New Zealand Army Vehicles

dday

New Member
I was just reading that New Zealand has 105 armoured vehicles. Wow thats a large number for a small country.
Heres a complete list:

105 NZ Armoured Vehicles
321 Pinzers
400 Unimogs
28 105mm artillery
55 81mm mortars
24 Javilin MRAAW's
12 matra mirtral air defence weapons

2 ANZAC frigates
1 Replenish
1 Multi role vessel (amphibious)
2 Offshore patrol
4 inshore patrol
1 Hydro graphic
1 mine/diving
3 LCM's
Various training ships

5 C-130 Hercules
2 757's
5 King airs
6 Orion patrol
12 NH90's
13 aerobatic planes
5 seaspite
5-10 Light Helis

Thats alot of fire power for a country of 4million!
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
A few things should be taken into account when reading that list of kit though. NZ has no air combat capabilities. At all. Her ANZAC frigates are still at the original specification and are urgently in need of upgrades if they are to keep pace with the rest of the Asia-Pacific region.

Likewise with the P-3C's. They require an extensive upgrade to actually perform a combat role. They are currently getting a surveillance upgrade only.

The NZ Army is extremely small and reasonable well equipped, though only for a peace-keeping role. It's 105mm artillery pieces are a modest artillery capability at best. It's LAV's whilst a new vehicle and reasonably capable in it's role, is a light armoured fighting vehicle only. It's combat capabilities are modest at best. It's Mistral SAM's require an upgrade (or rather the purchase of kit NZ SHOULD have got when it first bought them) to enable them to reach their full level of capability.

NZ has decided to acquire NH-90. It doesn't have them in-service and has not yet decided how many it will buy. It is thought between 8 and 12 will be bought to replace it's current fleet of 14 Iroquois. It also doesn't have the MRV, offshore or in-shore patrol vessels yet, AFAIK.

Don't mean to insult you, or downplay the NZ forces, but they ARE small, and only lightly equipped. You have to be slightly realistic about it...
 

Dr Phobus

New Member
Well all nations need an armed force for civilian securty as well as distater control. NZ is not without is allies, nor do i consider it vunerable. Its so far away it would be difficult for anyone to sustain an attack of course if in the unforseen event they were attack I am sure the Austrialians, USA and UK would have something to say about it. That issue aside, I agree that the NZ surface fleet needs real up-graded along with there ASW ability. The total loss of air combat ability was "interesting and controversal".

any thoughts. :cool:
 

Whiskyjack

Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analys
Verified Defense Pro
Govt thinks it is 'desirable' for an anti-ship missile capability to be added to the P-3s, my understanding (and I will check) is that the P-3 upgrade is a Surface Surveillance and Warfare upgrade that douse not include anti submarine capability.

The simple fact is that New Zealand does not feel threatened, and while it is not anti-US it does not feel the need to follow the US.

I can’t say I agree with this but their it is. The decisions regarding the equipment and orientation of the NZDF are missed opportunities and political ideology that ignores the real world.

For anyone interested the below link has docs that detail the equipment upgrades that the NZDF wants in the next ten years and are agreed by the Govt in principle.

http://www.defence.govt.nz/reports-...ublications/archive-reports-publications.html

Good news is there is talk about going through with the Australian ANZAC upgrade with our two, and it is part of the plan to upgrade them.
 

dday

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #6
IN the LTDP it says that NZ is going to give the orions a combat capibility. The frigates are get upgraded as well. I would rather see NZ get the 7 new ships that a few fighter planes because the NZ army is most likely to get deployed and the MRV will provide that capibility. The 6 patrol ships will be a great contribution. When the orions and frigates are upgraded, NZ's force will be at its best.

Here is an article from australia stating what the NZ defence is like:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/hugh-...s-smart-defence/2005/05/09/1115584905736.html
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Whiskyjack said:
Govt thinks it is 'desirable' for an anti-ship missile capability to be added to the P-3s, my understanding (and I will check) is that the P-3 upgrade is a Surface Surveillance and Warfare upgrade that douse not include anti submarine capability.

The simple fact is that New Zealand does not feel threatened, and while it is not anti-US it does not feel the need to follow the US.

I can’t say I agree with this but their it is. The decisions regarding the equipment and orientation of the NZDF are missed opportunities and political ideology that ignores the real world.

For anyone interested the below link has docs that detail the equipment upgrades that the NZDF wants in the next ten years and are agreed by the Govt in principle.

http://www.defence.govt.nz/reports-publications/archive-publications/archive-reports-publications.html

Good news is there is talk about going through with the Australian ANZAC upgrade with our two, and it is part of the plan to upgrade them.
The thing about NZDF is that it is limited because it's politicians are content to deliberately limit it's capabilities.

It has ALWAYS had an air combat capability. Now it can't afford one apparently, so it's troops, Navy and other air elements have to make do without any air cover. It's troops and Navy have no aerial fire support and only limited air recon capabilities.

There are relatively cheap options to cover these gaps, buy a Tactical UAV, choose a tactical transport helicopter such as the A109LUH that can be armed with guns, rockets and missiles and can conduct recon/scout missions, buy a relatively cheap fleet of lead-in fighter aircraft that can be equipped with A2A missiles, guns, rockets, bombs or A2G missiles (such as Australia's Hawk Mk 127 LIF aircraft are). We bought 33 of these for $950 million.

For a third of that (roughly $300 mil) NZ could operate a fleet of 12 advanced lead-in fighters that would give some capability to defend and train it's own forces and provide a fire support capability for it's infantry. Spend half and you've got a full strength (as per NATO structures) fighter squadron. In addition it would give some capability to defend NZ's airspace. It currently has none.

Buy a missile such as SLAM-ER rather than Harpoon for the P-3C's. For a modest increase in price you get a stand-off strike capability that can attack land based targets as well as conduct anti-shipping missions.

There are numerous options available. However it is ideology that is keeping the NZ forces at a disadvantage, not the ability to fund these capabilities.
 

EnigmaNZ

New Member
Geeze dady, you sound like jason, who used to prattle on about how powerful NZ's defences forces were lol. Core defence spending in NZ has fallen to about 0.9% of gdp, partly due to government rundown, and partly due to being increased at slightly less than the inflation rate each year, about 2 - 3%, while the gnp has grown by about 4 - 5% a year, creating a growing gap.
 

Dr Phobus

New Member
Interesting points of view, Its a shame that a nation would spend less than 1% of its GDP in defence. Still, its always tempting for politcal parties to cut defence spending in a below bare bone, so they can make themlseves look good. Of course when distasters occur, or there is some international call for military help one ends up over extending themselves. Still, i guess this is a political respective verses a military one.

:vamp :
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
dday said:
Even although NZ doesn't have fighters, their frigates still beat aussie in all the exercises:) and the NZLAV's are better than ours, same with NZ's LOV's, patrol vessels and their seasprite helis(because ours don't work, neither do our subs and F-18s)
Wow, please continue to astound us with your vast knowledge of Australian defence matters. Australia's F-18's don't work, eh? Care to provide a source?I guess the deployment of 14 RAAF F/A-18's to Iraq was just for show was it? And the 120 odd precision guided munitions they dropped on Iraqi forces during that conflict was a media beatup?


Maybe you'd care to explain to everyone again how NZ could invade Australia with the 150 troops your (yet to arrive) MRV can carry?
 

EnigmaNZ

New Member
AD, dday is aussie lol, not one of ours, though I swear he reminds me of someone. The problem here is for example, you no longer have Health spending $10 billion, you now have 1000 extra hip ops, 500 extra cataract ops, etc, and people think, new piece of military hardware or extra hip ops. Though to give it credit, the Labour gov has put some serious money into new equipment and upgrades in their 4 years.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
EnigmaNZ said:
AD, dday is aussie lol, not one of ours, though I swear he reminds me of someone. The problem here is for example, you no longer have Health spending $10 billion, you now have 1000 extra hip ops, 500 extra cataract ops, etc, and people think, new piece of military hardware or extra hip ops. Though to give it credit, the Labour gov has put some serious money into new equipment and upgrades in their 4 years.

I understand the financial burden of defence. But imagine the political burden should your troops find themselves in a situation they cannot handle due to political ideology. It's akin to political suicide in my view...

I'm almost positive DDAY is our old mate Jason. He's just trying to be a bit cleverer...

Cheers mate.

Merry Christmas.
 

EnigmaNZ

New Member
Just read ddays posts, I swear it is jason lol, his pics are all of NZ equipment, he loves to list NZ equipment, and run down you ozzies lol. Have to ask him next time I see him. One of labours junior partners did campaign on raising defence spending to 1.8%, just have to wait and see I suppose. Mind you helen must have got a scare on election night when a nutter was overflying her house in a stolen aircraft threatening to crash it into the skytower, and we had nothing to stop it, the nearest aircraft capable of doing so was in sydney, after saying there is no concievable threat that necessitates a strike wing, almost a shame it crashed into the sea, and not her campaign headquarters.

Anyway, getting a bit off topic.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
EnigmaNZ said:
Just read ddays posts, I swear it is jason lol, his pics are all of NZ equipment, he loves to list NZ equipment, and run down you ozzies lol. Have to ask him next time I see him. One of labours junior partners did campaign on raising defence spending to 1.8%, just have to wait and see I suppose. Mind you helen must have got a scare on election night when a nutter was overflying her house in a stolen aircraft threatening to crash it into the skytower, and we had nothing to stop it, the nearest aircraft capable of doing so was in sydney, after saying there is no concievable threat that necessitates a strike wing, almost a shame it crashed into the sea, and not her campaign headquarters.

Anyway, getting a bit off topic.
You'd think that incident would HAVE to put the wind up the pollies. A stolen civilian light aircraft couldn't even be stopped. God forbid a terrorist trying to fly a large airliner into Auckland or Wellington...

Even a handful of machine gun/cannon armed Super Tucano's or PC-9M's would provide a basic capability to control it's airspace, at least for "civilian" incidents such as the one that has already happened or if a terrorist tried to repeat 9/11 over NZ... It would cost bugger all in the scheme of things, yet provide so much more protection for NZ...

A better solution would be a lead-in fighter/light strike aircraft. It'd still be relatively affordable and the superior performance of a jet aircraft (such as Hawk, Alpha-Jet, Macchi variant) would ensure that relatively rapid responses could be mounted. Such aircraft can carry light cannon and short range air to air missiles, which is all NZ would require and don't cost much.

They can also perform training roles for Army and Navy platforms, and could provide a light strike capability if necessary.
 

Paxter

New Member
Thats alot of fire power for a country of 4million![/quote]

yeah well singapore has about 4 million too ... i think. And it has 20X the fire power nz has hehehehehehe.... btw all those stuff in the army looks more for disaster and recovery missions. The planes and most of the ships are not combat able ... so in saying thats a lot of fire power is a bit of an over reaction and 2 frigates wont do shite in a real war .... but then who want to go all the way down south to start a war nz is friendly to every country so i guess its arms are good enough.
 

seantheaussie

New Member
Paxter said:
but then who want to go all the way down south to start a war nz is friendly to every country so i guess its arms are good enough.
I recall Helen Clarke saying NZ was in a different defence situation to Australia which was & is bulls#*t. Australia goes down NZ is next.
 

pepsi

New Member
Recently i have been thinking about the NZ defence force, and i thought of an idea which seems good to me, but i'm not really sure if its viable or if it would less useful/capable than i imagine..

Anyway, i thought since NZ is in a sort of unique position, a small country in a very large region where a naval presence and amphibious capability surely are the main priorities for peacekeeping and aid, why not centre the NZDF around a naval amphibious kind of force..

Something like, ~4 small carriers similar to the ones Thailand uses, maybe something slightly larger, move the army infranty to a marine type role so they can be inserted via those carriers, have each one with a number of NZLAV's/LOV's, heli's and maybe 4 or 6 jets per ship to provide air cover to the ship and troops on the ground

And i suppose maybe increase the ANZAC class purchase from 2, to 4 which i believe is/was a potential possibilty for that purchase, that would see at least 1 ANZAC per carrier if it was necessary and all were in use..

This would also see the army keep a mostly civil (from reserves) and paratrooper role, while the air force keeps its current role of transport and surveiilance..

I figure something like that would make the most of a force that is small but capable in a region where a larger naval presence is beneficial to themselves/neighbours/region..

I think it would effectively make each carrier a type of base so that their troops on the ground could call for air support from it, rather than rely on another nations air force, or even their own if they got that capability again

Anyway, i know there are probably some flaws with that, money being the main one im guessing since i haven't actually thought about how much that kind of thing would cost, it was just an idea i had
 

Dr Phobus

New Member
Aussie Digger said:
You'd think that incident would HAVE to put the wind up the pollies. A stolen civilian light aircraft couldn't even be stopped. God forbid a terrorist trying to fly a large airliner into Auckland or Wellington...

Even a handful of machine gun/cannon armed Super Tucano's or PC-9M's would provide a basic capability to control it's airspace, at least for "civilian" incidents such as the one that has already happened or if a terrorist tried to repeat 9/11 over NZ... It would cost bugger all in the scheme of things, yet provide so much more protection for NZ...

A better solution would be a lead-in fighter/light strike aircraft. It'd still be relatively affordable and the superior performance of a jet aircraft (such as Hawk, Alpha-Jet, Macchi variant) would ensure that relatively rapid responses could be mounted. Such aircraft can carry light cannon and short range air to air missiles, which is all NZ would require and don't cost much.

They can also perform training roles for Army and Navy platforms, and could provide a light strike capability if necessary.
I wholey concur, considering the terror threat, this point is rather important, thinking about the "armed" LIFT concept, then, the Hawk 200 series ( or an updated version) would be a good option, is smaller, cheap, has a radar and can launch radar guided AAM's, the meduim range "reach" of these missle would make up for lack of overall performace, which is below M1 and more in line with the top speeds of a modern airliner. Also, radar equiped, it can also detech surface ships, aiding the defence of the coast and enforcement of the economic exlusion zone.

Any thoughts
 

Britalian

New Member
The NZ armed forces as presently configured are incapable of defending their national territory. It is, further, a self-inflicted state of affairs. As to expected help from the US/UK, the UK is decades past the time when they could be of any assistance and the US suspended it's defense obligations to that nation years ago. We owe them nothing and under no circumstances should American lives and equipment be expended in a lost cause. They are too far away, there are too few of them. They are not worth it.
As to NZ being out-of-the-way, therefore of no intrest to large predatory powers, that argument is always made by New Zealanders. It is not relevant.
It is more of a pathetic hope than anything else.It is not whether THEY think they're of no intrest, it is whether Indonesia/China/India think so. THESE nations will determine whether or not the NZ's are of intrest.
 

nz enthusiast

New Member
The thing is the Labour government does not consider anyone a threat to New Zealand. Helen Clark has been making herself a part of New Zealand defence force decision making since she got into parliament. It is believed there was a arguement between David Lange and her over David Lange looking into joining the Australian Collins class submarine project. Eventually David Lange dropped the proposal and instead looked to get 4 anzac class frigates. It is also important to note that David Lange upgraded the P-3 Orions and the A-4 skyhawks during his time in office. He was also considering the purchase of harrier jump jets. The whole reason I point this out is to show that Labour politicans of the past have are not nessarily been against defence spending its just the current breed of labour politicans that are.
The interesting thing is, New Zealand isn't poor by no means. We have been recording government surpluses of almost NZ$7 billion. The current labour government has done some equipment purchases for the defence force but do you notice how all the equipment they are buying is essentially minor stuff, nothing major like frigate upgrades or new tranpost and marine patrol planes. Its called a political strategy. It will be suprising if labour wins the 2008 election, and by then not to much more equipment would have been aquired. Then in that election (2008) national will probably win it. They will like almost every other government in NZ history will do a defence review. The review will reveal huge problems costing billions to fix. The national government will go to fix it, the labour party in opposition will kick upa huge fuss and score political points. So if the above does not make sense to you, i will say this, the NZ defence force is a political football.
The national government in 1999 (just before it got voted out) has signed the lease for F-16s, ordered the lavs and lovs (thats right national actually ordered them), they had told lockheed martin they wanted the C-130J and they had just folked out the money to get the charles upham fixed and they were trying to cinve the the NZ public to go for a third anzac frogate. Now tell me is that good or what.
Bascially if i got my on the minister of defence job and i could do what I wanted we would have F-35s flying over New Zealand.
 
Top