NZDF General discussion thread

[RubiconNZ]

Good. Although I'm not naive to think the LAVIII will be an answer to all the situations the NZDF will face over there, at least NZDF now has additional firepower and the extra capabilities the LAVIII will provide eg optical sights etc. Interesting to see Qantas 747 freighter's took them over - I have wondered whether civilian 747's could provide LAVIII airlift so it's also good to see this aspect confirmed. I wonder whether mod'ed 747's could be a good fit for the RNZAF to replace the 757 combi's? Granted the 747 would never go into hostile territory due to their lack of countermeasures etc, which is the domain of the C-17 and C-130 etc. I'm also glad some of us have been proven right that the NZDF is not cutting and running from A'Stan as alledged by others in the past

Interesting article thanks, It's nice to know a 747 can lift that many, now that they are there it has to be asked why weren't they sent in the first place, but it's good they are there.

Some organic fire support for the mission that the PRT faces can only be a good thing, and considering the environment will likely be sufficient.

 

[Gibbo]

Interesting article thanks, It's nice to know a 747 can lift that many, now that they are there it has to be asked why weren't they sent in the first place, but it's good they are they, some organic fire support for the mission that the PRT faces can only be a good thing, and considering the environment will likely be sufficient.

Yep good news - vindicates many on this forum who felt they should've had LAV's a few years ago when the heat started coming on. I still feel the whole argument about LAV's being unsuitable for the roads in the area was rubbish, or at best over simplistic!

I'm still wary of who was pushing this mantra that we shouldn't risk our goodwill with the locals by using LAV's. The Afghans are an intelligent bunch who understand more than most the rule of the sword. They would well understand the better armed you are the better prepared you are, and the better armed the PRT - the safer they'll feel.

And LAV's don't preclude the use of the good old kiwi charm!

Both Nats & Labour Govt have consistently said such decisions are for the NZDF to make - although I guess that there must be huge political pressure behind the scenes. So makes me wonder if the change in thinking is in some way also linked to the changing of the guard at the top of the NZDF - esp. Army!?!

This of course the speculation of a non-military man but who knows...

 

[EnigmaNZ]

I am surprised the Lav was able to be fitted trought the side freight door of a 747. Would have loved to see them being loaded. ANZ could run a couple of 747 freighters if sufficient work could be found to keep them busy, with the military then being able to ultilize them as required.

 

[KiwiRob]

Good. Although I'm not naive to think the LAVIII will be an answer to all the situations the NZDF will face over there, at least NZDF now has additional firepower and the extra capabilities the LAVIII will provide eg optical sights etc. Interesting to see Qantas 747 freighter's took them over - I have wondered whether civilian 747's could provide LAVIII airlift so it's also good to see this aspect confirmed. I wonder whether mod'ed 747's could be a good fit for the RNZAF to replace the 757 combi's? Granted the 747 would never go into hostile territory due to their lack of countermeasures etc, which is the domain of the C-17 and C-130 etc. I'm also glad some of us have been proven right that the NZDF is not cutting and running from A'Stan as alledged by others in the past

Poor reporting Qantas don't own or operate any 747 freighters. I surprised that a LAV III would fit through the nose door of a 747F even with the turret removed. I thought they would have moved them with an Antonov.

 

[recce.k1]

Poor reporting Qantas don't own or operate any 747 freighters. I surprised that a LAV III would fit through the nose door of a 747F even with the turret removed. I thought they would have moved them with an Antonov.

I stand to be corrected but I believe Qantas wet-lease them (and there's other mention on the net. eg .

The other news link above states:

"Joint Forces Commander Air Vice-Marshal Peter Stockwell said two flights were needed. The freight 747s were limited to carrying three at a time. Qantas had won the competitive tender on price".

Gibbo - I think the comments before about risking the goodwill of the locals is founded, in that presumably the LAV will provide fire-support and in some instances (eg like a goodwill visit to a village meeting with the elders or to the health clinic) perhaps likely to be lurking away from the main convoy thus not freak-out the locals (or not sent at all)! Fire-support would need a bit of range anyway. Sure on patrol it may be a different matter. Best we all don't get too concerned about the intricacies here (cos of operational security etc).

But wouldn't it be "lovely" if things went full circle and the experience proved that NZDF requires longer range fire-support (y'know for those demanding mountainous patrols ) in the form of 76mm (wouldn't a modern day equivalent of the light weight Scorpions, or at a long stretch, the old M41's, possibly come in handy?) Then again that might escalate matters with those lurking in the fringes of the region. Not easy stuff this modern asymetrical warfare, compared to fighting defined nations and enemy eh.

 

[ngatimozart]

But wouldn't it be "lovely" if things went full circle and the experience proved that NZDF requires longer range fire-support (y'know for those demanding mountainous patrols ) in the form of 76mm (wouldn't a modern day equivalent of the light weight Scorpions, or at a long stretch, the old M41's, possibly come in handy?) Then again that might escalate matters with those lurking in the fringes of the region. Not easy stuff this modern asymetrical warfare, compared to fighting defined nations and enemy eh.

About 3 - 4 weeks ago it was reported on another forum, & maybe this one as well, that the Canadians were buying up second hand Leopard 2's as quick as they came on the market. They have Leopard 2's in Aghan and have found them to be very effective. The average insurgent doesn't mind taking on a Humvee but something that bullets and RPGs bounce off is another story. Especially when it can shoot back with a large round HE round. The Canadians have strengthened the belly armour against IED's and I think the hull & turret armour against RPGs. The US Marines are trialling a M1 company as well.

Ok we can't justify buying a company of tanks in this present economic climate. However it could be possible to mount a 75/76mm gun in a turret on a LAV chassis. I have see imagery somewhere of a similar set up, not on a LAV III per se, but on an 8 wheeled light armoured vehicle, possibly a French one. Actually a naval automated remotely operated 75mm system would be ideal. You would get a gun that would operate in the roles of bombardment, anti armour and AAA without modification, just change the round eg., HE, AP, SAP, AA etc . Naval rounds are high velocity so further range and a flatter trajectory similar to the German 88mm Flak 37 of WW II which turned out to be a highly effective tank killer.

With regard to air moving the LAV it might be justification for looking at a C17 but again the economics at present don't make it viable. Be cheaper to buy an Antanov but far more risky in more ways than one.

 

[Gibbo]

....

Gibbo - I think the comments before about risking the goodwill of the locals is founded, in that presumably the LAV will provide fire-support and in some instances (eg like a goodwill visit to a village meeting with the elders or to the health clinic) perhaps likely to be lurking away from the main convoy thus not freak-out the locals (or not sent at all)! Fire-support would need a bit of range anyway. Sure on patrol it may be a different matter. Best we all don't get too concerned about the intricacies here (cos of operational security etc).

But wouldn't it be "lovely" if things went full circle and the experience proved that NZDF requires longer range fire-support (y'know for those demanding mountainous patrols ) in the form of 76mm (wouldn't a modern day equivalent of the light weight Scorpions, or at a long stretch, the old M41's, possibly come in handy?) Then again that might escalate matters with those lurking in the fringes of the region. Not easy stuff this modern asymetrical warfare, compared to fighting defined nations and enemy eh.

Yeah don't have a problem with keeping the LAV's up the road a bit when doing 'meet & greets' - the grunts can still just rock-on up in the Humvees & Hi-Luxes. The key point is having the LAV sitting out of site so that if it's needed quickly it can respond :kar - this way everyone's happy I reckon! While on the move the LAV s/be an integral part of the convoy though.

Yeah absolutely - bring back the 76mm! :sniper

 

[Gibbo]

....Ok we can't justify buying a company of tanks in this present economic climate. However it could be possible to mount a 75/76mm gun in a turret on a LAV chassis. I have see imagery somewhere of a similar set up, not on a LAV III per se, but on an 8 wheeled light armoured vehicle, possibly a French one. Actually a naval automated remotely operated 75mm system would be ideal. You would get a gun that would operate in the roles of bombardment, anti armour and AAA without modification, just change the round eg., HE, AP, SAP, AA etc . Naval rounds are high velocity so further range and a flatter trajectory similar to the German 88mm Flak 37 of WW II which turned out to be a highly effective tank killer....QUOTE]

Either of these get my vote.... :jump

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ERC_90_Sagaie"]ERC 90 Sagaie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:ERC-90_Sagaie_008_FR.JPG" class="image"><img alt="ERC-90 Sagaie 008 FR.JPG" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/ERC-90_Sagaie_008_FR.JPG/300px-ERC-90_Sagaie_008_FR.JPG"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/b/b8/ERC-90_Sagaie_008_FR.JPG/300px-ERC-90_Sagaie_008_FR.JPG[/ame]
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMX_10_RC"]AMX 10 RC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:AMX-10-RC.JPG" class="image"><img alt="AMX-10-RC.JPG" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/03/AMX-10-RC.JPG/300px-AMX-10-RC.JPG"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/0/03/AMX-10-RC.JPG/300px-AMX-10-RC.JPG[/ame]

 

[Cadredave]

Yeah don't have a problem with keeping the LAV's up the road a bit when doing 'meet & greets' - the grunts can still just rock-on up in the Humvees & Hi-Luxes. The key point is having the LAV sitting out of site so that if it's needed quickly it can respond :kar - this way everyone's happy I reckon! While on the move the LAV s/be an integral part of the convoy though.

Yeah absolutely - bring back the 76mm! :sniper

Ok guys, first the LAVs belong to 1RNZIR not QAMR meaning the dismounts are already in the back no need for mixed patrols of Lav & Humvee. The fire power that this vehicle brings to a gun fight has to be seen a 3 round burst of HEI-T is more destructive than a one round 76mm from a unstablised Scorpian can provide, just remember that extra Infantry were quietly added after 3 Aug contact by Army with other capabilities. Lastly our mandate has a large part to play in what weapon systems we can deploy into theatre until that changes then were stuck with direct fire asserts only. I was one of the loudest critics for this system in regards to what it would do to our relations with the Afghans plus it could not handle the roads etc ect however having come back from there they like all warriors respect the big stick . NZDF line of operation is now purely security MFAT has responsibility for Reconstruction & Governance hand in hand with the Govt of Afghanistan.

CD

 

[KiwiRob]

Would it be possible to turn a few LAV's into the M1128 version of the Stryker. The LAV III and the Stryker are essentially the same vehicle aren't they?

 

[ngatimozart]

Would it be possible to turn a few LAV's into the M1128 version of the Stryker. The LAV III and the Stryker are essentially the same vehicle aren't they?

After reading Cadredaves post:

Ok guys, first the LAVs belong to 1RNZIR not QAMR meaning the dismounts are already in the back no need for mixed patrols of Lav & Humvee. The fire power that this vehicle brings to a gun fight has to be seen a 3 round burst of HEI-T is more destructive than a one round 76mm from a unstablised Scorpian can provide

I don't think it would be feasible. NZDF would have to basically buy a new vehicle and whilst there would be commonality I can't really see justification for a new vehicle buy, especially in the present economic climate. However what is interesting is the M1129 Stryker Mortar Carrier and its ability to fire the 120mm mortar from inside the vehicle. The weakness I see with that system is the inability to use the 81mm & 60 mm mortars from within the vehicle. Taking that concept and adapting it to existing LAVs maybe viable and then NZDF could possibly make a case for not selling off some of their LAVs. Just a thought. :sniper

 

[EnigmaNZ]

Qantas Freight operates three 747 400Fs. They are leased from Atlas Air.

"We carry freight in the underfloor space of Qantas and Jetstar* international services and additional capacity is provided by our dedicated B747-400 freighter services. Qantas Freight can carry just about anything, anywhere."

Capacity and Loading - By Aircraft

I never considered that they removed the turrets, the space under the cockpit is only 8 feet in height versus 10 feet aft. That makes sense then with their being front loaded.

NZ operating Russian A/C is a non starter. They barely scrap through current noise restrictions even with the lastest Russian engines. Getting parts for Russian A/C is a nightmare. Having western engines, cockpits etc fitted means they have to be passed through various tests as if they were new A/C types. Expensive. I suppose leasing A/C as the need arises is the best option for us.

 

[RegR]

I never considered that they removed the turrets, the space under the cockpit is only 8 feet in height versus 10 feet aft. That makes sense then with their being front loaded.

I remember seeing three LAVs being transported on the back of civi trucks on SH1, all tarped up(you could tell it was LAV by the shape and 8 wheels peeking out the bottom) however minus the turrets so guess that would explain why. At first thought maybe they had finally converted some to ambos, command etc as stated.

 

[KiwiRob]

Qantas Freight operates three 747 400Fs. They are leased from Atlas Air.

"We carry freight in the underfloor space of Qantas and Jetstar* international services and additional capacity is provided by our dedicated B747-400 freighter services. Qantas Freight can carry just about anything, anywhere."

NZ operating Russian A/C is a non starter. They barely scrap through current noise restrictions even with the lastest Russian engines. Getting parts for Russian A/C is a nightmare. Having western engines, cockpits etc fitted means they have to be passed through various tests as if they were new A/C types. Expensive. I suppose leasing A/C as the need arises is the best option for us.

I stand corrected, we used to see the same Atlas Air Cargo plans in NZ when ANZ used to wet lease them for a round the world freight service.

Antonovs are in NZ fairly frequently, Team NZ use them for moving A/C yachts around the world and back home again.

 

[Lucasnz]

Would it be possible to turn a few LAV's into the M1128 version of the Stryker. The LAV III and the Stryker are essentially the same vehicle aren't they?

I think it would be possible, but when researching the Styker Bridgae organisation there were a number of comments regarding the lack of space inside for the crew. I think the mortar carrier offers something. Equip the NZ Army with 120mm to support the infantry - 81mm at company level (which I think they do in the US). That gives organic firesupport to around 7,500 metres for the infantry and replace the 105mm with heavy artillery. So long as the 120 can be dismounted I don't think you lose anything in tactical mobility IMHO.

 

[SASWanabe]

With regard to air moving the LAV it might be justification for looking at a C17 but again the economics at present don't make it viable. Be cheaper to buy an Antanov but far more risky in more ways than one.

why not see how much the US will a C-5 for and pay 83m to have it modernized?

 

[t68]

why not see how much the US will a C-5 for and pay 83m to have it modernized?

That’s an interesting idea, but one that is not practical for NZ.

Although early C5A/B/C aircraft are being modernized under the Reliability Enhancement and Re-engining Program (RERP), unless you buy three under the raise train sustain mantra you a left with an orphan aircraft in the pacific and unable to leverage any spare parts or maintenance programs with Australia. All aircraft will have to return to the US for periodic maintenance. The Australian C17 fleet is part of a C17 sustainment partnership program which all C17 operators are members, spare parts are more readily available thru distribution hub with current operators, i remember reading about a problem with an Australian or UK C17 needing a new windscreen being damaged by birds or something, the aircraft would have been stopped from further flight operations waiting for replacement to arrive, but was repaired in a few hours as a windscreen was sourced from either Australian or UK stock and replaced at the visiting C17 country cost.

Although NZ will be getting a strategic airlifter that is more capable than a C17, C5 Galaxy payload is 122,500KG compared to 77,500KG and aircraft range is nearly identical at max weight of 4400KM but with less weight in the C5 range could be extended. But unfortunately NZ C5 Galaxy will be total reliant on the US for spare parts distribution network and servicing and pilot training.

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123167592
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-5_Galaxy
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/did-focus-the-c17-global-sustainment-partnership-02756/

 

[ngatimozart]

US sailors on NZ warship after 28-year gap | Stuff.co.nz

Seems the US has finally put the ANZUS fracas to bed and moved on. About time because to much is going that is bigger than egos. I'm not being sarcastic just observant. I see the RAN has bought Largs Bay for ₤65 Million at half the book price. I think delivery is later this year. A very good buy for the RAN because it is practically a new vessel. A pity we aren't in the position to do the same with the zero timed RAF Hawk Trainers that have just been made surplus.

 

[recce.k1]

Oops, I shouldn't have gone off on a tangent on 76mm etc - I think CD nails it in one, that the advantage of the LAVIII is its stabilised Bushmaster i.e. stabilised 25mm should be more than enough firepower to see off insurgents armed with small arms, heavy MG(?) and RPG's (especially since the Taliban don't have their own tanks!), can operate in day and at night and is a big-step up from the manual turret on the Humvees etc.

Some other interesting comments in the NZ Herald article on the LAV deployment (perhaps we'll hear about the additional equipment in due course etc).

"Air Vice Marshal Stockwell said an increase in insurgent activity was also expected in coming weeks". . . . . .

"We're expecting that as the summer season begins we will see the insurgency rise up again and that's why we want to [be] better prepared to deal with that."

The Army had also deployed a number of other weapons systems "about which I'm not prepared to go into detail".

"We're making sure we're giving our troops what we believe to be the best kit we can give them to do the job they've go to do."

New gear to tackle Taliban summer push - Defence - NZ Herald News

Edit: Here's some reading on the 'High-Explosive Incendiary with Tracer' (HEI-T) CD mentions. Glad I'm not on the receiving end!
http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/weapon/M242.html

 

[RubiconNZ]

Fantastic news for continued joint operations with the US.
The Pacific Partnership Task Force Commander has shifted his pennant to the HMNZS Canterbury reported here on the NZDF Media Release page
.

Great news in terms of interoperability, also perfect for the NZDF to be attempting C2 ops, it will be interesting to see the lessons learned from the operation.

What are the Command facilities like on the Canterbury? As compared to a ANZAC for example?

Also I wonder if any upgrades will be put in place due to the Aus-NZ sharing arrangement, as from RAN thread there will soon be some spare kit.