New Zealand Army

[recce.k1]

Interesting watching One News tonight, apparently the NZDF will now be allowed to patrol outside of Bamyan (and presumably that's into the neighbouring Hungarian-patrolled Baghlan Province).

Also interesting was the PM saying that although the SAS will not redeploy, in effect some may be able to return as part of the Regular Forces to improve security - read into that what you want to I guess

Also interesting is that ISAF/NZDF have been watching this insurgent group for a while, and that the Afghan NDS were arresting the bomb maker when the trouble began. Capturing one of the insurgents and as per some of the aspects above, presumably will ensure "interesting times" ahead for some of these insurgents...

In terms of the NZDF, granted they operate as part of a wider Coalition effort with greater fire-power on-call, but is there anything else that can be done to improve the defences of the remote forward operating bases (and those at Do Abe that were attacked today)? Apart from greater intelligence and working in with the locals, could NZDF ask NZG for better self-protection systems (thinking Phalanx type radar controlled chain guns to shoot down mortars and possibly RPG fire)? Apparently the insurgent attack on Do Abe lasted an hour (at night time), and presumably without coalition air support nor other units to allow for covering fire, one can only dig in and counter the attack?? (Apologies, not intending to be an expert, just asking a question etc).

NZDF Press conference coverage: Casualties in Afghanistan - Coverage | Scoop News

Kiwi soldiers killed in Afghanistan named, second... | Stuff.co.nz

 

[steve33]

Interesting watching One News tonight, apparently the NZDF will now be allowed to patrol outside of Bamyan (and presumably that's into the neighbouring Hungarian-patrolled Baghlan Province).

Also interesting was the PM saying that although the SAS will not redeploy, in effect some may be able to return as part of the Regular Forces to improve security - read into that what you want to I guess

Also interesting is that ISAF/NZDF have been watching this insurgent group for a while, and that the Afghan NDS were arresting the bomb maker when the trouble began. Capturing one of the insurgents and as per some of the aspects above, presumably will ensure "interesting times" ahead for some of these insurgents...

In terms of the NZDF, granted they operate as part of a wider Coalition effort with greater fire-power on-call, but is there anything else that can be done to improve the defences of the remote forward operating bases (and those at Do Abe that were attacked today)? Apart from greater intelligence and working in with the locals, could NZDF ask NZG for better self-protection systems (thinking Phalanx type radar controlled chain guns to shoot down mortars and possibly RPG fire)? Apparently the insurgent attack on Do Abe lasted an hour (at night time), and presumably without coalition air support nor other units to allow for covering fire, one can only dig in and counter the attack?? (Apologies, not intending to be an expert, just asking a question etc).

NZDF Press conference coverage: Casualties in Afghanistan - Coverage | Scoop News

Kiwi soldiers killed in Afghanistan named, second... | Stuff.co.nz

I wouldn't be suprsied to see the SAS go back but we won't hear about it this time the gov will keep it low profile.

One thing that could help is some drones to patrol over the base area espically at night give our guys a heads up if anyone is seen moving towards the base it would also help when our people are out of base doing patrols because with the drones cameras they could fly forward of our forces and have a chance of spotting potential ambushes like what has just happened.

Who knows they may already have drones available to support their efforts.

 

[Raven22]

In terms of the NZDF, granted they operate as part of a wider Coalition effort with greater fire-power on-call, but is there anything else that can be done to improve the defences of the remote forward operating bases (and those at Do Abe that were attacked today)? Apart from greater intelligence and working in with the locals, could NZDF ask NZG for better self-protection systems (thinking Phalanx type radar controlled chain guns to shoot down mortars and possibly RPG fire)? Apparently the insurgent attack on Do Abe lasted an hour (at night time), and presumably without coalition air support nor other units to allow for covering fire, one can only dig in and counter the attack?? (Apologies, not intending to be an expert, just asking a question etc).

A couple of things. Firstly, if the attack lasted for an hour (and noting its the middle of summer) if the Kiwis needed air support they would have got it. Perhaps more to the point, you need to remember that this is a war. Having a section worth of Taliban attack a patrol base is no big thing worth getting overly excited about. In fact, due to this being a COIN war, you actually WANT to the Taliban to attack you like this. If they raise their heads above the detection threshold like this it actually gives you a chance to kill the buggers. I'd far rather the Taliban attack me in my nice prepared defensive position than simply have them, say, use nothing but IEDs giving me no opportunity to hit back.

One thing that could help is some drones to patrol over the base area espically at night give our guys a heads up if anyone is seen moving towards the base it would also help when our people are out of base doing patrols because with the drones cameras they could fly forward of our forces and have a chance of spotting potential ambushes like what has just happened.

The Kiwis would have access to coalition UAVs. Again, you have to remember the way the coalition works though. Whatever UAV capability that is in the area would be doled out based on need. Whoever has the greatest need gets the capability. If the Kiwis wanted UAV flight hours they would request them through the higher headquarters. If they had the greatest need they would get them. Noting their role, however, it is far more likely that another coalition unit would get the flight hours. Even the Kiwis bringing their own UAVs wouldn't necessarily guarantee them support either, as they would go into the same coalition pool and could still be doled out to someone else.

 

[recce.k1]

Cheers Raven, it's always good to hear the views from the wise and experienced.

And I suppose there's other factors at play in terms of setting up remote R2D2's (and perhaps close air support) like in that one wouldn't want to take out half the village and infuriate the remaining locals, which would be counter productive in terms of hearts and minds etc?

 

[Raven22]

Cheers Raven, it's always good to hear the views from the wise and experienced.

That's the first time I've ever heard someone call me wise. Probably the last too.

And I suppose there's other factors at play in terms of setting up remote R2D2's (and perhaps close air support) like in that one wouldn't want to take out half the village and infuriate the remaining locals, which would be counter productive in terms of hearts and minds etc?

Yeah, the Yanks set up the CRAM Phalanx's in the Green Zone in Baghdad a number of years ago, but withdrew them pretty quick after unexploded rounds killed a number of civilians. Whoops. Using them outside the Kiwi base would be a waste of time anyway. The base would be too small for insurgent rockets to actually hit more than once in a blue moon, and the Phalanx wouldn't be able to shoot down RPGs.

While going into any detail about the support available to the Kiwis wouldn't be possible, its comforting to know that within an hour the coalition could amass more combat power in support than exists in Australia and New Zealand combined. You see an A-10 do a strafing run just once and you remember why we're friends with the Yanks. Let us hope we never piss them off.

 

[Lucasnz]

An interesting article on stuff today about the cost of the deployment to Afghanistan. Whats interesting is at the bottom of the page, where in addition to the LAV's the government wants to sell a relocatable field surgery and the low-level air defence system. If I remember rightly the the feild surgery has been stored at Tretham for years and was cannibalized to help equipment the forward surgical team for East Timor. Concerning its going from a Civil Defence perspective but with Canterbury its probably not required.

Whats more concerning is the sale of the air defence system. Has anyone heard anything further about this. If its true its yet another step backwards for the NZDF in trying to develop capabilities for combat operations.

 

[t68]

An interesting article on stuff today about the cost of the deployment to Afghanistan. Whats interesting is at the bottom of the page, where in addition to the LAV's the government wants to sell a relocatable field surgery and the low-level air defence system. If I remember rightly the the feild surgery has been stored at Tretham for years and was cannibalized to help equipment the forward surgical team for East Timor. Concerning its going from a Civil Defence perspective but with Canterbury its probably not required.

Whats more concerning is the sale of the air defence system. Has anyone heard anything further about this. If its true its yet another step backwards for the NZDF in trying to develop capabilities for combat operations.

It’s good that NZ upgraded their capability with the NZLAV, but pity they are a different spec to the ASLAV we could have used then as attrition replacements as part of our own upgrade program. We could have made a deal on Bushmaster.

If they go ahead with this and they don’t bring back the 8 from Afghanistan as suggested, that’s 28 cars you are losing seems a lot to lose when you only have 102 cars, why don’t they just store them never know when you will need replacement kit.
Wonder if that Mistral system could be used on HMNZS Canterbury as part of its self defence when needed similar to what 16th Air Land Regiment, RAA now that NZD as part of its planning the Joint Amphibious Task Force.

 

[recce.k1]

Whats more concerning is the sale of the air defence system. Has anyone heard anything further about this. If its true its yet another step backwards for the NZDF in trying to develop capabilities for combat operations.

It is curious, but presumably it's Defence itself that wants to let them go (wonder why - the need to re-allocate personnel into more important specialised areas, or the system itself has been found to be less than optimal etc)? Hopefully CD can shed some insight.

 

[recce.k1]

It’s good that NZ upgraded their capability with the NZLAV, but pity they are a different spec to the ASLAV we could have used then as attrition replacements as part of our own upgrade program. We could have made a deal on Bushmaster.

Well the sale of some of the LAV's were mooted under the defence review, so no real suprise (although still disconcerning in light of their deployments and attrition needs but presumably the new force structure requires less of them). I had wondered though whether the earlier ideas to convert some to other roles may have seen them retained, if that is still to happen? Finally perhaps if some are left behind in Afghanistan then hopefully that's from the 20 earmarked and not additional (but I don't understand how a technically advanced LAVIII requiring specialised support could be maintained by the ANA - not unless NZ or ISAF is to fund ongoing training, support and upgrades etc? Unless some of the high-tech stuff is removed and brought back to NZ for spares and ANA simply use them as battle taxis)?

Here's a thought, although unsure of the practicality, perhaps the ADF could buy them (or swap out for some excess Bushmasters etc) and get some new generation LAV variants cheap as - assuming there's a requirement of course.

 

[t68]

Well the sale of some of the LAV's were mooted under the defence review, so no real suprise (although still disconcerning in light of their deployments and attrition needs but presumably the new force structure requires less of them). I had wondered though whether the earlier ideas to convert some to other roles may have seen them retained, if that is still to happen? Finally perhaps if some are left behind in Afghanistan then hopefully that's from the 20 earmarked and not additional (but I don't understand how a technically advanced LAVIII requiring specialised support could be maintained by the ANA - not unless NZ or ISAF is to fund ongoing training, support and upgrades etc? Unless some of the high-tech stuff is removed and brought back to NZ for spares and ANA simply use them as battle taxis)?

Here's a thought, although unsure of the practicality, perhaps the ADF could buy them (or swap out for some excess Bushmasters etc) and get some new generation LAV variants cheap as - assuming there's a requirement of course.

I would imagine that the US will leave behind a fair bit of kit for ANA as well, but I remember reading yesterday that the US is supplying about 400 M1117 ASV which they will also have to support. Would be nice to get the NZLAV but that would mean another log/spare chain to implement. I think the NZD should have the Bushmaster now for your Arty Reg moving the guns under protection instead of soft skin unimogs or wait and see what project land 121 comes up with.

Do you see NZD defence upgrading from the current L119 to the M777 for commonality with the RAA since Benella no longer make 105 rounds?

Where do you source you EO from?

 

[Raven22]

It’s good that NZ upgraded their capability with the NZLAV, but pity they are a different spec to the ASLAV we could have used then as attrition replacements as part of our own upgrade program. We could have made a deal on Bushmaster.

.

There is no ASLAV upgrade program. Anyway, we've got more than enough written off vehicles of our own to scavenge parts from. The number of in service ASLAVs will drop soon anyway, so soon there will be no great need for spares.

Well the sale of some of the LAV's were mooted under the defence review, so no real suprise (although still disconcerning in light of their deployments and attrition needs but presumably the new force structure requires less of them). I had wondered though whether the earlier ideas to convert some to other roles may have seen them retained, if that is still to happen? Finally perhaps if some are left behind in Afghanistan then hopefully that's from the 20 earmarked and not additional (but I don't understand how a technically advanced LAVIII requiring specialised support could be maintained by the ANA - not unless NZ or ISAF is to fund ongoing training, support and upgrades etc? Unless some of the high-tech stuff is removed and brought back to NZ for spares and ANA simply use them as battle taxis)?

There is no way the ANA could sustain NZLAV. There are security concerns than mean it would never happen anyway. If they are left in Afghan, they will probably just be stripped of anything useful and towed out onto a range for use as a target. The cost to ship the vehicles home and reset them would be pretty extraordinary, so it makes sense that if the Kiwis are reducing their fleet anyway to avoid this expense. I just wish Australia would do the same with most of our deployed fleet. For instance, it would be cheaper just to build new Bushmasters than to pay for the deployed fleet to be returned and reset, but the brass seems keen to do it anyway.

 

[recce.k1]

Would be nice to get the NZLAV but that would mean another log/spare chain to implement.

ADF would have full access to direct US support and training systems - wouldn't the ADF simply be able to add a LAVIII component to their user-group support programmes (and accerelate the process)?

 

[Cadredave]

It is curious, but presumably it's Defence itself that wants to let them go (wonder why - the need to re-allocate personnel into more important specialised areas, or the system itself has been found to be less than optimal etc)? Hopefully CD can shed some insight.

With the new direction set in the DWP & CDF direction for the SWP they are now deemed surplus to requirements Army has come to the conclusion we would always be under the umbrella of a coalition air force of some sort.

CD

 

[Raven22]

ADF would have full access to direct US support and training systems - wouldn't the ADF simply be able to add a LAVIII component to their user-group support programmes (and accerelate the process)?

It took 15 years to get a sustainment contract for the ASLAV signed. Why go to the effort for a small number of NZLAVs for which there is no requirement?

 

[Lucasnz]

With the new direction set in the DWP & CDF direction for the SWP they are now deemed surplus to requirements Army has come to the conclusion we would always be under the umbrella of a coalition air force of some sort.

CD

We reacquired a capability we lost in the 1960's and then we decide to throw it out the door, less than 10 years after acquiring the radar system. I think a degree of madness must exist in defence thinking right now to waste resources acquiring a system and then throw it away.

While I agree the NZDF will come under the umbrella of coalition forces, that doesn't negate the need for some form of Low Level air defence missile system for land forces, given coalition aircraft might not be immediately on hand. If army doesn't need the Mistral system, give it to the Navy for use on Canterbury and the OPV's or even the Air Force but don't just toss the entire system out the door.

I think I'm going to go and find some rum (hold the water).

 

[recce.k1]

.
There is no way the ANA could sustain NZLAV. There are security concerns than mean it would never happen anyway.

I assumed that would be the case, thanks for advising.

It took 15 years to get a sustainment contract for the ASLAV signed. Why go to the effort for a small number of NZLAVs for which there is no requirement?

Absolutely, if no requirement, then it's another pipe dream. (Like there's no requirement to fly F-35B's off LHD's, nor no NZG requirement for fast-air etc).

My question was more about plugging into an existing support system, if there was a requirement of course.

Incidentally what was the 15 year delay caused by? Govt or Defence priorities (or lack of requirement) or simply because the experiences in recent Coalition warfare (eg A'stan & Iraq) with the need to better sustain such equipment in theatre (and counter common threats such as advances in IED's etc) see this all come together?

 

[Cadredave]

If they go ahead with this and they don’t bring back the 8 from Afghanistan as suggested,

All twelve NZLAV will return the same way we got them over to the Ghan, there are far to many end users certificate issues for us to leave them to the ANA/ANP, look how long it took us to sell our ACF. Its the technology inside the turret and hull that is still restricted even back here in NZ.

that’s 28 cars you are losing seems a lot to lose when you only have 102 cars, why don’t they just store them never know when you will need replacement kit.

This number is no different than what we had with the M113A1 2 x sqn lift plus some left for individual & colective training at the school.

Wonder if that Mistral system could be used on HMNZS Canterbury as part of its self defence when needed similar to what 16th Air Land Regiment,

Havent heard anything coming from navy ref them wanting mistral alot of rumours nothing concrete to confirm.

 

[Raven22]

Incidentally what was the 15 year delay caused by? Govt or Defence priorities (or lack of requirement) or simply because the experiences in recent Coalition warfare (eg A'stan & Iraq) with the need to better sustain such equipment in theatre (and counter common threats such as advances in IED's etc) see this all come together?

I'm not 100% sure of the reason, but I am sure it can all be traced back to someones incompetence.

 

[Lucasnz]

I'm not 100% sure of the reason, but I am sure it can all be traced back to someones incompetence.

There was an internal debate within the armoured corp I recall regarding Wheels vs Track. Then treasury got involved and wanted wheels because they're cheaper to run.

There was a report by the Auditor General. It you can't get them from the AG Website then PM me and I'll email them (they're too big to upload).

 

[Raven22]

There was an internal debate within the armoured corp I recall regarding Wheels vs Track. Then treasury got involved and wanted wheels because they're cheaper to run.

There was a report by the Auditor General. It you can't get them from the AG Website then PM me and I'll email them (they're too big to upload).

I don't think we're quite talking about the same thing...