I could see. :drunk

Thing is, National never actually said they were going to invest heavily in the NZDF, I'd challenge anyone to find any published material that actually set such an expectation (Govt sourced publication / media release that is, not loosely researched media stories or opinion pieces!)

Historically Labour has been the bigger defence spenders since the early 1980's - trouble is they were responsible for the dumbing down of our capabilities. Now National is going do little more than continue that focus - it shows with Afghanstan strategies etc.

I think there will be a few wins in the review - but certainly nothing huge in combat capability. We've certainly (publicly) heard a few snippets of what we're likely to see in the review. Frigates & Orions are safe in the mid-term, at a squeeze also possibly a small Macchi fleet for Advanced training & Army / Navy training (but nothing more).

Anyway - not too much longer to wait now! :grab

 

[Lucasnz]

Anyway - not too much longer to wait now! :grab

Oh the suspense is killing me

You are correct National is playing the outcome of the review very close to its chest. I note if the army increases to 5,400, then based on the strength of the army as at 1 April, the army could form a ready reaction company (and make use of a some of spare LAV's).

 

[dadof2]

When National won power this forum was buzzing with ideas on how much bigger & better the NZDF would be under National & that they would get jets, extra frigates; you name it. I was probably one of a few lone voices that foresaw largely a continuation of the same, and with the recession then hitting it looked even worse as far as I could see. :drunk

Thing is, National never actually said they were going to invest heavily in the NZDF, I'd challenge anyone to find any published material that actually set such an expectation (Govt sourced publication / media release that is, not loosely researched media stories or opinion pieces!)

Historically Labour has been the bigger defence spenders since the early 1980's - trouble is they were responsible for the dumbing down of our capabilities. Now National is going do little more than continue that focus - it shows with Afghanstan strategies etc.

I think there will be a few wins in the review - but certainly nothing huge in combat capability. We've certainly (publicly) heard a few snippets of what we're likely to see in the review. Frigates & Orions are safe in the mid-term, at a squeeze also possibly a small Macchi fleet for Advanced training & Army / Navy training (but nothing more).

Anyway - not too much longer to wait now! :grab

Can't see national spending much in these financial times.Probably a new oil tanker for navy,some plan to replace Hercules within about six years.Would love to see combat wing return,navy and army badly miss it for training.To me the only chance it will return if Singapore decide to train there pilots here (LM project).Otherwise we should look at maybe four attack helicopters to give some teeth back to the air force.LAVS are gone cannot see them expanding army,cost is to big.First place defence paper should be looking at is the procurement department for equipment.What a miss managed department that is.Eg(late arrival of new ships,problems with Canterbury,Hercules project and Charles Upharm).What an embarassment to name a twice VC winner after that bath tub.I think our forces do an exceptional job with what they have.

 

[Todjaeger]

When National won power this forum was buzzing with ideas on how much bigger & better the NZDF would be under National & that they would get jets, extra frigates; you name it. I was probably one of a few lone voices that foresaw largely a continuation of the same, and with the recession then hitting it looked even worse as far as I could see. :drunk

Thing is, National never actually said they were going to invest heavily in the NZDF, I'd challenge anyone to find any published material that actually set such an expectation (Govt sourced publication / media release that is, not loosely researched media stories or opinion pieces!)

Historically Labour has been the bigger defence spenders since the early 1980's - trouble is they were responsible for the dumbing down of our capabilities. Now National is going do little more than continue that focus - it shows with Afghanstan strategies etc.

I think there will be a few wins in the review - but certainly nothing huge in combat capability. We've certainly (publicly) heard a few snippets of what we're likely to see in the review. Frigates & Orions are safe in the mid-term, at a squeeze also possibly a small Macchi fleet for Advanced training & Army / Navy training (but nothing more).

Anyway - not too much longer to wait now! :grab

I agree that National never actually came out and stated that there would be "big changes" for the NZDF, but at the same time, I did rather hope that National would sit down, examine the allocations the NZDF receives, what they have and what the NZDF is being asked to do. While the Defence Review is not due out for a few more months, it seems like there is not going to be some form of statement indicating that the NZDF was on a collision course with mission failure absent a change in either taskings or resources.

While yes, that could be something which might end up being taken as an attempt to score political points, it could also indicate that some have a grasp of certain realities with regards to defence matters.

Now with announces of things like the planned upgrade to the Anzac FFH is being either scaled back or delayed, that would leave the RNZN with surface combatants unable to operate in moderate to high threat environments with a reasonable likelihood of survival without an escort. Given that the Anzac FFHs are the RNZN escort vessels and compared to similar vessels in service with other navies, the RNZN frigates are not keeping pace with changes to naval capabilities.

While the (re)entry of a short/mid-range lift and/or MPA component is a good step, it is really just the NZDF regaining a capability it had previously and has had a use for all along. It was just that the situation had gotten sufficiently critical for a realization to be made that it was again needed.

One area which I would suggest those actually within NZ, and/or with contacts within NZ government and defence circles, is that NZ needs to really try and "smooth out" as it were, much of the procurement spending. It seems like kit that needs replacement has either been getting small amounts of funding for SLEP to stave off either replacing the kit, or retiring it without replacement due to cost reasons. If a more considered approach was taken, perhaps even one with higher up front costs (unlike was taken with Project Protector for instance), then needed capabilities could potentially be maintained without encountering some of the issues where equipment is just not available for use. Like has happened within the last few years where only one C-130 Hercules was available for operational use out of the entire RNZAF fixed-wing transport fleet.

By constantly going through 'boom and bust' spending, the NZDF is not necessarily getting to spend money on the equipment it wants and needs to sustain capabilities for the long-term, instead needing to spend money on meeting short-term capabilitiy shortfalls, and ending up with long duration equipment. Which in turn will likely be expensive (socially and politically) to replace with more capable and suitable equipment.

-Cheers

 

[Gibbo]

By constantly going through 'boom and bust' spending, the NZDF is not necessarily getting to spend money on the equipment it wants and needs to sustain capabilities for the long-term, instead needing to spend money on meeting short-term capabilitiy shortfalls, and ending up with long duration equipment. Which in turn will likely be expensive (socially and politically) to replace with more capable and suitable equipment.
-Cheers

Totally agree - the swinging back & forth between Labour (left) & National (right) defence policy has been at the NZDF's cost.

NZ Pollies still don't get how dangerously under-resourced our combat capability is, even for the low-key apprach they foresee for the NZDF. It's all about the cost, constantly striving to do defence at the cheapest possible, forgetting actual military requirements & the fact that it is in most cases a very long-term investment. :rel

I think Wayne Mapp does generally have a better idea of what the NZDF needs, he's also got the benefit of going thru a defence review that I suggest has had quality input - not sure about Deane's involvement though! ('value for money' review). However he'll never get the sort of budget he needs so he'll have to find a way to 'cut his cloth'. :frown

We still have a way to go before we even so much as regain capability lost since the early 80's.

 

[recce.k1]

I agree that National never actually came out and stated that there would be "big changes" for the NZDF, but at the same time, I did rather hope that National would sit down, examine the allocations the NZDF receives, what they have and what the NZDF is being asked to do. While the Defence Review is not due out for a few more months, it seems like there is not going to be some form of statement indicating that the NZDF was on a collision course with mission failure absent a change in either taskings or resources.

While yes, that could be something which might end up being taken as an attempt to score political points, it could also indicate that some have a grasp of certain realities with regards to defence matters.

I'd add, I'm still not sure how much of an issue this really is ..... yet .... (as there is a lack of detailed information out there so far). And indeed National never alluded to much change from Labour's stance (which raised some concerns here a few years ago pre-election etc).

But what we do know (and what I'm mildly comfortable with is this):

The NZDF (eg like the ADF and similar) is in a consolidation type phase. Excluding what Labour previously trashed (air combat force, finally cancelling the third Frigate etc) pretty much the entire NZDF has received new or upgraded kit and new capabilities and these new capabilities take years to learn and reach operational readiness (eg Army/LAVIII, Navy/Project Protector, Air Force/well anything they acquire from exisiting C130/P3 SLEP's to new helos require many years of training at various levels to ensure they don't fall out of the sky - something which isn't such a catastrophic issue for land and sea forces etc).

So (alot of these) previous Labour Govt acquisitions are just now coming into service (Protector, finally) and the Air Force (still to enter service - C130 SLEP/P3 update/NH90/A109LUH etc) and Army even (LAVIII combat support systems etc). And National now has the task to ensure these new capabilities can be sustained long term (by having to budget for the increased support costs, training and theoretical, so far, operational costs etc).

I would not have expected National to be introducing vastly new capabilities (so soon) until the above issues are better understood, if defence is to be fully sustainable out to 2030 etc. And until the Whitepaper is released... And the economy recovers properly...

So in the short term (of the next few years), we've discussed this before, we'd expect National to be plugging the exisiting capability gaps as found wanting due to real-life deployments and natural replacement cycles etc (eg new short/medium range MPA/transport ... Navy tanker ... Army vehicle fleet .... Frigate self defence upgrade ... UAV's? ....etc).

We'd also expect in the defence review an early signal as to the C130SLEP replacements .... if it were me in charge, wouldn't it be nice if an initial order for 3x C130J could be advanced as soon as financially possible i.e. before the C130H's are due to retire circa 2017-2020 etc, to ensure a smooth transition earlier (and again to understand the new operational costs etc) ... plus in that interim period ensure NZ can maximise logistical support with a range of friends/allies on operational deployments also using the C130J.

I'd still hope that National have the foresight to reintroduce the Macchis - the cheapest and most viable option in the interim - for the (training) reasons outlined so many times here. Politically National can "get away with it". Labour considered it and frankly the reality of NZDF deployments in an era of "enduring conflict", as formally acknowledged by National demands it. To not do so now becomes financially impossible down the track in terms of the status of the Macchi and budget planing wise etc.

What will be interesting is what National signals as being the priorities in the 2020's eg ANZAC replacement - ANZAC II or OCV? P3 with ...?? (Heh heh Macchis with .... ??).

The other important thing that is occurring is that NZ is accelerating its relationship with its traditional allies again (eg for the first time in over a decade the US is being mentioned in public defence documents)! Granted previously Labour (and even National in the 90's) can be credited with starting this improvement.

So that's where we're at. National of today, is not the same as National of the 90's. Both share though, having to govern in financially challenging times. If we look at Oz or the UK today, we see similar financial constraints making some real hard choices or delays in acquiring additional kit etc.

 

[steve33]

Regardless of the financial situation i don,t think we are going to see anything in the way of an increase in offensive capability of the NZDF becuase neither National or Labour have any intention of putting our soldiers into any hign insensity situations.

The only force they will do this with is the SAS.

If you look at the last 10 years the strike wing was scrapped they didn,t buy a third frigate and the two frigates they have i wouldn,t be suprised to see them not replaced when they wear out.

The 6 ships they just brought are nothing more than fisheries patrol boats and for relief missions through the pacific.

The Pinzi vehicles the army brought would be a deathtrap in a combat enviroment they offer nil protection against IED.

You can just look at the purchases that have been made and it shows our leaders on both sides have no intention of sending New Zealand soldiers into high intensity combat zones.

Our leaders are not so ignorant as to think they don,t have to play a part in world affairs but they are trying to do the minimum, committing our forces as nothing more than peace keepers in low intensity zones is the cheapest form of militarism financially and it also offers the lowest political risk because you don,t have to deal with the headache of coffins coming home.

The future of the new Zealand defence force is as a lightly armed version of Unicef with a ground,sea,air capability and i am not joking when i say this it is all our political leaders have the stomach for.

 

[Todjaeger]

Regardless of the financial situation i don,t think we are going to see anything in the way of an increase in offensive capability of the NZDF becuase neither National or Labour have any intention of putting our soldiers into any hign insensity situations.

The only force they will do this with is the SAS.

If you look at the last 10 years the strike wing was scrapped they didn,t buy a third frigate and the two frigates they have i wouldn,t be suprised to see them not replaced when they wear out.

The 6 ships they just brought are nothing more than fisheries patrol boats and for relief missions through the pacific.

The Pinzi vehicles the army brought would be a deathtrap in a combat enviroment they offer nil protection against IED.

You can just look at the purchases that have been made and it shows our leaders on both sides have no intention of sending New Zealand soldiers into high intensity combat zones.

Our leaders are not so ignorant as to think they don,t have to play a part in world affairs but they are trying to do the minimum, committing our forces as nothing more than peace keepers in low intensity zones is the cheapest form of militarism financially and it also offers the lowest political risk because you don,t have to deal with the headache of coffins coming home.

The future of the new Zealand defence force is as a lightly armed version of Unicef with a ground,sea,air capability and i am not joking when i say this it is all our political leaders have the stomach for.

I have no issue with NZ leaders not wanting to have Kiwi troops exposed to danger, and/or coming home in bodybags or coffins.

IMO where they have been going wrong is in making such significant cuts to the NZDF that important corporate knowledge which can/is needed in high-end situations i no longer being maintained. The recent NZDF training with some RAAF Hornets providing CAS training is a prime example.

In order for the Kiwi personnel to be useful and relevant for a deployment (and not be placed in undue risk), they needed to be able to make use of standard CAS ops. The NZDF no longer has any organic ability to conduct actual CAS training or drills, therefore the RAAF needed to "loan" the personnel and equipment in order for the NZDF to do so.

While it is nice that Oz was willing and able to do so, and I am all for such cooperation, it is unfortunate for Kiwi personnel that it was necessary. Depending on what the future brings, Australia might not be in a position to do so if needed in the future.

-Cheers

 

[recce.k1]

You might be right to an extent there, Steve, but remember the NZDF is rebuilding itself in various ways, eg from replacing their Vietnam era comms to modern encrypted systems, working jointly, working a great deal with other nations again (eg for the first time since prior to the ANZUS bust-up), learning new doctrines and so on (and a brief mention here of the importance of investing in networking) plus investments in ISR, getting the ships, P3's and LAV's to link together etc.

This takes time, money and new skills, and to be relevant in a combat deployment with others nowadays, learning and growing these capabilities is important.

And then there's the logistics aspect, requiring/being improved ...

The NZDF has been rather stretched, so IMO reducing the effort in Bamiyan has to happen, and no doubt one would assume in time it could mean the freeing up of a Coy etc, to serve somewhere else (higher threat) if the need arises.

Meanwhile closer to home I was reading today the upcoming election in the Solomons may see the return of a PM candidate that despises the RAMSI mission (this Michael Field article isn't on-line yet), so fingers crossed after the election this chap doesn't cause divisions which will necessitate (and tie up further) ADF & NZDF personnel needing to be deployed etc. And again today, Fiji is talking about delaying the 2014 elections, this neck of the woods must be having some concerns for the Govts of NZ and Aust (and defence planners etc).

As for the Pinz's no doubt the Army people here in the know will say they are a good general purpose vehicle, much more reliable than the Range Rovers etc they replaced, and they were purchased before IED's became an issue. So if anything the better thing would be to hang on to them but supplement them with something designed to be mine resistant if and when the Govt deems them to be necessary for a deployment in a high threat area (I would have thought Bamyian, although not high threat, would have been ideal area to introduce the NZDF to them, or at least the armoured Pinz, but maybe not enough boxes could be ticked to justify them etc).

 

[MrConservative]

I think the relucantance is over the short term and not the long term regarding a palable fear of causalties. Particularly in reference to Astan where after nearly 9 years it is politically risky.

But it is more than just political risk. It is more an operational risk. Still not enough bums on seats in some vital parts of the NZDF, in particular the capacity to train the new generation of motivated youngsters joining up.

We have just over a year to go in effect and what the NZDF has done in Astan in respect of the various units involved there has been admirable. Not just the PRT and NZSAS contingents, but other contingents also.

The Govt and the NZDF just want to get the boys home unmarked and continue in the huge task of rebuilding the NZDF. At present the NZDF is not sustainable, and the recent policy attempt to make it a local self-styled ''sustainable defence force" was a misguided botch job not helped by global events. Events which made the early post-cold war policy approach which underpinned it redundant.

Thus we need breathing space so as to recover from a turbulent time since September 1999 when ET began. Why 50 trainers were not sent recently - basically it is that experienced trainers are needed at home and have been needed for some years now. Fifty trainers is quite a hole in a DF our modest size, most are from the NCO level which is the backbone of any force. A Defence Force is at its core a collection of people first and foremost and they need the initial consideration first, and then the policy and tools for the job can follow.

What we really need over the first part of this decade is a lull period with no suprises and no operations that will overstretch us. Whether that will happen is anyones guess - but that is why I suppose while we never should have tried to be too clever by half and think our luck will continue to go our way like an addicted gambler, and start toying around with the fundamentals of Defence.

 

[aussienscale]

You might be right to an extent there, Steve, but remember the NZDF is rebuilding itself in various ways, eg from replacing their Vietnam era comms to modern encrypted systems

Not sure what you mean here ??
I was in the RAN in communications and also as a "Civvy" working at Russell and the Kiwi's were always up to date with their systems, otherwise they could not communicate with anyone. So from a Navy prospective and a Defence communications/Nation to Nation and relay station side of things they were on the money. So not sure where Vietnam comes into it ?

 

[MrConservative]

Not sure what you mean here ??
I was in the RAN in communications and also as a "Civvy" working at Russell and the Kiwi's were always up to date with their systems, otherwise they could not communicate with anyone. So from a Navy prospective and a Defence communications/Nation to Nation and relay station side of things they were on the money. So not sure where Vietnam comes into it ?

What Recce was suggesting is that their are many things that have been replaced or are to be replaced. I think he was specifically refering to the NZ Army field sets which were of Veitnam era. When we took them to Bosnia in 1995 along with our M113's it was a bit of a Marty McFly moment for many of our coalition partners at the time.

 

[aussienscale]

What Recce was suggesting is that their are many things that have been replaced or are to be replaced. I think he was specifically refering to the NZ Army field sets which were of Veitnam era. When we took them to Bosnia in 1995 along with our M113's it was a bit of a Marty McFly moment for many of our coalition partners at the time.

Ahh, ok with you now

 

[Todjaeger]

Something I have been pondering for some time, is whether or not New Zealand has been making the most of the kinship with Australia, or if there are areas where more could be done.

Please note, I do not mean "could the Kiwis bludge off Oz more than they already do..." or anything to that effect.

Rather, Australia has some very good, and in some areas, world-leading capabilities, particularly with respect to comms, sensor and EW kit. This, plus various associated conops to make use of such capabilities can give Australia an edge in responding to threats or potential threats. Given the close relationship between Oz and NZ, I have to wonder if perhaps NZ is not requesting access or the conops and potential experience, to develop or make of similar capabilities.

An easy example would be Australian RF-based OTHR systems like SECAR and JORN. A SECAR system operating within NZ proper, and/or data feeds from JORN in Australia could provide sensor coverage of significant areas of the NZ EEZ. Given the significant size of the NZ EEZ as well as the limited number of patrol assets available to NZ such systems or arrangements could help the NZDF make more efficient use of existing and planned assets. Additionally the RAN, RAAF and Coastwatch all work to maintain a watch over the approaches to Australia proper. As do private companies under contract like Surveillance Australia, which operates 10 Q300 or Q400 props configured as MPA.

On a related note to that, AFAIK Australia ended up expanding her SATCOMM capability by buying into an upcoming US gigabit bandwidth satellite constellation. At the same time, NZ IIRC has been looking to expand her comm capabilities which are currently being piggy-backed on a civilian satellite with bandwidth leased to NZ for governmental and military purposes. While it might be too late to accomplish much now, it would seem sensible to me for NZ and Oz to attempt to work together as much as possible to maintain shared capabilities. In a case like this (IIRC Australia spent ~ A$1 bil to purchase 1 out of 24 satellites in the constellation) then perhaps NZ could have contributed some funding to Australia to obtain partial ownership of the satellite/constellation. Or similarly (and this might still be possible) would be for NZ to enter into a contract with Australia and/or the US to lease comms bandwidth from either country.

Given the number of areas where the NZDF has been reduced and/or allowed to decline, as well as the areas where the capabilities have not been updated as newer technologies and techniques have emerged, it seems sensible to me for the NZDF to attempt to work as efficiently as possible to learn about available systems, determine which ones would be relevant to NZ, and then integrate them into the NZDF. Given that a close ally already has or is introducing many such systems and that Kiwis have traditionally worked closely with the Diggers, I would think the NZDF would be interested in finding out what areas and capabilities the ADF likes and finds useful so a determination could be made on what is applicable to NZ.

-Cheers

 

[t68]

Regardless of the financial situation i don,t think we are going to see anything in the way of an increase in offensive capability of the NZDF becuase neither National or Labour have any intention of putting our soldiers into any hign insensity situations.



The Pinzi vehicles the army brought would be a deathtrap in a combat enviroment they offer nil protection against IED.

.

I am sure the NZ Army would have looked into this already,
You have the NZLAV to haul troops around, but what if you had a half squadron of Bushmaster Protected Mobility Vehicle in place of the Pinzgauer soft skin vehicle, leave the Pinzgauer as a GS vehicle for what it really is, running around NZ.

Now what if,
1x half squadron of 2x troops with 3 sections per troop 5 bushmaster per section.thats 30 bushmaster’s plus spare/training. I don’t know the running cost of a mixed fleet with NZLAV/bushmaster and possibly an upgraded M113 (wishful thinking).with Bushmaster gives you the piece of mind when venturing out in the Bad Lands and the IED problem.

As you all can see by what Australia has deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan we have sent over ASLAV and bushmaster which have earned the dollars spent on them in action. By this reasoning the M113AS4 has not been sent for the IED issue with its flat bottom.

Australia has just upgraded the old war horse M113 to AS4 standard, for which people on the forum have stated that the LAV is not suited to East Timor and pacific region, you still have i believe the M113 in storage which could not be sold when the US refused permission to sell them through an Australian arms dealer, again what if you made a half squadron of upgraded M113As4 would be nice if it could be done with the same M242 Bushmaster cannon and turret the same as NZLAV but might be to large but with more firepower when needed.

With a possible sale of 35 NZLAV which you have to many according to the government could go towards a buy of Bushmaster PMV and upgrade 40 M113 tracks will then leave you with equipment that will be suited to most places where you will be most likely operating.

I am quite sure an Australian government would expedite a purchase of Bushmaster and you could be training in them in a matter of months, as to the M113 upgrade, they could be tacked on to the exiting upgrade line in Bandiana. How much longer the line will be open i don’t know same as the bushmaster not sure how long that line will be going to but if it still going and you want them in a hurry, Bushmaster could be taken out of exiting stock the same as we have done for the Dutch and British vehicles’.

 

[Cadredave]

I am sure the NZ Army would have looked into this already,
You have the NZLAV to haul troops around, but what if you had a half squadron of Bushmaster Protected Mobility Vehicle in place of the Pinzgauer soft skin vehicle, leave the Pinzgauer as a GS vehicle for what it really is, running around NZ.

Now what if,
1 half squadron of 2x troops with 3 sections per troop 5 bushmaster per section.thats 30 bushmaster’s plus spare/training. I don’t know the running cost of a mixed fleet with NZLAV/bushmaster and possibly an upgraded M113 (wishful thinking).with Bushmaster gives you the piece of mind when venturing out in the Bad Lands and the IED problem.

As you all can see by what Australia has deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan we have sent over ASLAV and bushmaster which have earned the dollars spent on them in action. By this reasoning the M113AS4 has not been sent for the IED issue with its flat bottom.

Australia has just upgraded the old war horse M113 to AS4 standard, for which people on the forum have stated that the LAV is not suited to East Timor and pacific region, you still have i believe the M113 in storage which could not be sold when the US refused permission to sell them through an Australian arms dealer, again what if you made a half squadron of upgraded M113As4 would be nice if it could be done with the same M242 Bushmaster cannon and turret the same as NZLAV but might be to large but with more firepower when needed.

With a possible sale of 35 NZLAV which you have to many according to the government could go towards a buy of Bushmaster PMV and upgrade 40 M113 tracks will then leave you with equipment that will be suited to most places where you will be most likely operating.

I am quite sure an Australian government would expedite a purchase of Bushmaster and you could be training in them in a matter of months, as to the M113 upgrade, they could be tacked on to the exiting upgrade line in Bandiana. How much longer the line will be open i don’t know same as the bushmaster not sure how long that line will be going to but if it still going and you want them in a hurry, Bushmaster could be taken out of exiting stock the same as we have done for the Dutch and British vehicles’.

Nice idea but unfortunately all M113A1 have been cut up & turned into razor blades the only M113A1 left are being held by the National Army Museum in Waiouru only a limited stock of spares are left to keep the small fleet in Waiouru going. From what I remember the Bushmaster & NZLAV have the same powertrain so that could be a saving of some sorts IMO.