Steve I have to concur with Raven, he is right 100% no matter what we train for you can never cover all likely contingencies, there is no over profession that carries the same risk as us it is the hardest endeavour I and all the others who have deployed have come across Timor/Solly had there challenges but Afghan was a totally different ball game, when people ask me I tell them we hard a very hard day at the office.
Don't believe everything you read in the papers there were parts left out of the report to make the article appear more sensationalist to the reader call it Journalistic license.
IMO this is the end result of many years of cost cutting to balance budgets, 10 years plus of Operations coupled with a loss of institutional skills based knowledge followed with the IMP process that led to the death of the young soldier. Many layers of Safety in training had been removed thru retirement of said knowledge/rerolling of Units etc etc, quite frankly taking our eye off the ball thanks to those deployments.
Army is being prosecuted under the OHS act so some very hard question have already been asked, but like I said before you can never remove the element of risk that soldier was not the first and he wont be the last either only experience coupled with a full understanding of our bible Safety in Training will even out the ledger in the end.
Thanks for the reply Cadre i have to say i certainly don't just take what i read in the papers as the truth because you do't know what axe the person writing the article has to grind.
Looks like a good piece of kit, it certainly ticks more boxes in the various types of terrain that the Defence Forces are likely to encounter into the future.
Make contact with the NZDF through their website they will be able give you all the info you need.
If we are going to follow Aus on the MHOV fleet then I do not see why we can't in the GATS fleet as well as commonality seems to be the catch phrase of the day. Aus uses civi spec Hino 4x4 trucks in both single and double cab variants and would easily cover general roles as well as other options like ambulances and feild fire trucks with their cross country capability and more importantly cheaper cost.
This can be a deployable role, yes? If so, fair point on commonality, presumably the project will address these issues. Mind you wouldn't be surprised if they look at other allied options and opportunities. It's all "interoperable" after all (ok agree there can be "challenges") but what does this mean for enhancing further commonalities between the two Army's?
The MAN fleet is the main deployable type however for lower intensity ops like Solomons there would be no reason why a Hino type could not be deployed together.
Good point, in this era of enhancing ANZAC co-operation with both nations committed to ensuring regional stability, both by training and in practice by deploying jointly, the added focus on enhancing amphibious doctrine etc, one would think this area would benefit from further commonality (eg spares, maintenance, procedures to secure on board Canterbury & RAN LHD's etc). It would be good to see NZ work closer with ADF for similar mil-spec vehicles in these roles.
Any deficiencies in stopping power can be remedied via the procurement of more modern ammunition types, for example the US M855A1 or SOST ammunition. Whether the Steyr is cleared to fire this ammo is another story. However the issue could be one of optics, as the same sentence that mentioned the 200 metre range also said the weapons were "not powerful enough to identify adversaries" - this could have been a slip up on the journo's part, mixing stopping power and optics power into the one sentence. Do you know what kind of optics the NZDF use on their service rifles?
The NZDF Operational 5.56mm ammo is the Mk 262 our training ammo is the SS109 F1, you are correct about the Journalist confusing stopping power with the sighting system it being after all a x 1.5 magnification. Only a few soldiers had the SP IW steyr issued fitted with a x4 ACOG these weapons had no trouble at all identifying and engaging insurgents at 600m +. Its an old story we know the Steyr A3 is no longer the front runner no one in the project team is talking so the rumour mill has fallen back on $$$$$$ MFV.Any deficiencies in stopping power can be remedied via the procurement of more modern ammunition types, for example the US M855A1 or SOST ammunition. Whether the Steyr is cleared to fire this ammo is another story. However the issue could be one of optics, as the same sentence that mentioned the 200 metre range also said the weapons were "not powerful enough to identify adversaries" - this could have been a slip up on the journo's part, mixing stopping power and optics power into the one sentence. Do you know what kind of optics the NZDF use on their service rifles?
I haven't seen much detail on the Austeyr's lack of stopping power though, as it has a longer barrel than the M-4 (which seems to frequently be the culprit when one hears talk of the 5.56mm being deficient in killing power) and so is the more capable weapon over long distances. I don't remember hearing much about the USMC's M-16A4 rifles either, and again they have the longer barrel. The M855A1 round is designed from the get go to be fired from carbine-length barrels so it gives better performance in M-4 type rifles, but I don't know if that performance would carry over to longer barrels, I don't know enough about how the burning speed of the gunpowder used etc affects these things.
Someone like Raven could give you a much better answer though, this is all coming from a civilian with a patchy memory.
I thought it might have been the sights. Thanks for the prompt response and the comments regarding the rifle's capabilities when equipped with an ACOG, I appreciate it : )
Janes Defence weekly are reporting that NZDF has moved to relacing fully the current inventory of 13,000Steyrs.(given 18,000 originally purchased,wonder what happened to the other 5,000 ?).
About four weeks I posted some details from the RFI. http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/g...eneral-discussion-thread-6137-179/#post269210 A bit of added detail to the Janes article.
Anybody want to throw out some theories as to what will be shortlisted or advanced from this?
Anybody who knows anything will be keeping very very quiet. As to theories where do you want to start? It all depends on which companies replied to the RFI and that will not be disclosed by anyone linked to the project.