NZDF General discussion thread
- Thread starter NZLAV
- Start date
The Javelin is just one tool in the toolbox of the NZ Army. It's not how big the tool is but how it and other tools are utilised that counts.
What ground are you talking about? flat desert type terrain 100% your going to lose your JAV teams, restricted terrain ie mountains, Urban, that's where Light Infantry rein very hard to defeat those JAV teams. Armoured with out the other force elements to support them in restricted terrain are vulnerable, a full Armoured combat team now that a different proposition.
Last edited:
kiwi in exile
Active Member
as practiced by the soviets when taking berlin. Arguablly, in a built up area, you don't even need jav. Carl G would be sufficient providing you have HEAT rounds. The RPG has shown this time and time again.
US used JAV in Iraq built up areas and it proved to be a very effective system, CG M3 is a very short range weapon system to ambush MBT in built up areas however it does have a couple of major drawbacks and that is it's back blast signature & sighting system as soon as you fire your out of there.
Also tanks do have better sighting systems than Infantry obviously and Raven can attest to that fact.
I would be using them in combination as hunter killer teams CG for Infantry & JAV for tanks attached to an Infantry Platoon or section. JAV sight is a order of magnitude higher than either RPG 7 or CG but much less than a modern MBT.
Last edited:
If you contrasted the number of successful RPG attacks that have knocked out a tank against the number of RPG teams that have been killed by tanks, you might see why modern western militaries would be reluctant to rely on RPGs to defend against tanks.
kiwi in exile
Active Member
Jav is better in many ways but each system has pros/cons.
Jav has better range and optics. Of course this is a huge advantage, especially in open country. However, in a dense urban setting, range may not be so important. Until all our weapons and sensors are networked and fused we are still limited to shooting what we can see and in an urban context this may be limited to a few blocks at a time. If an decent overwatch position can be gained, then I'd defintely opt for Jav, especially with its sights. Ideally UAVs too, but thats starting a wishlist.
clip on thermal sights on the CG even things out a bit:
http://media.defenceindustrydaily.com/images/ORD_Carl_Gustaf_Training_ADF_AusDoD_lg.jpg
I have seen similar NZDF pics. Page 35 of the Defence capability plan 2014.
Still not as good as a tank though. Or Jav
CG is cheaper, lighter. Spare rounds are also cheaper and lighter. There are now confined spaces rounds that eliminate the backblast factor so shooters can remain hidden - HEAT 655 CS. CG upgrade is part of the NZDF arms upgrade so it would be good to get some of these, not to mention the new shorter, lighter M4 CG. More of a range of rounds available too. Versatile and economical.
It is my understanding that the CG is no longer effective against modern armor, like uparmored T-72s, T-90, type 99 etc. I believe that it cannot incapacitate these vehicles in 1-2 shots, am I correct?
Also, it is practically impossible to hit moving vehicles since it is unguided.
Also, it is practically impossible to hit moving vehicles since it is unguided.
ANZDEFMIN meet in Christchurch today. This is the formal meeting that is held each year. On the agenda for this one is Daesh, mutual DWPs and other security and defence items of interest. This is Senator Paynes first formal ANZDEFMIN as Minister. Christchurch is Minister Gerry Brownlee's hometown. It will be interesting to see what arises out of this meeting.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Asia Pacific Defence Reporter : APDR Dec15/Jan16 , Page 1
Latest APDR is out, with a few interesting articles for Kiwis. You need to provide an email address to read, but don't have to subscribe.
There is a profile of the DSME tanker bid for Australia, which will be very similar to their proposal for the Endeavour replacement.
There is also a piece by Hank Shouten on NZ beefing up it's defence procurement capability. Snippets of interest include:
- 30 new positions being created in the Acquisitions area
- buying 23 special operations vehicles of various types for $28 million
- a suggestion that some future platforms for air transport may have a role to play in surveillance
- both Korean yards short-listed for tanker replacement teamed with UK companies. BMT is linked to DSME, but who is Hyundai working with? I guess it could be Babcock, Rolls Royce or BAE.
Latest APDR is out, with a few interesting articles for Kiwis. You need to provide an email address to read, but don't have to subscribe.
There is a profile of the DSME tanker bid for Australia, which will be very similar to their proposal for the Endeavour replacement.
There is also a piece by Hank Shouten on NZ beefing up it's defence procurement capability. Snippets of interest include:
- 30 new positions being created in the Acquisitions area
- buying 23 special operations vehicles of various types for $28 million
- a suggestion that some future platforms for air transport may have a role to play in surveillance
- both Korean yards short-listed for tanker replacement teamed with UK companies. BMT is linked to DSME, but who is Hyundai working with? I guess it could be Babcock, Rolls Royce or BAE.
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
In relation to that APDR article, on Nz beefing up its defence procurement capability, found it disturbing the qoute of Defence secretary Des Ashton to suggest not having a dedicated serveilence platform like our P3 Orions, and have Air transports do some of that role? Did i read that correctly, i crertainly hope not.
t68
Well-Known Member
Yes saw that to and left my scratching my head a little, did not know which way to take it
Des Ashton doesn't determine policy so I think that he may be flying a kite. It could also be he has been quoted out of context. As Mr C notes in the RNZAF thread, he's on the way out. However the real point is that the Orion replacement project is in its early stages compared to the Future Air Mobility Capability Project, hence it's really to early to consider the quote as a definitive policy statement, which he has no authority at all to make.
Des Ashton is the acquisitions man. Helen Quilter is the Defence Sec. There is an advisory chain and both plus others and the NZDF as end users have their say. Namely in which options to place before cabinet.
Note in the quote it said "some" of the platforms. The doing away with a specialist IRS platform is only speculation from Schouten the reporter. The possibility is that a transport option could also conduct MPS has been telegraphed for years.
Note also in the last article of APDR that a RQ-4 worked as part of Southern Katipo. Nice to see emerging familiarity with that capability.
Could be in reference to how a P3 has no other use in NZ service ie transport but other types such as C295, C130 and even P8 have alternate transport variants (as well as surveilance types) therefore could be seen as potential synergies equalling possible savings in a singular fleet.
I surely hope so anyway as a pair of binos looking out the window of a transport is'nt quite my idea of an acceptable P3K replacement regardless of any vast 'savings' to be made.
As Ngati said still abit to go before this particular project requires foremost attention so still chucking the ball around at this stage gathering ideas before any firm(er) options become more reliable.
That is a good point Reg. More possibilities to keep us occupied.
The later B737/C-40 series are highly customised to suit end user needs whether that is a Billionaire, Airline or an Air Force. A RNZAF specific Combi version cobbled together from the manufacturers options lists is feasible. Up to 6 additional tanks can see them stretch their legs to over 5000 nm. Seven 463L pallets @ 15000kg, quickly adaptable to either VIP, troop transport and Medevac roles. As an example to complement a small P-8 fleet and the single whitetail (which would be an operational adjunct to the RAAF/PACAF C-17s so not really an orphan but possibly a little lonely from time to time) who knows - a couple of "stripper" P-8 airframes which is basically a stretched C-40 with just a few added windows for the rubberneckers and a combi cargo door / flexi-floor and a RoRo waterbed for the PM? The C-27J in decent numbers with palletised RoRo ISR stations. Alenia are working on the multi-mission version and touting it to the RAF.
Whatever the case is they will continue to sustain a very high end ISR generator capability that is synergetic to the US led BAMS.
The later B737/C-40 series are highly customised to suit end user needs whether that is a Billionaire, Airline or an Air Force. A RNZAF specific Combi version cobbled together from the manufacturers options lists is feasible. Up to 6 additional tanks can see them stretch their legs to over 5000 nm. Seven 463L pallets @ 15000kg, quickly adaptable to either VIP, troop transport and Medevac roles. As an example to complement a small P-8 fleet and the single whitetail (which would be an operational adjunct to the RAAF/PACAF C-17s so not really an orphan but possibly a little lonely from time to time) who knows - a couple of "stripper" P-8 airframes which is basically a stretched C-40 with just a few added windows for the rubberneckers and a combi cargo door / flexi-floor and a RoRo waterbed for the PM? The C-27J in decent numbers with palletised RoRo ISR stations. Alenia are working on the multi-mission version and touting it to the RAF.
Whatever the case is they will continue to sustain a very high end ISR generator capability that is synergetic to the US led BAMS.
t68
Well-Known Member
so are you saying roughly as alternative ,
1x C17 heavy strategic lifter
4X 737 kombi (plus the P8) medium strategic lifter ro-ro AGS
6X C27J tactical lifter and ro-ro AGS
interesting idea if I am reading it right
Agreed mrC, if we did aqquire P8 it would seem advantageous that if the 757 role in it's current guise did survive the axe then a 737 combi would be at least a candidate for numerous reasons. Commonality, training and logistics would all be improved especially since we will no doubt have a smaller P8 fleet than the current P3, something that bumps up the cost of ownership of the 2 only 757s in NZ service and NZ for that matter.
A common platform would free up hours on the P8 for currency leaving them more time to do their core job, cut back on required tech staff and streamline the supply chain whilst also maintaining the current 757 roles. Whilst in my veiw not as good as the 757 for NZ (no direct replacement type these days, too big, too small, range etc) also not far off so acceptable compromise.
So are you suggesting something along the lines of the following:
- 1 x C17 (White tail)
- 4 - 6 P8
- 2 stripped P8 converted to combi roll
- 4 - 6 A400M
- 6 - 8+ multi mission C27J
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Exactly and that's where the suggested heavy lifter comes into the picture (C-17 type) at one end v the 737/P-8 Combi at the other (with the turbo prop options in the fleet composition mix too).
This seems to have some merits in terms of fleet support and training/simulator costs etc, so how likely would it be considered?