New Zealand Army Vehicles

[Whiskyjack]

Well it is interesting reading all the views on the NZDF.

I think that having an armed force that is capable of defending NZ from direct invasion is not in our best interests for the simple reason that if an invasion was to happen it would mean Australia and the US had already been defeated….

I think the NZDF needs to be equipped to contribute to regional stability and the defence of Australia. It must also be able to contribute to global security and peace keeping in areas such as:

Maritime security
Anti Terrorist operations

I would like to sea the P-3s equipped with Anti shipping missiles and precision air to surface missiles for land strike. 12 or so jet trainers such as the Hawk for keeping RNZAF pilots at entry level for fast jets, but also to train with the Army and RNZN.

2 Mech/Motorised battalions (I can’t see 25mm LAVs as motorised, no matter how much I try), with a commando battalion (maybe two companies worth) for rapid reaction and raids. Maybe even 20-25 EFVs for heavy amphibious assault operations.

The SAS is good and is just the force to be deployed for the war on terror.

The navy needs third combatant and two ships that I would call littoral assault ships, capable of carrying 350 troops and their equipment over the beach. With 4-5 Global Hawks for recon and coms….

But that is just a wish list. We have to remember here that NZ is a country of 4 million with nor discernable direct threat to its security, even with a proportional armed force to Australia we are only talking 10,000 person armed force, which is not a number that allows for great deployment options. So from the wish list above I would say NZ NEEDS and can do the following:

1. Add a third surface combatant
2. Upgrade the Orions for Anti Surface/sub-surface warfare with a land precision strike capability
3. Create a commando force that sits between infantry and SAS of around 300 personnel.
4. Re-role the current Multi-role vessel being built as a disaster relief vessel that can back up the armed forces and buy a littoral assault ship.

My two cents anyway.

 

[gf0012-aust]

1. Add a third surface combatant
2. Upgrade the Orions for Anti Surface/sub-surface warfare with a land precision strike capability
3. Create a commando force that sits between infantry and SAS of around 300 personnel.
4. Re-role the current Multi-role vessel being built as a disaster relief vessel that can back up the armed forces and buy a littoral assault ship.

My two cents anyway.

I wonder whether the issue of co-location needs to be revisited?

perhaps the RAAF could have a short squadron of Hawks based in NZ to cover off the issue of maint pilot lead in skills. we lost out big time when the RNZAF scooters were pulled from Nowra. They were good aggressors and v good cruise missile simulators.

wrt the P3K's - then maybe NZ could share the cost burden of AShM ASuM's and buy in at the same time as the RAAF does.

wrt to the multi-role vessel, perhaps share the cost of supporting manoora/kanimbla in the interim

 

[pepsi]

Would the Tiger ARH be able to play any role in the NZ Army? Considering there is no NZ Air Force to provide ground support, maybe a few Tigers could fill that role?

 

[Aussie Digger]

An armed recon helo would be a good addition to the RNZAF. They'd provide an aerial fire support capability that is sorely needed (IMO) by the NZ Army plus an aerial reconnaisance capability, which is currently non-existent.

Tigers might be a bit expensive for NZ though. A better option might be an armed version of the A109LUH or something. Such aircraft are available on the market already (meaning no development costs would be incurred) and would provide most of the capability of the Tiger and would help boost NZ's extremely limited Tactical transport helo force.

South Africa has done exactly this with armed A109LUH's supporting their Super Puma transport helo's and Rooivalk gunships.

Alternatively and armed recce version of the new training helo that NZ intends to acquire might be an option. NZ was looking at ex-Singaporean Squirrel helo's as a new training helo to replace their Wasps.

These helo's were armed with TOW, rockets and machine guns/light cannons in Singaporean service and there's no real reason they couldn't in NZ service (other than political ideology)...

Such an option should be extremely cheap too...

 

[Whiskyjack]

I agree, it would be nice for the Utility Helo to be armed, once again it would be nothing more than a stop gap capability (to keep our hand in so to speak) than a deployable capability.

I do believe that NZ needs to equip itself with ADF equipment wherever possible and tie into the maintenance and logistics chain of the ADF. This not only makes it cheaper for NZ but also Australia.

On thinking on it further I would like to see the Queen Alexander (QA) kept (I believe it was/is to be disbanded). Have 1RNZIR fully equipped with the LAV the QA equipped with two squadrons of LAVs (same as the Australian cavalry regiments) And have 2/1 RNZIR left as light infantry with one company parachute capable (which I think Charlie Company is? Or meant to be).

That would give the New Zealand Army an ability to deploy 10 company/squadron battle groups that could even fit in with Australian counterparts. The army would need to be 1000-1500 personnel larger (which is the current plan).

I have been thinking that the littoral assault ship (LSA) would be modelled on the 127 AUSTAL trimaran, of which I believe they have a support version as well as the hull being used for the LCS design. Perfect for fast movement and the littoral environment.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I agree, it would be nice for the Utility Helo to be armed, once again it would be nothing more than a stop gap capability (to keep our hand in so to speak) than a deployable capability.

I do believe that NZ needs to equip itself with ADF equipment wherever possible and tie into the maintenance and logistics chain of the ADF. This not only makes it cheaper for NZ but also Australia.

On thinking on it further I would like to see the Queen Alexander (QA) kept (I believe it was/is to be disbanded). Have 1RNZIR fully equipped with the LAV the QA equipped with two squadrons of LAVs (same as the Australian cavalry regiments) And have 2/1 RNZIR left as light infantry with one company parachute capable (which I think Charlie Company is? Or meant to be).

That would give the New Zealand Army an ability to deploy 10 company/squadron battle groups that could even fit in with Australian counterparts. The army would need to be 1000-1500 personnel larger (which is the current plan).

I have been thinking that the littoral assault ship (LSA) would be modelled on the 127 AUSTAL trimaran, of which I believe they have a support version as well as the hull being used for the LCS design. Perfect for fast movement and the littoral environment.

If I were designing the equipment fit for the NZ Army, I would simply build on what they have. I'd purchase another 15-20 LAVIII's and thereby have 2 fully equipped motorised infantry battalions, allowing NZ to deploy a regular motorised battalion on operations and retain another for rotation/emergency deployments of less than battalion strength.

I would advance the project to acquire automatic grenade launchers for the NZ army and ensure enough were purchased to equip each battalion, the special forces unit and the QA Regiment. I would also ensure enough Javelin's were purchased to equip each battalion, the special forces and the QA Regiment.

I would also acquire a new 81mm mortar system to increase the firepower available to the infantry battalions and the special forces. Such a mortar would feature greater range and lethality (through enhanced munitions) and might also provide a "precision guided" mortar round to give NZ forces a battlefield precision strike capability (which it doesn't really have at present).

As to a parachute capability, I would ignore it completely for the infantry. The training/injury factors are simply too high for it's worth and NZSAS are parachute capable anyway. IN any event, NZ's 5 Hercules (it's only transport aircraft, realistically useable for parachute operations) are going to be too heavily tasked in any such deployment to be able to deploy an airborne force anyway...

The reserve infantry battalions, I would equip with Pinzgauer infantry carrier versions, to give them a "light" motorised role. The pace of operations these days doesn't really allow for infantry to move around on foot, and would give them good experience in ops from vehicles if they needed to perform a "relief" in-country and use the reg battalion's LAVIII's. Pinzgauers would also provide useful transport capabilities, within NZ itself, to allow the reserve units to be called out and deploy to incident sites in time of a national disaster, etc.

With the QA Regiment, I would not disband it, but convert it into a "light Cavalry" formation, designed to provide a "screening" cavalry force for the motorised infantry battalions. The structure would include 2 operational squadrons, ( 1x squadron to support a battalion group), a support squadron and a regimental HQ. This unit would be equipped with an appropriate "light" wheeled recon vehicle, such as something similar to that being given to the NZSAS Regiment.

This vehicle would come up "applique" armour packages, used as required and be equipped with medium weapons designed for self-defence and limited offensive actions, (in particular, 0.50cal HMG's and 40mm auto grenade launchers <AGL's> and 7.62mm GPMG's). These weapons should be operated by a remote weapon station, to improve accuracy and targetting capability and improve crew safety.

This unit structure would therefore include 3x recon troops per squadron comprising of 6x vehicles per troop. Each troop would have 4x "gun cars" equipped with the 0.50cal HMG's or 40mm AGL's and 2x personel carrier variants, to carry a small "dismounted" recon section of around 6 persons (2x dismounted recon sections, per vehicle troop). Each recon troop would be equipped with the normal range of NZ Army infantry weapons, including 2 Javelin anti-armour weapon.

The "gun cars" and PC carriers would each be equipped with standard targetting devices such as passive NVG's/day time optics, thermal imagers, laser range finders, which would enable them to also conduct surveillance missions.

Each Squadron should also possess a surveillance troop, as part of Squadron HQ. This troop would be equipped with ground/aerial surveillance radars, fitted to the same vehicles as the recce troop.

If necessary, the firepower of the regiment could be enhanced, by the addition of a mortar troop per squadron, or the addition of extra Javelin ATGW's.

This force, would then be capable of performing recon and cavalry missions in support of the infantry battalions, direct fire support missions, independantly or again in support of the infantry.

It could also conduct "escort" missions for dignities, NGO's etc whilst on peace keeping ops.

Despite some advanced capabilities, this unit should be relatively affordable. It would use the same vehicle and weapons already chosen for the wider Army, would be relatively mapower limited (it would have less personel than any of the infantry battalions), would be relatively self-sufficent and extremely deployable on ops (even more so than the LAVIII based battalions, due to it's "light" vehicles) but would possess good capability...

 

[Cootamundra]

AD, I think your mix makes plenty of sense and with respect to WhiskeyJack I tend to agree on the view that more 'mobile' infantry is better than the traditional light infantry. Also I would question the validity of a Para specific company. If both regular battalions were kitted with LAVs and the 'light' cavalry QA regiment was duly equipped I think NZ would have a well rounded ground force, well equipped to meet medium intensity ops as well as being excellently placed for Peace keeping duties, a role the present labour gov seems to be very keen on. In addition with the versatility of the NZSAS, a Kiwi army setup as discussed would probably find itself very busy.
Coota

 

[Aussie Digger]

AD, I think your mix makes plenty of sense and with respect to WhiskeyJack I tend to agree on the view that more 'mobile' infantry is better than the traditional light infantry. Also I would question the validity of a Para specific company. If both regular battalions were kitted with LAVs and the 'light' cavalry QA regiment was duly equipped I think NZ would have a well rounded ground force, well equipped to meet medium intensity ops as well as being excellently placed for Peace keeping duties, a role the present labour gov seems to be very keen on. In addition with the versatility of the NZSAS, a Kiwi army setup as discussed would probably find itself very busy.
Coota

Thanks mate, but I can't take all the credit. The force structure and equipment fit (mostly) I outlined here, is essentially the one the Australian Army's reserve units (Infantry battalions and Light Horse, Mounted Rifles and APC Regiments) will most probably convert to under HNA.

I think it's a very good (and realistic) structure for "lighter" lower readiness forces however.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Thanks mate, but I can't take all the credit. The force structure and equipment fit (mostly) I outlined here, is essentially the one the Australian Army's reserve units (Infantry battalions and Light Horse, Mounted Rifles and APC Regiments) will most probably convert to under HNA.

I think it's a very good (and realistic) structure for "lighter" lower readiness forces however.

Hi AD,

My idea came from what the NZ Army has now, as opposed to what it should look like with new equipment.

Basically I agree with you, the area of divergence is the 2nd motorised battalion.

I believe that NZ needs a light infantry component to its structure. The Motorised units are no good in the jungles of the Pacific and South East Asia, nor are they easily deployable in the region. That means light infantry. One company needs to be Air Assault trained as the SAS can/could be deployed elsewhere. The unit could be a separate commando/ranger unit and should be ideally.

Any way the basis for my idea is that with 105 LAVs, 60 should go to a battalion and 40 to the QA. I can’t see any extras being bought any time soon, although I like your cavalry model and a 2 squadrons based on this model would be great.

As for deploying the force, 2 hercs is all you need to deploy the company, I am not talking an invasion here but securing a port or airport for evacuation etc… I think this is one of the most likely scenarios in the South Pacific Region. With the MRV to deliver heavier forces to a port id necessary.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Hi AD,

My idea came from what the NZ Army has now, as opposed to what it should look like with new equipment.

Basically I agree with you, the area of divergence is the 2nd motorised battalion.

I believe that NZ needs a light infantry component to its structure. The Motorised units are no good in the jungles of the Pacific and South East Asia, nor are they easily deployable in the region. That means light infantry. One company needs to be Air Assault trained as the SAS can/could be deployed elsewhere. The unit could be a separate commando/ranger unit and should be ideally.

Any way the basis for my idea is that with 105 LAVs, 60 should go to a battalion and 40 to the QA. I can’t see any extras being bought any time soon, although I like your cavalry model and a 2 squadrons based on this model would be great.

As for deploying the force, 2 hercs is all you need to deploy the company, I am not talking an invasion here but securing a port or airport for evacuation etc… I think this is one of the most likely scenarios in the South Pacific Region. With the MRV to deliver heavier forces to a port id necessary.

Faire enough, but motorised forces can easily operate without their vehicles. In the Australian Army at least, motorised vehicles are not used as close combat vehicles, they are used for armoured transport. The infantry still undertake their tasks as a light infantry force would, they simply possess far greater tactical and strategic mobility. While 2 Hercs could lift a company group, many more sorties would have to be flown to support this company.

In addition any significant helo deployments by NZ will have to be via their MRV. The NH-90's will be flat out being lifted by a Herc... Any light infantry force deployed by Herc's would be stranded in the Asia/Pacific country you are referring to with no tactical mobility other than walking...

 

[Whiskyjack]

Yes I take your point about the company, however it may be that it is securing a port for the MRV to move in and unload, it may not need to move any closer than walking distance, although I accept the risk of being out of contact and no heavy fire power.

Also another problem I have is that the LAV battalions are considered motorised. If you look at an LAV platoon organisation it is mechanised, no difference with a Warrior or Bradley fighting vehicle. 3 crew and 7 dismounts. The organisation is different from a light infantry platoon. This is just my opinion and I stand to be corrected.
Okay time for my rant now,

I read in the paper today that Fiji may have its 4th coup since 1987. At the time of the first coup the NZ PM ordered the NZDF to intervene and was told by the Chief of the Defence Force that it was not able to so. 19 Years later the NZDF is still not able to even mount an operation to evacuate citizens from Fiji. The MRV (still a year away), which is a result of the 1987 coup in many ways, is not an amphibious ship capable making a lodgement, it is a logistics ship capable of limited over the beach operations, as well as patrol duties. There is no increased lift, in fact it has decreased due to the age and current upgrade of the C-130 fleet.

Nor is the Army any more capable of conducting this mission, the NZDF currently has no organic way to deploy an LAV outside of NZ! And in my opinion is not configured to operate in the Jungles of the area of immediate responsibility.

Even Australia would be hard pressed to mount an operation at the moment.

My opinion for what it is worth.

 

[nz enthusiast]

Time for my 5 cents...
Getting more lavs is stupid if anything the numbers should reduced. The current NZ defence force structure is based around the army with the navyand air force asically acting as a support system. Quite frankly stupid for a country that is sea locked. The threats to New Zealand are international terrorisum (don't bother debateing whether NZ is a target or not) and the threat to New Zealands naval trade routes. Your never actually going to invade New Zealand that is a huge waste of resources that would be better used else where. Any enemy is instead going to mine NZs trade routes and/or have submarines and surface vessels floating around. 105+ lavs aren't going to do anything in this scienario, it's going to be the ability of the RNZN to fight and assist the FPDA partners in keeping these trade routes open. Therefore I support the expansion of the RNZN, the army can go to hell (make into a marine force). A small air combat capability may be helpful but it should not be the expensive force of yester year. I small force of UCAVS will do it supported by P-8s or P-3s. Manned air power will be on the way out in the next 15 to 20 years and that is going to be the length of time required to build up a meaningful air combat capbility. As I said earlier deploying lavs is very difficult and to use them properly it is going to require more and larger transport ships and planes.

Lavs: reduced to 70 or so (gees we don't even have enough trained me nto operated 50 at the moment and the ads aren't going to work with recruiting)

Frigates: upgrade the current two anzac friagtes to the Australia upgrade standard at the moment while looking to buy some corvete type warships like that of the swedish visby class (2 possibly)

MRV: Look at aquiring another one of these if defence force personal numbers pick up

Air power: aquire up to 8 unmanned combat air vehicles like thsoe currently under development in Europe and the US, plus start looking at P-3 and c-130 replacements. Countinue with Nh-90 and sioux replacement aquisition.

Army: A general marine focus

 

[ANZAC ACE]

Coming from Fiji originally I was well aware of the potential of another coup. The question I ask is weather those who over see New Zealand’s defence policy ever consider the volatile nature of pacific politics and the responsibilities New Zealand has as a nation to ensure stability in our region?

Forgive me but I have to reiterate portions of your argument. New Zealand cannot conduct significant operations in the region (evacuations and other military options). This seems rather ironic as our governments sentiments suggest we live in a strategically benign part of the world.

Surely New Zealand’s Defence forces must have a large focus on deploying within the Pacific region, not only for military operations but also for humanitarian assistance. Now I’m no expert on force structure but the NZDF should be configured for deployments outside New Zealand and that includes the LAV’s. This is further reinforced by the peace keeping focus that the government has set out. With the acquisition of the MRV limited as its capabilities maybe, I think there is recognition of this point but improvements should be ongoing and should focus on joint operations and logistics support.

If New Zealand had a military card to play in the pacific then I think the government would be able to be more forceful with politically volatile countries like Fiji and I think potential coups could be averted.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Time for my 5 cents...
Getting more lavs is stupid if anything the numbers should reduced. The current NZ defence force structure is based around the army with the navyand air force asically acting as a support system. Quite frankly stupid for a country that is sea locked. The threats to New Zealand are international terrorisum (don't bother debateing whether NZ is a target or not) and the threat to New Zealands naval trade routes. Your never actually going to invade New Zealand that is a huge waste of resources that would be better used else where. Any enemy is instead going to mine NZs trade routes and/or have submarines and surface vessels floating around. 105+ lavs aren't going to do anything in this scienario, it's going to be the ability of the RNZN to fight and assist the FPDA partners in keeping these trade routes open. Therefore I support the expansion of the RNZN, the army can go to hell (make into a marine force). A small air combat capability may be helpful but it should not be the expensive force of yester year. I small force of UCAVS will do it supported by P-8s or P-3s. Manned air power will be on the way out in the next 15 to 20 years and that is going to be the length of time required to build up a meaningful air combat capbility. As I said earlier deploying lavs is very difficult and to use them properly it is going to require more and larger transport ships and planes.

Lavs: reduced to 70 or so (gees we don't even have enough trained me nto operated 50 at the moment and the ads aren't going to work with recruiting)

Frigates: upgrade the current two anzac friagtes to the Australia upgrade standard at the moment while looking to buy some corvete type warships like that of the swedish visby class (2 possibly)

MRV: Look at aquiring another one of these if defence force personal numbers pick up

Air power: aquire up to 8 unmanned combat air vehicles like thsoe currently under development in Europe and the US, plus start looking at P-3 and c-130 replacements. Countinue with Nh-90 and sioux replacement aquisition.

Army: A general marine focus

The number of LAV's are un-balanced, IMO. They have equipped 1 infantry battalion, and partially equipped the other. It would cost very little to equip the 2nd infantry battalion fully. Only another 10 vehicles is needed.

Motorised infantry uses it's vehicles as armoured transport and additional fire support where required. It operates as light infantry in close combat situations. The size of a motorised infantry section or a light infantry section are identical.

NZ, what is your plan then to conduct peace-keeping operations in failed states, which is by far the most likely operational scenario for NZ? Your infantry will be stuck for transport. Your 1 vehicle equipped battalion will not be able to be rotated by another battalion, meaning any deployment can not be sustained beyond 12 months.

You need a variety of options to deal with a variety of scenario's. What are UCAV's going to do for NZ? They are not being designed for air combat operations, battlefield or maritime strike operations. They are being designed for deep penetration strike and SEAD missions. I also hardly think 28 A-4's was an "expensive force".

How much do you think UCAV's are going to cost anyway? Australia is looking at acquiring 6x Global Hawk's and the existing funding of AU$1 Billion is deemed insufficient by many... By way of comparison, NZ's previous F-16 lease deal was to cost around NZ$200 million, with payments spread over the 10 years NZ could have had 28 updated F-16A/B's for $20 million a year plus support costs... Do you think 28 F-16's would have provided less capability than 5 UCAV's which may take another 20 years anyway to actually come into operational USAF service?

Neither are particularly important for NZ and the money could be put to better use. What NZ requires in my opnion, is better air defence capabilities, better in-direct firepower/battlefield strike capabilities and greater deployment and sustainment capabilities for it's existing force.

Whiskey, why would Australia be hardpressed to deploy a force to Fiji? We deployed a (1RAR) company based taskgroup to the Solomans last year within 19 hours!!! Out of all the battalions in Australia, 1RAR has a platoon in the Solomans, a platoon+ as part of SECDET in Iraq and 5/7RAR has a single company in Iraq as part of Al Muthana and some 4RAR personnel are in Afghanistan. Less than a single battalion all up.

We could deploy an infantry battalion group, supported by armour, artillery, helo's, engineers, a special forces group and logistical support elements, plus a Naval taskgroup very easily and probably very quickly (within a few weeks). Supported by forces from NZ, Tonga, PNG (and possibly France), such a force would clean up Fiji very quickly, even if it was opposed to any degree.

I doubt it will come to that though...

 

[Whiskyjack]

AD I take your point

 

[Whiskyjack]

The number of LAV's are un-balanced, IMO. They have equipped 1 infantry battalion, and partially equipped the other. It would cost very little to equip the 2nd infantry battalion fully. Only another 10 vehicles is needed.

Motorised infantry uses it's vehicles as armoured transport and additional fire support where required. It operates as light infantry in close combat situations. The size of a motorised infantry section or a light infantry section are identical.

NZ, what is your plan then to conduct peace-keeping operations in failed states, which is by far the most likely operational scenario for NZ? Your infantry will be stuck for transport. Your 1 vehicle equipped battalion will not be able to be rotated by another battalion, meaning any deployment can not be sustained beyond 12 months.

You need a variety of options to deal with a variety of scenario's. What are UCAV's going to do for NZ? They are not being designed for air combat operations, battlefield or maritime strike operations. They are being designed for deep penetration strike and SEAD missions. I also hardly think 28 A-4's was an "expensive force".

How much do you think UCAV's are going to cost anyway? Australia is looking at acquiring 6x Global Hawk's and the existing funding of AU$1 Billion is deemed insufficient by many... By way of comparison, NZ's previous F-16 lease deal was to cost around NZ$200 million, with payments spread over the 10 years NZ could have had 28 updated F-16A/B's for $20 million a year plus support costs... Do you think 28 F-16's would have provided less capability than 5 UCAV's which may take another 20 years anyway to actually come into operational USAF service?

Neither are particularly important for NZ and the money could be put to better use. What NZ requires in my opnion, is better air defence capabilities, better in-direct firepower/battlefield strike capabilities and greater deployment and sustainment capabilities for it's existing force.

Whiskey, why would Australia be hardpressed to deploy a force to Fiji? We deployed a (1RAR) company based taskgroup to the Solomans last year within 19 hours!!! Out of all the battalions in Australia, 1RAR has a platoon in the Solomans, a platoon+ as part of SECDET in Iraq and 5/7RAR has a single company in Iraq as part of Al Muthana and some 4RAR personnel are in Afghanistan. Less than a single battalion all up.

We could deploy an infantry battalion group, supported by armour, artillery, helo's, engineers, a special forces group and logistical support elements, plus a Naval taskgroup very easily and probably very quickly (within a few weeks). Supported by forces from NZ, Tonga, PNG (and possibly France), such a force would clean up Fiji very quickly, even if it was opposed to any degree.

I doubt it will come to that though...

AD I take your point regarding light infantry and motorised infantry, if I understand you correctly then an infantry platoon of 30 soldiers would be carried in an armoured vehicle and would all dismount and conduct operations away from the vehicles? Whereas a mech platoon are integrated with their vehicles?

While I know that the LAV equipped battalions are classed as motorised, I have herd a few ex-officers say that we are losing the ability to conduct light infantry operations as the training is not the same. So I am a bit confused on this point. The org for the LAV battalion is closer to a Warrior/Bradley Battalion than a Saxon/Stryker battalion.

My comments regarding the ability to deploy, are not that it couldn’t but that it would be hard pressed to mount such an operation, to deploy a battalion group would take all of the current sealift assets, then an air bridge of 3000kms would need to be established. So logistics would not be easy. So once the 1st battalion was there the 2nd (if it became necessary) would be even harder to deploy! Although in 10 years that may be a very different story with the two amphib ships that are due to be in service. Also the possible additional airlift.

It would be nice to see some specialised variants of the LAV enter service, such as engineer, maintenance, mortar etc…, but I cannot see it in the near future with this govt.

Just to reiterate my earlier point, I would like to see a 10,000-12,000 ton Enforcer in service to provide the over the beach capability.

 

[Kiwi Echo]

i heard that there were two bricks of NZ2ndS.A.S

over in fiji at the mo

 

[Aussie Digger]

It wouldn't bequite as hard as you're making it out to be though, Whiskeyjck. We are talking about a similar force to the one we deployed to the Soloman Islands originally and a far smaller force than the one we deployed to Timor.

We have "over the beach" capability, with our new Army watercraft (LCM8 replacements) that operate off Manoora and Kanimbla. Either of these vessels can carry most of an infantry battalion, plus it's vehicles and supporting equipment, plus 2x LCM8 type watercraft and 4 troop lift helicopters to provide the "over teh beach" capability.

At the height of Timor, we had 12 Blackhawks deployed. A battalion group would be sufficiently served by 8 Blackhawks that Manoora and Kanimbla could carry, plus if necessay the Sea King/Seahawks that would be deployed on the RAN vessels sent over with the Amphibs.

The air bridge, would only really need to come into play to re-supply the force, deployment wise the RAN has sufficient lift capacity at present. Both Manoora and Kanimbla would need to be deployed at present, but they could easily deploy an armoured version of a battlion group sized formation between them.

This situation will be relieved when the new Amphibs come into service. They will each be able to carry what Kanimbla and Manoora carry between them...

 

[Whiskyjack]

It wouldn't bequite as hard as you're making it out to be though, Whiskeyjck. We are talking about a similar force to the one we deployed to the Soloman Islands originally and a far smaller force than the one we deployed to Timor.

We have "over the beach" capability, with our new Army watercraft (LCM8 replacements) that operate off Manoora and Kanimbla. Either of these vessels can carry most of an infantry battalion, plus it's vehicles and supporting equipment, plus 2x LCM8 type watercraft and 4 troop lift helicopters to provide the "over teh beach" capability.

At the height of Timor, we had 12 Blackhawks deployed. A battalion group would be sufficiently served by 8 Blackhawks that Manoora and Kanimbla could carry, plus if necessay the Sea King/Seahawks that would be deployed on the RAN vessels sent over with the Amphibs.

The air bridge, would only really need to come into play to re-supply the force, deployment wise the RAN has sufficient lift capacity at present. Both Manoora and Kanimbla would need to be deployed at present, but they could easily deploy an armoured version of a battlion group sized formation between them.

This situation will be relieved when the new Amphibs come into service. They will each be able to carry what Kanimbla and Manoora carry between them...

We may have to agree to disagree a bit on this one.

I guess I should also say I am talking about worst case scenario as well, which I believe always has to be planned for. The Solomon’s had no organised army to defend ports and airfields, and Timor was much closer to a main logistics centre than Fiji.

The LPAs can carry 450 troops and 1700m2 of vehicles, the LSL is similar with 400 odd troops as well. So that is around 1300 troops and equipment. So all three have to be available to lift a battalion group. Follow on forces have to be sent by chartered ships. C-130s would be pushing it to deploy significant amounts of equipment with out at least one refuel stop some where in the Pacific. CAS would also have to be based closer. Choppers also need to be carried by ship, 12 UH-60s, 6 Tigers (if available) plus 6 others LUHs?

Amphibious operations from the stern of the LPAs and LSL would be hampered by weather conditions as they are not conducted from well docks, maximum of 5-6 helos launched at once?

We are talking significant planning here. Australia can do this, but in what time frame? Ships have to be available, airfields must be secured for use from another country (and then supplied with enough av gas to keep going), logistics must be able to hold up over 3000kms from Sydney.

Anyway I look at it, it is a big ask!

This is a worst case scenario (I don’t see it happening either) but the Fijian military is reasonably well trained and its officers have been well educated in western staff colleges, so they know what is need to make any landing very difficult for Australia and New Zealand.

 

[Aussie Digger]

If you are considering an actively opposed invasion of Fiji, as the ulitmate situation, then you are partially correct, however such a situation would require the full capability of the ADF, not mere "peace-keeping" forces to resolve, which I don't think you've factored in.

How long therefore coud Fiji resist simultaneous RAAF F-111/F/A-18 strikes, "over the beach amphibious landings" (at multiple locations) and "covert" special operations forces?

For a VERY short period, if at all, I'd venture, especially considering the very limited support the Fijian Army would have, not to mention their very limited capabilities irrespective of their level of support...

For anything less than an "all out" war, the ADF is very able to deploy IMHO.