Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Navy & Maritime
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

Nellis_F-22A_0608-1.jpg

Nellis_EA-6B_0052-1.jpg

Nellis_F-15C_0070-1.jpg

Nellis_F-15C_Aggressor_0018-1.jpg
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

This is a discussion on Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by Whiskyjack NZ is a well educated nation that has the ability to use technology. I would like ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 6 votes, 3.17 average.
Old May 23rd, 2006   #31
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 155
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiskyjack
NZ is a well educated nation that has the ability to use technology. I would like to see a recon force that can network the army, navy, air force to make a small force more powerful due to situational awareness. What I see now is a bit to traditional given current technology.
You haven't offered anything to suggest that it can't now.
Rocco_NZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 23rd, 2006   #32
Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analyst
Major
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 903
Threads:
Guys for the record, I am looking at how I would like to see the CURRENT NZDF evolve in the next 10 years or so. A direction I would like to see it take that is in keeping with the national interests and budget.
Whiskyjack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 23rd, 2006   #33
Super Moderator
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 719
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocco_NZ
Before adding more ships the first step would be to increase the availability of the existing ones. The MRV will only be funded for 90 sea days.
I'm assuming by that you mean 90 Days of Sealift and the rest on Training etc.

Frankly I'm not convinced about the structure of the army in NZ. Is seem to hung up on maintaining obsolete structures like Corps, when its existing personnel could form a standing regular brigade.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiskyjack
I am not looking for that, what I am looking for is a command group that has experiance operating with such a force composition, and I have yet to see that happen
A three Battalion Group Structure (call them regiments) with a single command element controlling all the companies (say 900 people) within the unit, might be better suitted to NZ. Brigade Level assets could be included.

If NZ is to seriously deploy anywhere in the South Pacific (With more than 30 people on standby (re East Timor) - Really what a joke for a country our size), it needs more sea lift. Something like the Singapore Endurance class that brings its own NGS capability.
Lucasnz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 23rd, 2006   #34
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 155
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucasnz
I'm assuming by that you mean 90 Days of Sealift and the rest on Training etc.
Nope. 90 days sea-time total. It will probably increase in subsequent years, but the first year of operation is only 90 days worth.
Rocco_NZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 23rd, 2006   #35
Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analyst
Major
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 903
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocco_NZ
You haven't offered anything to suggest that it can't now.
Mate you haven't offered anything that says it can

Where is the tactical UAV? will it be able to operate from a ship, what about a UAV like the Mariner that offers regional surveillance? Can the Army get a feed from an upgrades P3? I have not herd any plans in this direction.
Whiskyjack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 23rd, 2006   #36
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 155
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiskyjack
Mate you haven't offered anything that says it can

Where is the tactical UAV? will it be able to operate from a ship, what about a UAV like the Mariner that offers regional surveillance? Can the Army get a feed from an upgrades P3? I have not herd any plans in this direction.
I didn't suggest the current system needed changing either. With modern digital comms gear you can pretty much transmit anything you like. If you wan't to send a video feed from an Orion to a ground station of some kind it shouldn't be difficult.
Rocco_NZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 23rd, 2006   #37
Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analyst
Major
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 903
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocco_NZ
Can you support those comments? 1 RNZIR has spent the last couple of years operating both light infantry and motorised infantry together. Where to you think that experience goes?
I am not aware that it is NZ doctrine to fight such groups, I am hoping that it is in the new report that has yet to be released. Also hoping for recon asstes that will operate as force multipliers.
Whiskyjack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 23rd, 2006   #38
Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analyst
Major
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 903
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocco_NZ
I didn't suggest the current system needed changing either. With modern digital comms gear you can pretty much transmit anything you like. If you wan't to send a video feed from an Orion to a ground station of some kind it shouldn't be difficult.
Militay project history is littered with phrases like 'it shouldn't be difficult', not to mention the IT industry.

Until it is reality and used all the time it is not operational.

Once again I am talking where NZ needs to be, not where it is.

I am sure that it will move there.
Whiskyjack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 23rd, 2006   #39
Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analyst
Major
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 903
Threads:
Hi Rocco, can I ask where you would like to see the NZ army in 10 years in relation to organisation, equipment and the ability to deploy in the Pacific and wider?

I've got to go now but really enjoying discussion, look forward to some more tomorrow.
Whiskyjack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 23rd, 2006   #40
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
Cootamundra's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 190
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucasnz
Frankly I'm not convinced about the structure of the army in NZ. Is seem to hung up on maintaining obsolete structures like Corps, when its existing personnel could form a standing regular brigade.

A three Battalion Group Structure (call them regiments) with a single command element controlling all the companies (say 900 people) within the unit, might be better suitted to NZ. Brigade Level assets could be included.

If NZ is to seriously deploy anywhere in the South Pacific (With more than 30 people on standby (re East Timor) - Really what a joke for a country our size), it needs more sea lift. Something like the Singapore Endurance class that brings its own NGS capability.
Good point re; maintaining obsolete structures. Certainly the AusArmy is taking to the old structure with a knife. Units still belong to the various brigades and corps but in reality the regs and reserves are being re-structured (and in some cases re-roled) to fit into the BattleGroup concept. You're all aware of this I'm sure, but for my mind the US Marine MEU approach to combined arms warfare certainly makes the most sense for most (small to medium) modern armed forces. Certainly with a little reorganisation and some additional lift the NZArmy would be able to replicate the land forces component of a standard BattleGroup. As Lucas suggests re-form into the 3 battlions plus HQ. And then over the next few years procure more C-130 lift (some of the RAAFs H models will do), modern comms, organic air defence and perhaps a larger LPD type ship with onboard C&C facilities. That would leave you with an Army used to working with combined teams, not focused on the old structure and very capable in terms of the regions probable scenarios.
Cootamundra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2006   #41
Aussie Digger
Guest
No Avatar
Posts: n/a
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cootamundra
Good point re; maintaining obsolete structures. Certainly the AusArmy is taking to the old structure with a knife. Units still belong to the various brigades and corps but in reality the regs and reserves are being re-structured (and in some cases re-roled) to fit into the BattleGroup concept. You're all aware of this I'm sure, but for my mind the US Marine MEU approach to combined arms warfare certainly makes the most sense for most (small to medium) modern armed forces. Certainly with a little reorganisation and some additional lift the NZArmy would be able to replicate the land forces component of a standard BattleGroup. As Lucas suggests re-form into the 3 battlions plus HQ. And then over the next few years procure more C-130 lift (some of the RAAFs H models will do), modern comms, organic air defence and perhaps a larger LPD type ship with onboard C&C facilities. That would leave you with an Army used to working with combined teams, not focused on the old structure and very capable in terms of the regions probable scenarios.
I don't have a HUGE problem with NZ's force structure. For all the hype of Australia's re-org, each battalion will have 3x rifle coy's (no battalion has the full 4 at the moment due to manning issues anyway) a support coy an admin coy and RHQ.

Each Coy will still have 3x rifle platoons, a support section and a Coy HQ. Which is what they've always had. The only real difference will be the additional heavy weapons embedded within the platoons IF that happens. A21 was a "sure thing" too, back in the mid 90's...

NZ will maintain 1x air mobile infantry battalion (with lift capacity provided by NH-90) and 1x motorised battalion, equipped with NZLAV. In effect it will be capable of generating 3-4x battlegroups, depending on whether they are infantry or armour/Cavalry heavy for a particular task.

Australia's Al Muthana taskgroup for example is armour heavy with 2x ASLAV Sqn's deployed, but only 1x infantry company...

The Queens Alexandria Regt will provide lift capacity with NZLAV, just as it used to do with M113, for the light inf btn if necessary, and will probably act as a Cavalry/Armoured Recon force (much like Australia's 2nd Cav Regt) when lift is not required for infantry forces.

As to it's reserve forces, I understand they are particularly undermanned. In that case, I'd recommend "mirroring" the regular structure and only maintain 2x reserve battalions, plus a reserve Cav Regt and artillery and combat support units. These could comprise geographically separated rifle Coy's/Squadrons/Bty's as is done in Australia, but combine under a single Battalion/Regimental command for larger exercises.

If an expansion is needed due to a "serious" threat looming on the horizon each individual rifle company in the reserve units, could be used as a base for expansion. That'd provide an extra 6 inf battalions to NZ's order of battle once achieved, giving them 8 in total, which would be the largest force NZ has deployed since WW2.

It is rare even for a regular infantry battalion, for each company to exercise together much. Company level training makes up the maority of training in Australia and New Zealand armies.

I'm not sure what kind of force you are referring to Whiskeyjack, with your "recon force to tie together" all arms of NZDF. Is there a similar force somewhere you could point out, to illustrate this?

NZ already has capable special forces. I'm sure they do this as part of their operations...
  Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2006   #42
Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analyst
Major
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 903
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussie Digger
I don't have a HUGE problem with NZ's force structure. For all the hype of Australia's re-org, each battalion will have 3x rifle coy's (no battalion has the full 4 at the moment due to manning issues anyway) a support coy an admin coy and RHQ.

Each Coy will still have 3x rifle platoons, a support section and a Coy HQ. Which is what they've always had. The only real difference will be the additional heavy weapons embedded within the platoons IF that happens. A21 was a "sure thing" too, back in the mid 90's...

NZ will maintain 1x air mobile infantry battalion (with lift capacity provided by NH-90) and 1x motorised battalion, equipped with NZLAV. In effect it will be capable of generating 3-4x battlegroups, depending on whether they are infantry or armour/Cavalry heavy for a particular task.

Australia's Al Muthana taskgroup for example is armour heavy with 2x ASLAV Sqn's deployed, but only 1x infantry company...

The Queens Alexandria Regt will provide lift capacity with NZLAV, just as it used to do with M113, for the light inf btn if necessary, and will probably act as a Cavalry/Armoured Recon force (much like Australia's 2nd Cav Regt) when lift is not required for infantry forces.

As to it's reserve forces, I understand they are particularly undermanned. In that case, I'd recommend "mirroring" the regular structure and only maintain 2x reserve battalions, plus a reserve Cav Regt and artillery and combat support units. These could comprise geographically separated rifle Coy's/Squadrons/Bty's as is done in Australia, but combine under a single Battalion/Regimental command for larger exercises.

If an expansion is needed due to a "serious" threat looming on the horizon each individual rifle company in the reserve units, could be used as a base for expansion. That'd provide an extra 6 inf battalions to NZ's order of battle once achieved, giving them 8 in total, which would be the largest force NZ has deployed since WW2.

It is rare even for a regular infantry battalion, for each company to exercise together much. Company level training makes up the maority of training in Australia and New Zealand armies.

I'm not sure what kind of force you are referring to Whiskeyjack, with your "recon force to tie together" all arms of NZDF. Is there a similar force somewhere you could point out, to illustrate this?

NZ already has capable special forces. I'm sure they do this as part of their operations...
In regards to the recon element I think I should have used the ISTAR company, similar to the force the British are talking about and integrating it into the Battalion structure, I believe the US also use such a force in their Stryker Brigades.

I guess where I am coming from is not so much the army side, as I said above I would have done things differently (the whole LAV purchase smacks of politics both NZDF and Govt, rather than thought out force structure 105 is to much to equip one battalion and to little to equip two, and no specialist LAVs), but I agree that the basic units and equipment are in place. I think I still prefer a more ‘marine’ style emphasis in training and identity, every person a rifleman/women. But I would still use the existing equipment to base this on.

Over the next ten years I would like the NZDF to look at what it wants to achieve (and needs to be able to achieve in the national interest). For this I think it requires more lift and sustainment, hence my idea for two LPD type ships that can lift and support 500-600 troops. The reason I think this is due to the fact that the Pacific and SEA are full of Islands and NZ cannot afford a strategic aircraft lift. It also needs to be able to deploy faster. It is not expensive, for less than what Australia is paying for 1.5 C-17s ($750m Aus) NZ can have 2 such LPDs.

IMO where the west has been a bit light in the past is the ability to deploy its forces rapidly hence the investment we see in this ability form the UK, France, Australia. Canada and other European countries are also heading in this direction.

Back to NZ army I agree with Lucas that 3 battalions are needed, for the flexibility it brings to operations. NZ needs to be able to rapidly deploy a 2 coy force IMO say 450-500 person.

As for one battalion being air mobile I don’t see the required amount of NH90s available for that NZ would need around 16 to be able to deploy one company lift (4 in maintenance, 3 training, 9 deployed to provide 80%-90% availability)
Whiskyjack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2006   #43
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 155
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussie Digger

The Queens Alexandria Regt will provide lift capacity with NZLAV, just as it used to do with M113, for the light inf btn if necessary, and will probably act as a Cavalry/Armoured Recon force (much like Australia's 2nd Cav Regt) when lift is not required for infantry forces.
QA Squadron is being developed to provide a third manouvre element (cavalry role). It will become a dedicated medium reconaissance unit - APC duties are long gone.
---------

Question: What plans does Army have for a "3rd manoeuvre group," as
mentioned by Colonel Dave Gawn in Issue 350 of the publication Army News?

Portfolio: Defence

Minister: Hon Phil Goff

Date Lodged:26/04/2006

Answer Text: The transition of the Queen Alexandra’s Mounted Rifles
Squadron into the New Zealand Army’s third combat manoeuvre unit with a
cavalry role is intended in part to maintain the Army’s reconnaissance
capability, and to support the growth of the Army under the Defence
Sustainability Initiative. The transition should be complete by December
2010 as part of a programme to create a Network Enabled Force.

Attachment: None

Date Received:09/05/2006
--------
Rocco_NZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2006   #44
Defense Aficionado
Major General
Sea Toby's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,473
Threads:
From the New Zealand Defence Force website, to properly patrol offshore the navy needs 400 days at sea, with the two OPVs providing over 300 days and the MRV providing the rest. One may assume that with the larger size of the MRV and its better seakeeping qualities, the MRV is scheduled to patrol the Ross Sea and Southern Ocean areas during the summer months. During the rest of the year the MRV will be at anchor providing much needed shore based training and will be ready to take on its role quickly as a sealift ship.

However, in an emergency she can return from her patrol duties and revert back to her sealift role quickly, depending how far away she is deployed. Since she has a sustained top speed of 19 knots, in 10 hours she can travel 190 nautical miles, in 100 hours she can travel 1900 nautical miles. A hundred hours is a bit more than 4 days. Even when she is anchored at home, it will take the army more than a day, possibly two to four days, to get prepared for a forward deployment, and more days at sea to reach their destinations. Any quicker large deployments can be made by Hercules transports, and with either of the OPVs, a quicker small deployment of 30 troops each can be made if necessary.

Some of the army's exercises can be done while the ship is anchored, and others can be done at a designated beach nearby in New Zealand or further away in an Australian exercise. For its sealift role, I doubt whether the army would need the ship more than 30 days each year to keep sharp, and that's operating the LCMs. With other ships having a helicopter deck, I doubt whether the Air Force and its NH-90 helicopters or the Navy's SeaSprite helicopters need to operate as much off the MRV except for trials.

And since the New Zealand army isn't prepared to quickly send a large number of troops off, the MRV's capacity of 250 men is more than likely more than enough. If more troops are needed, surely New Zealand can lease another merchant vessel to provide the rest of the sealift.

The whole purpose of buying the MRV is its multi-role capabilites. Like many other small nations New Zealand cannot afford to keep an LPD at anchor the entire year, nor can it afford to keep more vessels at anchor either. The ship must have a function at anchor, at sea on patrol, and at sea for army exercises, and be useful as a sealift ship when called upon.

Last edited by Sea Toby; May 24th, 2006 at 06:03 PM.
Sea Toby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2006   #45
Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analyst
Major
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 903
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocco_NZ
QA Squadron is being developed to provide a third manouvre element (cavalry role). It will become a dedicated medium reconaissance unit - APC duties are long gone.
---------

Question: What plans does Army have for a "3rd manoeuvre group," as
mentioned by Colonel Dave Gawn in Issue 350 of the publication Army News?

Portfolio: Defence

Minister: Hon Phil Goff

Date Lodged:26/04/2006

Answer Text: The transition of the Queen Alexandra’s Mounted Rifles
Squadron into the New Zealand Army’s third combat manoeuvre unit with a
cavalry role is intended in part to maintain the Army’s reconnaissance
capability, and to support the growth of the Army under the Defence
Sustainability Initiative. The transition should be complete by December
2010 as part of a programme to create a Network Enabled Force.

Attachment: None

Date Received:09/05/2006
--------
This is VERY good to see. Thanks for the info!

Tried to find it but couldn't. But I did find some interesting stats on established and actual strength, not pretty reading e.g

2 land forces group established 2145 actual 1538, 1 NZIR as part of 2LFG est 633 act 506!

3LFG est 905 act 696 2/1 RNZIR est 621 act 469!

I see why there is a 10 year plan.
Whiskyjack is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:34 AM.