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
This is VERY good to see. Thanks for the info!
Tried to find it but couldn't. ...
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.
Do the maths on this so total actual for 2 & 3 LFG is 2234 plus say 200 for NZSAS = 2434. The 2005 Annual report states Army strength is 4438, which means just 55% of the Army is assigned to operational units if I'm not mistaken. If that does'nt say that something is seriously wrong with Army structure I don't know what does.
Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analyst
Major
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 903
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucasnz
Do the maths on this so total actual for 2 & 3 LFG is 2234 plus say 200 for NZSAS = 2434. The 2005 Annual report states Army strength is 4438, which means just 55% of the Army is assigned to operational units if I'm not mistaken. If that does'nt say that something is seriously wrong with Army structure I don't know what does.
I'm not so sure I think that that figure is, give or take a few percent, the same as other armies. Australia is looking at 28,000 to support 10 battalion sized units (1 x tank, 2 x cav, 2 x mech, 3 x inf, 1 x cmdo, & 1 x aviation).
Although having said that the British army has 46-50 battalion sized units for 102,500. Larger force efficiencies?
Question: What are the terms of reference of the Army Configuration
Review?
Portfolio: Defence
Minister: Hon Phil Goff
Date Lodged:26/04/2006
Answer Text: The Army Configuration Review (ARC) followed from a specific
recommendation of the Defence Capability and Resourcing Review (DCARR)
that a special study should be undertaken "of the current position of the
Army to establish how it should be configured to best maintain its
operational capability during the next few years as it builds towards the
level required by Government policy".This recommendation was noted by Cabinet when it received the DCARR Final
Report.As with all the other DCARR recommendations, the ARC is being undertaken
as a project within the Defence Sustainability Initiative programme and is
expected to be finalised by the end of 2006.
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.
Tell that to the 2nd Cav Regt...
Anyhoo's Big-E's right, if a little ahead of himself.
Let's re-direct this back to naval topics. There's other threads in which NZ's land forces can be discussed...
Last edited by gf0012-aust; May 25th, 2006 at 12:11 AM.
Hi Sea Toby, having read through your report, my conclusion is that NZ is heading in the right direction as far as sealift is concerned and i think 250 army personel is a sufficient number to deploy in any immediate theatre of operations. I believe this will be the future if what we see in Fiji or The Solomons or East Timor is concerned.
I think that NZ should be able to operate with its Naval assets and be able to secure areas in the Pacific should the needs arise, however there are still holes in our capability that still need to be filled. What worries me is that there is no defensive ability from either the MRV or OPVS to defend them selves from attack, either from the sea or air. My suggestion is to arm them with a CIWS each. Also the MRV will need the escort of a frigate (ANZAC) if needed to enter a field of operations. I think to have the ability to operate with the Australians with these assets is a giant leap from where we have been, but i have to add that our Navy is stretched. We are in desperate need of a third ANZAC to relieve the other two from their grueling assignments in the Gulf, and with Exercises with the Australians. If our government can come round to this then we have a Navy that can fullfill all its obligations without over commiting itself. Let me know what you think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sea Toby
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.
I think that NZ should be able to operate with its Naval assets and be able to secure areas in the Pacific should the needs arise, however there are still holes in our capability that still need to be filled. What worries me is that there is no defensive ability from either the MRV or OPVS to defend them selves from attack, either from the sea or air. My suggestion is to arm them with a CIWS each. Also the MRV will need the escort of a frigate (ANZAC) if needed to enter a field of operations. I think to have the ability to operate with the Australians with these assets is a giant leap from where we have been, but i have to add that our Navy is stretched. We are in desperate need of a third ANZAC to relieve the other two from their grueling assignments in the Gulf, and with Exercises with the Australians. If our government can come round to this then we have a Navy that can fullfill all its obligations without over commiting itself. Let me know what you think.
I agree. One of the greatest threats to NZs security is our small Pacific neighbours becoming failed states. This could lead to them becoming bases for terrorism and narco crime. NZ needs the ability to provide support for the legal governments of these nations, be it in a military sense or a civilian sense (eg disaster relief, civilian aid). The MRV certainly provides enough lift to provide an initial military force for operations in the Pacific. It would be great to see a third frigate to provide extra firepower for such ops, and to relieve deployment strain on current ANZACs, the later causing personnel retainment problems for NZ Navy. I would also like to see third OPV and all with 57mm, plus training for use as Pacific deployment asset for SAS platoons.
Thank you. Yes a 76mm cannon each would do it, however a CIWS might be better for self defense for incoming missiles as well. These days small countries use motor boats to do their damage and we need our OPVs and MRV to protect themselvs from them. The OPV should definetly have it, as they will assist other units of the Navy protecting assets. The MRV most likely will deploy with an ANZAC so at least there is protection. Still, the MRV being a capital ship needs a defensive weopon system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padman
Would it be possible to fit the MRV with a heavier gun, say 76mm?
As an alternative to extra and upgunned OPVs, maybe we could consider at lest one of the new Danish flexible support ships, its a frigate, its a command ship, its an amphib support vessel all in one. Armed with 127mm, Harpoons and Enhanced Sea Sparrow. Compatiable with ANZAC systems.
As an alternative to extra and upgunned OPVs, maybe we could consider at lest one of the new Danish flexible support ships, its a frigate, its a command ship, its an amphib support vessel all in one. Armed with 127mm, Harpoons and Enhanced Sea Sparrow. Compatiable with ANZAC systems.
Very good idea. At least the NZ Navy wouldn't have to choose between sealift capability and escort capability.
Thank you. Yes a 76mm cannon each would do it, however a CIWS might be better for self defense for incoming missiles as well. These days small countries use motor boats to do their damage and we need our OPVs and MRV to protect themselvs from them. The OPV should definetly have it, as they will assist other units of the Navy protecting assets. The MRV most likely will deploy with an ANZAC so at least there is protection. Still, the MRV being a capital ship needs a defensive weopon system.
Fitting a 76mm gun to a vessel not originally built to take it is not a simple task. The system has deck penitration and requires a shell room below the mount for the ready use rotary magazine. Given the rate of fire addtional rounds would derfinately be requred to refill the rotary magazine stowage. So you would be looking at a shell handling room, main magazine and some sort of handling system for the ammunition transfer. That before we start looking at fire control. This all costs and imposes quite a bit of top weight.
30mm gun based CIWS like goalkeeper also take up considerable space and require deck pentration and housing below the mount. However the Phalanx 20mm gun system or, better still, Sea RAM don't have such a restriction and are self contained in so far as sensors are concerned.
