New Zealand Army

[recce.k1]

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

I couldn't see Navy being terribly interested in Mistral - surely they would prefer something that better integrates into their shipboard systems (eg RAM etc), and surely they would expect Army to defend their disembarking troops and vehicles when ashore etc?*

* Although I get the lack of air threats in SWP against Army and get that when Army deploy outside of SWP they are under a Coalition umbrella.

But this still doesn't sit right with me (nor history lesson wise), I would have thought NZDF could at least complement the ADF (16th Air Land Regiment, RAA) in some form to help share the load on joint ops.

Unless this is to be NZDF wide decision to kill off the capability (as opposed to Army killing off a "fringe" capability), perhaps RNZAF should take this responsibility on board (for airfield and deployed airfield defence inc. rotary assets via land/ship etc), at least they will have some technical expertise with a variety of missile systems and over time better align/upgrade with Coalition partner systems.

Army then could instead look at the man portable Stinger to accompany them (they need to have at least an elementary system in their arsenal, this wouldn't be too much to expect of them, nor expensive, nor overly technical in terms of specialist support). Of the 3 services they are the most exposed on a day in and day out basis even against helos which aren't a stretch in the wider region just beyond SWP.

 

[Cadredave]

recce

I couldn't see Navy being terribly interested in Mistral - surely they would prefer something that better integrates into their shipboard systems (eg RAM etc), and surely they would expect Army to defend their disembarking troops and vehicles when ashore etc?*

Granted I dont see Navy having any interest in them either, OPV wont need them neither will the ANZACs.

* Although I get the lack of air threats in SWP against Army and get that when Army deploy outside of SWP they are under a Coalition umbrella.

But this still doesn't sit right with me (nor history lesson wise), I would have thought NZDF could at least complement the ADF (16th Air Land Regiment, RAA) in some form to help share the load on joint ops.

16 Fd Regt is the most vulnerable of all the Cbt Spt corps they are on thin ice with treasury in exactly the same way as the ACF argument was used to bin them, either Army gets smart or says bye bye to another capability so CA & CDF have managed to see them off but to be honest I'll rather see mistral disappear than 161 or 163 bty.

Unless this is to be NZDF wide decision to kill off the capability (as opposed to Army killing off a "fringe" capability), perhaps RNZAF should take this responsibility on board (for airfield and deployed airfield defence inc. rotary assets via land/ship etc), at least they will have some technical expertise with a variety of missile systems and over time better align/upgrade with Coalition partner systems.

maybe only time will tell.

Army then could instead look at the man portable Stinger to accompany them (they need to have at least an elementary system in their arsenal, this wouldn't be too much to expect of them, nor expensive, nor overly technical in terms of specialist support). Of the 3 services they are the most exposed on a day in and day out basis even against helos which aren't a stretch in the wider region just beyond SWP

Reece you have no idea of the coalition support available to our soldiers in Afghanistan, some of our contacts have had more asserts than the whole of 75 sqn could muster on a good day, this is not Crete we have had on call the following:
B1, F15s, A10s, AH64, predator CH47, UH60, etc until you see for your self whats available it gives you the confidence to know that Uncle Sam has your back. For me losing mistral is the least of our worries losing our guns to those bean counters in Wellington is far worse.

 

[Volkodav]

.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.

Depends how you sell it,
leaving them there
- near term cost saving
cancelling reset
- near term cost saving
new build to replace
- protects jobs in regional electorate
- cost can be pushed into a future budget

Sounds pretty good to me with an election coming and all that maybe the government could be convinced of the vote buying potential.

 

[recce.k1]

16 Fd Regt is the most vulnerable of all the Cbt Spt corps they are on thin ice with treasury in exactly the same way as the ACF argument was used to bin them, either Army gets smart or says bye bye to another capability so CA & CDF have managed to see them off but to be honest I'll rather see mistral disappear than 161 or 163 bty.

Hmm, and if Treasury eventually win that argument, what next, offensive weaponry on Frigates? Treasury just need to fund Defence better as usual etc.

Looks like some further work needs to be done in this area by Defence to get Treasury on board more? (Hopefully the joint amphibious force's finer working arrangements with partners will allow them to get a first hand look at where air defence systems play their part - mind you could even do it now and get them to see how the ADF's ADG & RRAA fits into the picture)! Also perhaps Defence and other agencies need to push the counter-terrorism area - if not already - eg not having an indigenous form of rudimentary air defence for cities and events would be foolish (not unless the Govt is willing to allow overseas's partners set up their own bases & defensive systems here ).

161 & 163 bty's are must haves and needs to be ring fence from the bean counters ... alternatively under pressure to shed the air defence role in time, could the role could fall to one of the other services and maintain some skillsets? For the Air Force & Navy for example the requirement could be viewed as an extension to counter measure systems on aircraft or ships.

However in relation to the subject of a massive range of coalition support availability .... ok I think I'm reading the tea leaves better now hence see why losing Mistral wouldn't be a major disadvantage ... Army is going to train more with like minded friends including within this region

Although personally would still like to see a NZDF component, it can contribute to the wider "coalition" effort in a lesser or greater form.

 

[Raven22]

Depends how you sell it,
leaving them there
- near term cost saving
cancelling reset
- near term cost saving
new build to replace
- protects jobs in regional electorate
- cost can be pushed into a future budget

Sounds pretty good to me with an election coming and all that maybe the government could be convinced of the vote buying potential.

Yeah, but if you don't bring them home you can't give a token gong trip to a bunch of warrant officers and majors. After all, someones got to get a CSC for organising the withdrawal.

There's no need to build replacement vehicles either. There are already more Bushmasters on order than Army knows what to do with. Good old vote buying - if they built submarines in Bendigo we would have a fleet of 30 boats.

Looks like some further work needs to be done in this area by Defence to get Treasury on board more? (

It doesn't matter how much money defence has, its still a zero sum game. What would you spend your money one, a capability you know you are going to use, or one you almost certainly won't. The fact is, against any adversary actually strong enough to need a GBAD capability (ie, one strong enough to contest coalition air supremacy) the Mistral is all but useless anyway.

 

[Lucasnz]

Yeah, but if you don't bring them home you can't give a token gong trip to a bunch of warrant officers and majors. After all, someones got to get a CSC for organising the withdrawal.

There's no need to build replacement vehicles either. There are already more Bushmasters on order than Army knows what to do with. Good old vote buying - if they built submarines in Bendigo we would have a fleet of 30 boats.



It doesn't matter how much money defence has, its still a zero sum game. What would you spend your money one, a capability you know you are going to use, or one you almost certainly won't. The fact is, against any adversary actually strong enough to need a GBAD capability (ie, one strong enough to contest coalition air supremacy) the Mistral is all but useless anyway.

I think the debate over the Mistral and its use in a coalition operational environment ignores the fact that Mistral were deployed in support of APEC in Auckland in 1998, as were the A4's. If NZ wishes to hold high cailbre political conferences of that type in future, the capability is required - or else we hire the Australians

 

[Volkodav]

There's no need to build replacement vehicles either. There are already more Bushmasters on order than Army knows what to do with. Good old vote buying - if they built submarines in Bendigo we would have a fleet of 30 boats.

A bloke I know has told me (many times) the best way to ensure ongoing ship and submarine building in Adelaide is for the SA government to fund a direct rail link to Bendigo so the majority of subcontract engineering work can be conducted there.

 

[Gibbo]

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.

Yes selling the Mistral is madness - firstly they did a half-arsed job & never got the full IFF system, then they finally got that sorted only to seemingly decide they don't need it. This is all about Govt squeezing the defence budget to the point where key equipment (or roles at least) get dumped. Wow - an Army without air defence :shudder

Okay so realistically Mistral is unlikely to get a lot of use in the roles NZDF are looking to (esp. amphib in SthPac) - but throwing it away!?! Surely it can't be an overly expensive system to retain & it keeping it at least retains an option that NZDF may just find thye need at relatively short-notice. Lets face it, modern forces face constantly evolving threats, at least Mistral offers another option, and allows a degree of independence.

Army will now require complete dependence - on allies having 100% guaranteed air-superiority!

 

[Cadredave]

Yes selling the Mistral is madness - firstly they did a half-arsed job & never got the full IFF system, then they finally got that sorted only to seemingly decide they don't need it.

You buy what you can afford, hard choices are made if Govt does not give you the money to purchase the complete system then you buy what you can dont go blaming Army for being half arsed blame those who control the purse strings and force us to cut our cloth to fit.

This is all about Govt squeezing the defence budget to the point where key equipment (or roles at least) get dumped. Wow - an Army without air defence :shudder

Since when has Air Defence been key in the NZ Army of the 21st Century, we have operated under full overwhelming air superiority since GW1, what do you propose we do? lets look at it, the choice for CO 16 FD Regt is one of the following:
1. Remove Mistral that has not deployed operationally in the last 15 years, costly to maintain train and operate,
2. Dump Mortars or UAV, to man AD,
3. Remove one Gun bty to man, 81mm, UAV, AD & 161 Bty,

Mistral was not a hard choice for CO 16 Fd Regt to make to CA ref its removal from his Regt. When it is sold that money at least stays within NZDF to get something we really require or if RNZN or RNZAF have a requirement then yes give it to them IMO it would sit better with RNZAF.

Okay so realistically Mistral is unlikely to get a lot of use in the roles NZDF are looking to (esp. amphib in SthPac) - but throwing it away!?! Surely it can't be an overly expensive system to retain & it keeping it at least retains an option that NZDF may just find thye need at relatively short-notice.

At todays price of $280K per live missle it is an overly expensive system to keep you still have to live fire to test the whole system and there is only one area in NZ where we can fire and thats in Kaipara which means in todays tight financial times this system is not good VfM, but more importantly where or who in the SWP are we going to encounter a airforce with FGA in which we require AD.

Lets face it, modern forces face constantly evolving threats, at least Mistral offers another option, and allows a degree of independence.

Yes and currently those threats are insurgents & IEDs the greatest threat to Army is the poor mans weapon of choice the IED, ill be blunt Mistral offers nothing that the USMC or Aussie cant provide, we will have AD in SWP in the form of Te Kaha or Te Mana cant get any better than an ANZAC to provide AD if needed.

Army will now require complete dependence - on allies having 100% guaranteed air-superiority!

So whats the difference with what is being provided in Afghan we have complete 100% dependence on Coalition Airforces to support us, you might worry back here in NZ but like I said before once you actually see what the USA or a Coalition brings to the fight then the odds lessen the only time we need AD in the future will be state on state conflict.

Im personnaly not bothered due to the amount of air power we have on call currently, as CDF put it he would not lose another MAJOR CAPABILITY like the ACF again, anything that does not fit our new focus will be looked at critically and removed if it provides no benefit where we can get it from our allies.

Army Major Capabilities are:
Combat
1NZSAS
1RNZIR A,W,V, Spt & Log Coy
+ (5/7 TF)
2/1RNZIR A,B,C, Spt & Log Coy
+ (2/4 TF)
QAMR WEC & SCOTTs
+ (3/6 & Waikato MR TF)

Combat Spt
16Fd Regt
Hybrid Bty (161, 163) 105mm & 81mm
UAV
CIMIC
(11/4 gun BtyTF) 105mm

2ER
2 Fd Sqn
3 Fd Sqn
(1 Fd TF)
25ESS

CSS
2&3 CSSB

Guys calm down the sky is not falling and i'll say it again if Army loses a real capability like 16Fd Regt then i would leave this Army and Country in a heart beat, just be thankful we have Senior Leadership who can take on those prima donnas in Treasury & the PM office and win the battles that do provide real options to NZGOV.

CD

 

[ADMk2]

Mistral was not a hard choice for CO 16 Fd Regt to make to CA ref its removal from his Regt. When it is sold that money at least stays within NZDF to get something we really require or if RNZN or RNZAF have a requirement then yes give it to them IMO it would sit better with RNZAF.

Or to RNZN to provide a minimum credible level of air defence for HMNZS Canterbury, in a similar vein to our use of RBS-70 on HMAS Manoora / Kanimbla, back in the day.

That way the Mistral SAM system stays on the NZDF order of battle and HMNZS Canterbury gets a stronger, more capable self-defence system.

 

[Gibbo]

You buy what you can afford, hard choices are made if Govt does not give you the money to purchase the complete system then you buy what you can dont go blaming Army for being half arsed blame those who control the purse strings and force us to cut our cloth to fit.



Since when has Air Defence been key in the NZ Army of the 21st Century, we have operated under full overwhelming air superiority since GW1, what do you propose we do? lets look at it, the choice for CO 16 FD Regt is one of the following:
1. Remove Mistral that has not deployed operationally in the last 15 years, costly to maintain train and operate,
2. Dump Mortars or UAV, to man AD,
3. Remove one Gun bty to man, 81mm, UAV, AD & 161 Bty,

Mistral was not a hard choice for CO 16 Fd Regt to make to CA ref its removal from his Regt. When it is sold that money at least stays within NZDF to get something we really require or if RNZN or RNZAF have a requirement then yes give it to them IMO it would sit better with RNZAF.



At todays price of $280K per live missle it is an overly expensive system to keep you still have to live fire to test the whole system and there is only one area in NZ where we can fire and thats in Kaipara which means in todays tight financial times this system is not good VfM, but more importantly where or who in the SWP are we going to encounter a airforce with FGA in which we require AD.



Yes and currently those threats are insurgents & IEDs the greatest threat to Army is the poor mans weapon of choice the IED, ill be blunt Mistral offers nothing that the USMC or Aussie cant provide, we will have AD in SWP in the form of Te Kaha or Te Mana cant get any better than an ANZAC to provide AD if needed.



So whats the difference with what is being provided in Afghan we have complete 100% dependence on Coalition Airforces to support us, you might worry back here in NZ but like I said before once you actually see what the USA or a Coalition brings to the fight then the odds lessen the only time we need AD in the future will be state on state conflict.

Im personnaly not bothered due to the amount of air power we have on call currently, as CDF put it he would not lose another MAJOR CAPABILITY like the ACF again, anything that does not fit our new focus will be looked at critically and removed if it provides no benefit where we can get it from our allies.

Army Major Capabilities are:
Combat
1NZSAS
1RNZIR A,W,V, Spt & Log Coy
+ (5/7 TF)
2/1RNZIR A,B,C, Spt & Log Coy
+ (2/4 TF)
QAMR WEC & SCOTTs
+ (3/6 & Waikato MR TF)

Combat Spt
16Fd Regt
Hybrid Bty (161, 163) 105mm & 81mm
UAV
CIMIC
(11/4 gun BtyTF) 105mm

2ER
2 Fd Sqn
3 Fd Sqn
(1 Fd TF)
25ESS

CSS
2&3 CSSB

Guys calm down the sky is not falling and i'll say it again if Army loses a real capability like 16Fd Regt then i would leave this Army and Country in a heart beat, just be thankful we have Senior Leadership who can take on those prima donnas in Treasury & the PM office and win the battles that do provide real options to NZGOV.

CD

Ouch my apologies, I should have clarified who I was referring to in my opening statement - it WAS those that control the purse strings I was referring - those damned politicians, treasury etc... you guys in Army & the whole NZDF do an bloody heroic job juggling what you do with the meagre level of interest given by those wallies in the beehive!

Yes good points you make in the remainder - I was grumpy as hell when I posted that & so I admit it was a rant! So yes I do understand that Mistral is probably not worth keeping given the pressures that'd go on to cut something more relevant to setup of the amphib capability.

Granted current ops certainly don't require us to have air-defence. However in a broader sense if we were in ops that had a real air threat, is it realistic to assume we'd only ever deploy if allies guaranteed to provide us with an air defence troop?

 

[Gibbo]

Or to RNZN to provide a minimum credible level of air defence for HMNZS Canterbury, in a similar vein to our use of RBS-70 on HMAS Manoora / Kanimbla, back in the day.

That way the Mistral SAM system stays on the NZDF order of battle and HMNZS Canterbury gets a stronger, more capable self-defence system.

Yes HMNZS Canterbury would be my preference - it doesn't even have HMG to cover all angles of attack so a FIAC could get in & do some damage quickly - and thats the most likely risk on SthPac amphib ops. Remembering that Frigates largely provide outer protection, for close quarters most vessels are expected to provide their own defence against FIAC (hence why almost every other navy has MG's on their high value auxillairies).

What interests me is Navy have stated Endeavours replacement may have MG's - so what will it be doing that Endeavour won't... ie: why doesn't Endeavour have them now!?!

 

[ngatimozart]

Yes HMNZS Canterbury would be my preference - it doesn't even have HMG to cover all angles of attack so a FIAC could get in & do some damage quickly - and thats the most likely risk on SthPac amphib ops. Remembering that Frigates largely provide outer protection, for close quarters most vessels are expected to provide their own defence against FIAC (hence why almost every other navy has MG's on their high value auxillairies).

What interests me is Navy have stated Endeavours replacement may have MG's - so what will it be doing that Endeavour won't... ie: why doesn't Endeavour have them now!?!

Probably because of the fact it is a tanker and fire arms and fuel tankers aren't necessarilly a good combination. If push came to shove it would not take long to mount M2.50cal and MAG58 MGs around the ship. A bit of No 8 wire ingenuity. The RNZN has both so its just a matter of mounting them and having the ammo handy. The replacement vessel is supposed to have a wider role in it being a more of a MRV than a pure tanker.

 

[recce.k1]

Granted current ops certainly don't require us to have air-defence. However in a broader sense if we were in ops that had a real air threat, is it realistic to assume we'd only ever deploy if allies guaranteed to provide us with an air defence troop?

If things got that bad and NZ were to contribute to 'restoring the peace' it would be under coalition protection anyway.

If we want to shame the pollies into funding Defence a few more 10's of millions then what would one advocate for responses where coalition air cover wouldn't be appropriate (or available)?

Counter terrorism comes to mind (in NZ and for VIP event 'protection' etc). Land and NH-90 deployable!

Beefing up HMNZS Canterbury?

What else?

 

[Lucasnz]

If things got that bad and NZ were to contribute to 'restoring the peace' it would be under coalition protection anyway.

If we want to shame the pollies into funding Defence a few more 10's of millions then what would one advocate for responses where coalition air cover wouldn't be appropriate (or available)?

Counter terrorism comes to mind (in NZ and for VIP event 'protection' etc). Land and NH-90 deployable!

Beefing up HMNZS Canterbury?

What else?

The navy has assessed the Mistral as been suitable for Close in Defence (In was in one of the reports on the CIWS Upgrade) but decided to upgrade Phalanx. The navy has a number of upgrades planned for Canterbury (Torpedo Defence, ESM etc - See Navy Strategic Plans on the navy website) which includes fitting it to take Phalanx. I still like the idea of putting Mistral on Canterbury in order to retain capability and because it has a longer range than Phalanx.

I appreciate the budgetary pressure Defence is under but in advocating for the retention of the Mistral I am advocating for the development of a defence force that equips its professional military properly so it can show up to a fight without having to go begging for additional equipment at short notice. I wonder sometimes if NZ has learned anything from its historical experiences.

 

[rangerman87]

Sorry, I wasnt talking about deploying a brigade, only having a brigade formation in NZ for training purposes with the intent of being able to deploy battalion groups that can operate with other nations in formations.

Should NZ form a regular infantry brigade of three battalions plus all the service/log add ons and deploys its brigade HQ in NZ, it won't be anything new,a similar organisational structure was in place in the late seventies till the late eighties with 1RNZIR in Dieppe Barracks in Singapore and 2RNZIR in NZ (Christchurch I think). By the way we haven't quite forgiven the Kiwis for deserting us even though it was the Govt's call and not their military's wish

 

[rangerman87]

Should NZ form a regular infantry brigade of three battalions plus all the service/log add ons and deploys its brigade HQ in NZ, it won't be anything new,a similar organisational structure was in place in the late seventies till the late eighties with 1RNZIR in Dieppe Barracks in Singapore and 2RNZIR in NZ (Christchurch I think). By the way we haven't quite forgiven the Kiwis for deserting us even though it was the Govt's call and not their military's wish

In that period 1RNZIR was among the finest jungle fighters in the world

 

[ADMk2]

Granted current ops certainly don't require us to have air-defence. However in a broader sense if we were in ops that had a real air threat, is it realistic to assume we'd only ever deploy if allies guaranteed to provide us with an air defence troop?

I thought that issue was the rationale behind the acquisition of the Mistral SAM system in the first place?

Supposedly reliable allies didn't have the capability to provide deployed NZ elements with air defence capability when they actually needed it (ie: in Bosnia)?

 

[Volkodav]

I thought that issue was the rationale behind the acquisition of the Mistral SAM system in the first place?

Supposedly reliable allies didn't have the capability to provide deployed NZ elements with air defence capability when they actually needed it (ie: in Bosnia)?

Lessons learned, if not easily or soon forgotten, are almost always eventually forgotten with the retirement of those who saw the need in the first place. Politics and tight budgets don't help either.

 

[STURM]

In that period 1RNZIR was among the finest jungle fighters in the world

Up to the late 1980's, the NZ army still had officers attached to the Malaysian Army's Jungle Warfare School - I met one. Not sure if any are still there.There is a RNZAF Major currently attending a 2 years course at the Malaysian Army Staff College, though.