New Zealand Army Vehicles

[Stuart Mackey]

snip. With a frigate force of two, the two frigates will have difficulty being in six harbors at once, especially so when only one is usually available and its in the Malacca Strait or the Tasman Sea attempting to keep it open.

The problem is that people argue for a capability for the sake of capability, and do not argue from a logical perspective. Demonstrate the problem then develop policy to solve that problem. Case in point is the lack of ATGM's on Bosnia: We were embaressed because we had to ask the Poms for help in that regard, and they complained to the Govt about it. ATGM's are to aquired, better late than never I guess, but the problem is to be solved. The supporters of the stike squadrons never clearly demonstrated a need for them to the satisfaction of the incoming government, and we lost them as a result.

 

[Lucasnz]

The supporters of the stike squadrons never clearly demonstrated a need for them to the satisfaction of the incoming government, and we lost them as a result.

I'd only partly agree with that, but add to that the reports prepared by the Ministry of Defence which didn't help the issue. The NZ Skyhawks launched warning shots against a FFV, Were on alert for East Timor and stood Air Defence readiness during APEC in 1999. The need could have been demonstrated. You could have argued also, and I would have thought common sense sugested that an Island Nation can only be attacked from the sea, the first line of defence therefore is countering a threat at sea before the civilians take a hit. History shows that all threats that have eventuated against New Zealand have come from the sea (Mines, The sole Submarine launched Japanese Aircraft, Submarine Threats, Armed Merchant Crusiers and terrorists (Rainbow Warrior). Thats why I think the Peacenik agenda played an equal if not greater role.

Hypothecial question I have is if a low level military maritime threat ocurred (Say one of two surface warships threatening shipping lanes or Tomohawk strike to acheive political objectives), would the Orions with Anti Ship Missiles be sufficent, given that the frigates are deployed overseas. Thoughts on this one please, as this type of threat is the more likley of the military threats facing NZ (if one ever happened).

 

[Stuart Mackey]

I'd only partly agree with that, but add to that the reports prepared by the Ministry of Defence which didn't help the issue. The NZ Skyhawks launched warning shots against a FFV, Were on alert for East Timor and stood Air Defence readiness during APEC in 1999. The need could have been demonstrated.

But it wasnt, and thats the point.

You could have argued also, and I would have thought common sense sugested that an Island Nation can only be attacked from the sea, the first line of defence therefore is countering a threat at sea before the civilians take a hit. History shows that all threats that have eventuated against New Zealand have come from the sea (Mines, The sole Submarine launched Japanese Aircraft, Submarine Threats, Armed Merchant Crusiers and terrorists (Rainbow Warrior). Thats why I think the Peacenik agenda played an equal if not greater role.

And none of this was argued to the satisfaction of the government. It could also have been argued that the worlds supply of nuclear propelled and armed submarines could cruise around our ports and we would never know it because we lack a ASW capability, hence the need for the Orion ASW upgrade.
Granted ideological reasons do get in the way, but thats part of living in a democracy.

Hypothecial question I have is if a low level military maritime threat ocurred (Say one of two surface warships threatening shipping lanes or Tomohawk strike to acheive political objectives), would the Orions with Anti Ship Missiles be sufficent, given that the frigates are deployed overseas. Thoughts on this one please, as this type of threat is the more likley of the military threats facing NZ (if one ever happened).

Depends on the enemies self defence capability. If they are older ships or underarmed patrol frigate equivelents, like ours, we might get a chance if we can find them. Remember you can get a maximum theoretical strike only if we assume all the Orions are airworthy. Personally, I dont think we could stop them, ships move and they have a huge ocean to play games in.

 

[Supe]

I have read many Kiwis writing what's the use of their armed forces, as though New Zealand doesn't have a leg to stand on if it were being invaded.

If you take the view that your nation can do a lot of good by involving itself in multi-lateral arrangements (whether that's a blue hat peacekeeping mission or in security operations ala Afghanistan) then NZ should endevour to retain a decent military capability.

Then of course there is regional security operations ala Operation Anode (RAMSI) in which the Kiwis sent military to the Solomon Islands. I think NZ as a player in the region has a responsibility to assist its Pacific neighbours. Not only does it build goodwill, it serves to protect NZ's own national interests.

Of course you get the usual types calling that imperialism.

 

[steve33]

I was talking to a New Zealand officer who was at the welling ton water front where the Army was doing a display and had a LAV parked up and he told me that they had additional armour they could bolt on which could allow the vehicle to take hits from 14.5mm rounds from 500 metres or more and i was shocked because in an urban enviroment you are going to be fired at from a lot closer than that and it is a weapon that 3rd world fighters can get there hands on.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Hypothecial question I have is if a low level military maritime threat ocurred (Say one of two surface warships threatening shipping lanes or Tomohawk strike to acheive political objectives), would the Orions with Anti Ship Missiles be sufficent, given that the frigates are deployed overseas. Thoughts on this one please, as this type of threat is the more likley of the military threats facing NZ (if one ever happened).

I agree the most likely ‘direct’ threat to New Zealand is a threat to it’s sea lanes, either by submarine or surface combatants. For a potential enemy that is minimum force projection for maximum results! For your hypothesis we would have to assume that the Australians, US and French forces were staying at home.

A submarine threat is the most dangerous, harder to find and harder to kill (especially with no anti-sub gear on the Orions!) An enemy may not even have to continuously deploy a sub, just say one patrol, sink a few ships and then announce that there is always one on station! A surface ship or two is not so much of a threat, as long as the capability exists to sink them. An upgraded Orion with the JASSM or a SLAM-ER could stand off and attack these ships. At that point it is possible that anti-missile systems may defeat the attack, but it would be a risk that an enemy would have to take.

But the only anti ship missile NZ has is the Maverick, which can only be fired from a Sea Sprite, which would mean an RNZN Frigate would have to close with any surface ship, launch a Sea Sprite, the Sea Sprite would have to close within 10 Km (?) to launch. At that point it would within range of a few anti air systems. Not good odds, + 2 Mavericks may not do much damage to a larger ship.

 

[Whiskyjack]

I was talking to a New Zealand officer who was at the welling ton water front where the Army was doing a display and had a LAV parked up and he told me that they had additional armour they could bolt on which could allow the vehicle to take hits from 14.5mm rounds from 500 metres or more and i was shocked because in an urban enviroment you are going to be fired at from a lot closer than that and it is a weapon that 3rd world fighters can get there hands on.

Yeah, I would take that with a grain of salt, by there nature the LAVs are not heavily armoured. But the US and Australians have deployed LAVs to Iraq with Slat/Bar armour that is designed to stop RPGS from even hittting the LAV. They seem to have been reasonalbly effective, I have not read of many LAV combat losses at any rate.

 

[steve33]

I read an article with an American officer in Iraq talking about there stryker vehicles and he praised them stating that they had taken something like 130 RPG hits on there slat armour and all the RPG exploded on the slat armour leaving the vehicle undamaged and they have also been hit with a lot of suicide car bombs and all the soldiers have got out with only minor injuries.

I remember an article i read about a Stryker in Iraq that was hit with a huge roadside bomb blown over 1.5 times and slide about 30 feet then stopped and the crew got out with only minor injuries so they are a pretty good vehicle but i was shocked when the officer told me about the 14.5mm rounds you would have to hope he didn,t have his facts right because you wouldn,t want to be in an urban enviroment where people could fire at you with the 14.5mm at close range.

 

[Whiskyjack]

I read an article with an American officer in Iraq talking about there stryker vehicles and he praised them stating that they had taken something like 130 RPG hits on there slat armour and all the RPG exploded on the slat armour leaving the vehicle undamaged and they have also been hit with a lot of suicide car bombs and all the soldiers have got out with only minor injuries.

I remember an article i read about a Stryker in Iraq that was hit with a huge roadside bomb blown over 1.5 times and slide about 30 feet then stopped and the crew got out with only minor injuries so they are a pretty good vehicle but i was shocked when the officer told me about the 14.5mm rounds you would have to hope he didn,t have his facts right because you wouldn,t want to be in an urban enviroment where people could fire at you with the 14.5mm at close range.

Apart from the the heavy AIFVs, like the Warrior and Bradley, I think most AFVs would have the same amount of protection, which includes protection against 14.5mm rounds. I would think it easier to deploy a RPG than a HMG at any rate.