The status of NZ's scooters has been discussed within the body of this post already.tomahawk6 said:What ever happened to NZ's fighters ? Good thing for the RAAF.
Moving Forward with Maximizing New Zealands Defense Force Assets
- Thread starter Wooki
- Start date
Re the state of the Ammo stocks.
The time line for restoring contingency reserve stocks [CRS] of ammunition,fuel and spares, (Army alone needs $170m )is set out in the NZDF 2006 Statement of intent on page 45. 2005-2008 critical deficiencies restored and CRS restoration completed 2008-2010.
Not a moment to soon, for example in the NZDF Annual report 2004-2005 page 88 Maritime patrol disclosures (the P-3k Orions Force)..."state of aircraft,Munitions,expendable & technical stores available to maintain outputs".It's disclosed that the Maritime patrol Forces (MPF) has insufficient weapons.expandables...to maintain OLOC (operational capability) for other than surveillance roles in low threat environments.
The time line for restoring contingency reserve stocks [CRS] of ammunition,fuel and spares, (Army alone needs $170m )is set out in the NZDF 2006 Statement of intent on page 45. 2005-2008 critical deficiencies restored and CRS restoration completed 2008-2010.
Not a moment to soon, for example in the NZDF Annual report 2004-2005 page 88 Maritime patrol disclosures (the P-3k Orions Force)..."state of aircraft,Munitions,expendable & technical stores available to maintain outputs".It's disclosed that the Maritime patrol Forces (MPF) has insufficient weapons.expandables...to maintain OLOC (operational capability) for other than surveillance roles in low threat environments.
I think NZ is not very good at choosing their defence assets. Instead of LAV's they could have purchased FSV's for the same price. Instead of LOV's they could have purchased IMV's. IMHO I think the purchase of 8 NH90's for $771 million is an absolute rip off. The RNZAF could have purchased 30 helis that could hold 7 people for the same price and have a rocket pod fitted on each.robsta83 said:
nz enthusiast
New Member
From how I see it the P-3 and C-130 life extensions were deliberately made to last until future options became available for their replacement. For the C-130 replacement the time made available by life extension means that the NZ government can seriously consider the A-400M and for the P-3 replacement they will be able to consider the new P-8 (the US's 737 modification for maritime recon).
The replacement of the M113s was always going to be interesting but the reality was something needed to be done and fast, the M113 breakdown was ridiculous and in many scenarios where you want at least some form of decent armour protection, the NZ army wouldn't have enough battle ready M113s, the choice was basically by the LAV or wait for Bradley and LAV upgrades to emerge from the US armies Future Combat Systems, the government bit the bullet and got the LAV 3, and chances are the LAV# can be updated in future with pieces of technology designed for the US armies future APC/IFV. A major reason why the LAV was chosen was due to Australia using the LAVs (different version though) and that the LAV was amphibious, some other alternatives did not have this capability.
I heard a lot of people going on about the NH-90 being to expensive, but there was a specific part of the requirement that most of you have ignored, the NZ army wanted the helicopter to be capable of transporting the Pinzgauer into battle, the smaller helicopters can't do that. There are those of you who are thinking of reusing the M113s, guys they are dead, warn to pieces, its going to take a lot more than a refurbishment program to get them running like new again, and from experience fitting APCs with big guns that the chassis was never designed for usually screws up, in the end your just better off buying an all new system designed from the start for the job.
Oh and don't go on about how wonderful the Australian Army is, they are to blind to by Self propelled guns or self propelled rocket artillery, this means that when they go to combat the will have to wait for towed artillery to set itself up limiting the combat effectiveness of their Abram tanks.
In terms of air transport, don't be surprised if they get 2 different transport planes to fill the C-13-H gap, they already operate he 757 which can carry some freight but yeah a C-27...A-400M/C-130J combination is highly likely.
Buying more javelins isn't a stupid idea, you could try fitting the TOW launcher similar to that on Bradley fighting vehicle on to the LAV, but I have my doubts if the frame can take it.
Oh when the endeavour gets replacement, there is a very high possibility that a second MRV will be ordered.
The replacement of the M113s was always going to be interesting but the reality was something needed to be done and fast, the M113 breakdown was ridiculous and in many scenarios where you want at least some form of decent armour protection, the NZ army wouldn't have enough battle ready M113s, the choice was basically by the LAV or wait for Bradley and LAV upgrades to emerge from the US armies Future Combat Systems, the government bit the bullet and got the LAV 3, and chances are the LAV# can be updated in future with pieces of technology designed for the US armies future APC/IFV. A major reason why the LAV was chosen was due to Australia using the LAVs (different version though) and that the LAV was amphibious, some other alternatives did not have this capability.
I heard a lot of people going on about the NH-90 being to expensive, but there was a specific part of the requirement that most of you have ignored, the NZ army wanted the helicopter to be capable of transporting the Pinzgauer into battle, the smaller helicopters can't do that. There are those of you who are thinking of reusing the M113s, guys they are dead, warn to pieces, its going to take a lot more than a refurbishment program to get them running like new again, and from experience fitting APCs with big guns that the chassis was never designed for usually screws up, in the end your just better off buying an all new system designed from the start for the job.
Oh and don't go on about how wonderful the Australian Army is, they are to blind to by Self propelled guns or self propelled rocket artillery, this means that when they go to combat the will have to wait for towed artillery to set itself up limiting the combat effectiveness of their Abram tanks.
In terms of air transport, don't be surprised if they get 2 different transport planes to fill the C-13-H gap, they already operate he 757 which can carry some freight but yeah a C-27...A-400M/C-130J combination is highly likely.
Buying more javelins isn't a stupid idea, you could try fitting the TOW launcher similar to that on Bradley fighting vehicle on to the LAV, but I have my doubts if the frame can take it.
Oh when the endeavour gets replacement, there is a very high possibility that a second MRV will be ordered.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #86
the 120mm tube
But what you are talking about and what I am talking about are 2 different missions AD. I'm talking direct fire, "take out that building 50 m to the left, now" in the streets and in your face Infantry support and you are talking about indirect fires a minimum of 800 meters away.
AMOS, or more accurately a 120mm tube that can use mortar rounds is not expensive. Take the AC130 example where they modded the M102 with:
120mm bore
Breech ring
Breech block
Extractors
and that is it. less than 3K right there and now you can use 120mm mortar ammo.
Mount that on an AC130 or an LAVIII [yes Tod, an MGS but with a different tube]and you are good to go.
AMOS does the same thing and is already built and has the elevation to make use of the mortar round in the indirect fire mode or NLOS as army geeks are calling it now.
If its too expensive then say "stuff it, we will get the garage on the corner to mod some 105's for us for the price of a growler jeep".
It really is that simple.
Its not so simple if you want to take a tank on with direct fire. You need the Javelin, TOW, ATGW or a high velocity gun for that and (with reference to the gun) I think we have all come to the conclusion that the NZDF will be in no shape to provide that capability, without a serious overhaul of their logistical operations to accommodate dissimilar chassis.
If you want to go with a 120mm mortar that can fit in the NH90, then there are a few options like the growler and the USMC 120 solution. Singapore's "Spider", etc, etc.
But as for breaking it down and lugging it up the side of a mountain, holy crumb.
Reverting back to the topic of the thread, I feel that the 120mm vehicle mounted direct fire mortar that can also be used for NLOS will significantly strengthen the NZDF simply because it has a wide range of attack options and a wide range of munitions that add to that versatility.
That tube of choice for moi is the AMOS, but NZ can easily DIY the tube. It is so easy to do, that it should be used as a bargaining chip with the Swedes to get the AMOS.
Now in all of this I see a number of perspectives coming out that are all interesting and add weight to the discussion.
Me, I'm a builder and maker. AD, you're an end user. Tod is a thinker. GF probably is the only buyer "type" I know of and ST and Waylander are users too. We need to get a project manager guy who would make it all work... maybe Bug from T5C. We need to find some Kiwi Buyer types as well to flesh out the discussion.
So if everyone could make a little note like "from the buyer's perspective" or "from the builders perspective" when referring to specific gear that would help define your perspective within the goal of making the most of NZDF assets and moving forward.
So to close: I'm a builder and the prospect of breaking down a 120mm mortar and lugging it up a mountain makes liquid fill my boots; and its not sweat or urine. I honestly can't see how you could do it, but that doesn't mean it is impossible, just really scary.
cheers
W
Yegods, manpack a 120mm mortar? No, stick with the 81mm for lugging around on your back.Aussie Digger said:
But what you are talking about and what I am talking about are 2 different missions AD. I'm talking direct fire, "take out that building 50 m to the left, now" in the streets and in your face Infantry support and you are talking about indirect fires a minimum of 800 meters away.
AMOS, or more accurately a 120mm tube that can use mortar rounds is not expensive. Take the AC130 example where they modded the M102 with:
120mm bore
Breech ring
Breech block
Extractors
and that is it. less than 3K right there and now you can use 120mm mortar ammo.
Mount that on an AC130 or an LAVIII [yes Tod, an MGS but with a different tube]and you are good to go.
AMOS does the same thing and is already built and has the elevation to make use of the mortar round in the indirect fire mode or NLOS as army geeks are calling it now.
If its too expensive then say "stuff it, we will get the garage on the corner to mod some 105's for us for the price of a growler jeep".
It really is that simple.
Its not so simple if you want to take a tank on with direct fire. You need the Javelin, TOW, ATGW or a high velocity gun for that and (with reference to the gun) I think we have all come to the conclusion that the NZDF will be in no shape to provide that capability, without a serious overhaul of their logistical operations to accommodate dissimilar chassis.
If you want to go with a 120mm mortar that can fit in the NH90, then there are a few options like the growler and the USMC 120 solution. Singapore's "Spider", etc, etc.
But as for breaking it down and lugging it up the side of a mountain, holy crumb.
Reverting back to the topic of the thread, I feel that the 120mm vehicle mounted direct fire mortar that can also be used for NLOS will significantly strengthen the NZDF simply because it has a wide range of attack options and a wide range of munitions that add to that versatility.
That tube of choice for moi is the AMOS, but NZ can easily DIY the tube. It is so easy to do, that it should be used as a bargaining chip with the Swedes to get the AMOS.
Now in all of this I see a number of perspectives coming out that are all interesting and add weight to the discussion.
Me, I'm a builder and maker. AD, you're an end user. Tod is a thinker. GF probably is the only buyer "type" I know of and ST and Waylander are users too. We need to get a project manager guy who would make it all work... maybe Bug from T5C. We need to find some Kiwi Buyer types as well to flesh out the discussion.
So if everyone could make a little note like "from the buyer's perspective" or "from the builders perspective" when referring to specific gear that would help define your perspective within the goal of making the most of NZDF assets and moving forward.
So to close: I'm a builder and the prospect of breaking down a 120mm mortar and lugging it up a mountain makes liquid fill my boots; and its not sweat or urine. I honestly can't see how you could do it, but that doesn't mean it is impossible, just really scary.
cheers
W
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Man-pack 120mm mortar most certainly do exist and I would argue they are more common than vehicle mounted 120mm mortars in most services. The USA itself currently uses such a weapon.
This weapon is (relatively) easily moved between an armoured vehicle platform (M113 in US Army service) and manpack variants. Obviously with a man-pack variant ammunition supply is the greatest problem, however it is with an 81mm mortar or 60mm mortar for that matter as well, however as you can see from the attached pics, the size of the weapon and it's calibre alone does not make it "too big" to be lugged around.
Man-packed does not mean carryable by a single person, it means carryable by a section of men, with elements of the weapon and some ammunition carried by the entire section, and a small 4x4 "quad" vehicle if necessary, as special forces do and the "regular" Australian Army will when the maneuvre support team concept is kicked off.
I'd recommend the same capability for NZ, on both a cost and capability basis. These tubes can fire the same range of munitions as AMOS or other "high end" systems and thereby achieving the same effects as these are what matter. Not so much the launch platform. Obviously the AMOS has advantages with it's rate of fire, protection levels and direct fire capability, however in a weapon that is predominantly employed in an in-direct role, I don't see the cost effectiveness being there (as fars as NZ is concerned).
NZ is opting for a medium level warfare intensity based force, and is deliberately forgoing most higher end capabilities. As such I doubt you could sell AMOS to the NZ Government even if NZ could afford it. A more direct replacement for it's 81mm mortars however, would be far easier to sell politically and financially...
As I mentioned earlier, AMOS is enormously expensive for what you get in terms of overall capability. It is simply a turret that has to be fitted to an appropriate vehicle, so the cost of the vehicle has to be factored into the acquisition as well (as confirmed in this article: http://www.defense-update.com/products/a/amos.htm).
The price I fear is beyond the NZDF's resources, hence my preference for the cheaper option of a man-pack variant of the 120mm mortar used in this role, or fitted to existing vehicles, such as LAVIII or Pinzgauer, where possible.
Cheers.
This weapon is (relatively) easily moved between an armoured vehicle platform (M113 in US Army service) and manpack variants. Obviously with a man-pack variant ammunition supply is the greatest problem, however it is with an 81mm mortar or 60mm mortar for that matter as well, however as you can see from the attached pics, the size of the weapon and it's calibre alone does not make it "too big" to be lugged around.
Man-packed does not mean carryable by a single person, it means carryable by a section of men, with elements of the weapon and some ammunition carried by the entire section, and a small 4x4 "quad" vehicle if necessary, as special forces do and the "regular" Australian Army will when the maneuvre support team concept is kicked off.
I'd recommend the same capability for NZ, on both a cost and capability basis. These tubes can fire the same range of munitions as AMOS or other "high end" systems and thereby achieving the same effects as these are what matter. Not so much the launch platform. Obviously the AMOS has advantages with it's rate of fire, protection levels and direct fire capability, however in a weapon that is predominantly employed in an in-direct role, I don't see the cost effectiveness being there (as fars as NZ is concerned).
NZ is opting for a medium level warfare intensity based force, and is deliberately forgoing most higher end capabilities. As such I doubt you could sell AMOS to the NZ Government even if NZ could afford it. A more direct replacement for it's 81mm mortars however, would be far easier to sell politically and financially...
As I mentioned earlier, AMOS is enormously expensive for what you get in terms of overall capability. It is simply a turret that has to be fitted to an appropriate vehicle, so the cost of the vehicle has to be factored into the acquisition as well (as confirmed in this article: http://www.defense-update.com/products/a/amos.htm).
The price I fear is beyond the NZDF's resources, hence my preference for the cheaper option of a man-pack variant of the 120mm mortar used in this role, or fitted to existing vehicles, such as LAVIII or Pinzgauer, where possible.
Cheers.
The 120mm mortar might be man portable and it is for sure usefull to dismount it and hide it soemwhere but it is defenitely not portable over longer distances.
A squad is totally exhausted after some time while carrying the mortar and some ammo.
If NZ really wants to save money they could use a Mercedes G class, a Hummer or something like that for transportation.
But that would kill the lovely direct fire ability of AMOS.
And I conclude with Wooki that AMOS gives a cheap extra direct fire capability.
A squad is totally exhausted after some time while carrying the mortar and some ammo.
If NZ really wants to save money they could use a Mercedes G class, a Hummer or something like that for transportation.
But that would kill the lovely direct fire ability of AMOS.
And I conclude with Wooki that AMOS gives a cheap extra direct fire capability.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
How's this for a recap?
From what I recall on the start of this thread and also the RNZAF thread, part of what was being looked at was NZ direct fire abilities and needs. The general conclusion was that there are or would be, time when there would be either insufficient or inappropriate direct fire capability vs. needs. This was viewed as both being a NZ problem and as an "Allied" problem for some types of international deployments, namely peacekeeping. Right now, NZ direct fire resources are the 25mm cannon found on the NZLAV, the Javelin ATGM (at roughly US$100k per shot) and the CG which is to be phased out by years end.
It was in this light that peopel looked at what was available. There are times when the 25mm cannon just doesn't cut it. There are also times when spending US$100k per shot isn't desireable or feasible, especially since there are limited quantities of the launcher and the launcher would be exposed. This led to discussion of a gun-based vehicle system for infantry support that can keep up with the other vehicles on deployment, both in terms of mobility and logistics.
There was some discussion on Wheeled vs. Tracked, with Wheeled vehicles winning out, not because they are better, but because that is what NZ currently uses. This then lead to discussions on what sort of gun would provide both the greatest possible support and work best within the current vehicle framework.
BTW since I like to suffer, I'll ask this question. How does the NZLAV 8x8 stack up in terms of offroad mobility and armour protection against other 8x8 vehicles like the Patria AMV or Boxer MRAV? Also, any links on the Bat submunition?
Ok, per request, here goes this question.
From a Buyer/End-user perspective, how does current NZ info sharing resources look? For the info sharing, I am talking about the following scenarios.
(1) Between different members of a deployed NZ force
(2) Between an NZ force and different allied forces
(3) Between an NZ force and the force HQ
(4) between the NZ force and NZ HQ
Lacking info, I'm interested in finding out how targets located by a UAV/ARH or other asset would be relayed to an NZ ground force or arty. Or how an NZ force would reach out when it needed arty of air support.
Also, are there other force multipliers that can be made use of? So far, we seem to have covered logistics & support via Ro/ro & Lo/lo, as well as the desirability of AAR. I've turned my thoughts (don't mind the burning smell) to info sharing and ways to improve situational awareness for both the individual/unit and the force commander.
From what I recall on the start of this thread and also the RNZAF thread, part of what was being looked at was NZ direct fire abilities and needs. The general conclusion was that there are or would be, time when there would be either insufficient or inappropriate direct fire capability vs. needs. This was viewed as both being a NZ problem and as an "Allied" problem for some types of international deployments, namely peacekeeping. Right now, NZ direct fire resources are the 25mm cannon found on the NZLAV, the Javelin ATGM (at roughly US$100k per shot) and the CG which is to be phased out by years end.
It was in this light that peopel looked at what was available. There are times when the 25mm cannon just doesn't cut it. There are also times when spending US$100k per shot isn't desireable or feasible, especially since there are limited quantities of the launcher and the launcher would be exposed. This led to discussion of a gun-based vehicle system for infantry support that can keep up with the other vehicles on deployment, both in terms of mobility and logistics.
There was some discussion on Wheeled vs. Tracked, with Wheeled vehicles winning out, not because they are better, but because that is what NZ currently uses. This then lead to discussions on what sort of gun would provide both the greatest possible support and work best within the current vehicle framework.
BTW since I like to suffer, I'll ask this question. How does the NZLAV 8x8 stack up in terms of offroad mobility and armour protection against other 8x8 vehicles like the Patria AMV or Boxer MRAV? Also, any links on the Bat submunition?
Ok, per request, here goes this question.
From a Buyer/End-user perspective, how does current NZ info sharing resources look? For the info sharing, I am talking about the following scenarios.
(1) Between different members of a deployed NZ force
(2) Between an NZ force and different allied forces
(3) Between an NZ force and the force HQ
(4) between the NZ force and NZ HQ
Lacking info, I'm interested in finding out how targets located by a UAV/ARH or other asset would be relayed to an NZ ground force or arty. Or how an NZ force would reach out when it needed arty of air support.
Also, are there other force multipliers that can be made use of? So far, we seem to have covered logistics & support via Ro/ro & Lo/lo, as well as the desirability of AAR. I've turned my thoughts (don't mind the burning smell) to info sharing and ways to improve situational awareness for both the individual/unit and the force commander.
In terms of the 120mm mortar I think it is a good idea, but can I turn the debate around and look at it from this direction. Imagine you are the NZDF senior staff. in September 2006. You have what ever equipment that you have in service, or what has been ordered, you have a limited capital budget (approx NZ$3 billion over the next 10 years), limited personnel resources (NZDF 8,500, compared to 12,000 in 1990) and in the last 10-11 years (after 20 years of very few deployments) your force has:
1. Served in Bosnia, at a mech company level, where a limited armour threat emerged
2. a major operation in East Timor, that had the following situations,
a. a fast build up of troops in Darwin, Aus 2,800nm from Auckland, NZ
b. logistics from Darwin to ET by air and sea.
c. after an initial deployment to the capital of ET the NZDF participated in a coy level lift helo assault/insertion (using 10 ADF Blackhawks) to its area of ops in Suai supported by a Frigate.
d. rest of a battalion group was then landed over the beach.
e. maintained a battalion level deployment for approx 3-4 years.
3. Maintained an SAS deployment to Afghanistan over multiple periods
4. Maintained a 100 person reconstruction force in Afghanistan for the last 2-3 years
5. Had a 100 man engineer deployment to Iraq for 1 year
6. Maintained up to a company level force in the Solomon Islands with helo support
7. Had frigate deployments to the Persian Gulf over the last decade.
8. maintained small contingents in various UN forces all over the world.
let us then look forward at what the NZDF will be expecting over the next decade:
1. Increased instability from East Timor, Papua New Guinea out east into the Pacific Islands
2. Further deployments to the war on terrorism
3. Encroachments onto the EEZ of NZ and the Pacific Islands
4. Potential threats to Sea lanes around the world that NZ depends on for it’s economic well being
Probably a few more I can’t remember.
Where are the gaps?
IMO NZ needs to be able to deploy troops fast and can not rely on commercial means, there fore as discussed a LO/LO ship or second MRV, AAV/EFVs to allow rapid movement of troops from ship to shore and inland. Greater airlift, A400m simply because it will carry more further than a Herc, it also has a refuelling capability if I am not mistaken, with a MPA variant, I guess we will see. As for the something like the C-27J, it all takes up funding and manpower, if the need is shown to exist then fine but IMO it is not likely to happen.
Underpinning the movement of troops in the Region will be the ability to keep the Intel/information flowing to them so MPA/UAVs.
Fire support, IMHO, I would be looking towards a 120mm mortar and NLOS-LS (which can also be fitted to the RNZN’s OPVs and MRVs). The reason for this is that a 155mm option will take up logistics and man power and IMHO is very unlikely to be deployed.
Another major issue, which Australia has also foreseen, the NZDF will suffer from an inability to put boots on the ground. at the moment the Army consists of 2 battalions with a total of 6 infantry companies (all under strength) and 1 Cav squadron. Even with the current 10 year plan to build up numbers it will only bring these formations up to full strength.
The last issue is a surface combatant for the navy. My idea would be to build something like a Absalon and fit it out to the same standard as an upgrades ANZAC (build it in Denmark and fit it out in Australia).
it all comes down to funding, and while there may be an increase it is not going to be much, so it muct be spent on preparing and equipping the NZDF to face the most likely threats to NZs interests and that starts in the home region as far as I am concerned.
1. Served in Bosnia, at a mech company level, where a limited armour threat emerged
2. a major operation in East Timor, that had the following situations,
a. a fast build up of troops in Darwin, Aus 2,800nm from Auckland, NZ
b. logistics from Darwin to ET by air and sea.
c. after an initial deployment to the capital of ET the NZDF participated in a coy level lift helo assault/insertion (using 10 ADF Blackhawks) to its area of ops in Suai supported by a Frigate.
d. rest of a battalion group was then landed over the beach.
e. maintained a battalion level deployment for approx 3-4 years.
3. Maintained an SAS deployment to Afghanistan over multiple periods
4. Maintained a 100 person reconstruction force in Afghanistan for the last 2-3 years
5. Had a 100 man engineer deployment to Iraq for 1 year
6. Maintained up to a company level force in the Solomon Islands with helo support
7. Had frigate deployments to the Persian Gulf over the last decade.
8. maintained small contingents in various UN forces all over the world.
let us then look forward at what the NZDF will be expecting over the next decade:
1. Increased instability from East Timor, Papua New Guinea out east into the Pacific Islands
2. Further deployments to the war on terrorism
3. Encroachments onto the EEZ of NZ and the Pacific Islands
4. Potential threats to Sea lanes around the world that NZ depends on for it’s economic well being
Probably a few more I can’t remember.
Where are the gaps?
IMO NZ needs to be able to deploy troops fast and can not rely on commercial means, there fore as discussed a LO/LO ship or second MRV, AAV/EFVs to allow rapid movement of troops from ship to shore and inland. Greater airlift, A400m simply because it will carry more further than a Herc, it also has a refuelling capability if I am not mistaken, with a MPA variant, I guess we will see. As for the something like the C-27J, it all takes up funding and manpower, if the need is shown to exist then fine but IMO it is not likely to happen.
Underpinning the movement of troops in the Region will be the ability to keep the Intel/information flowing to them so MPA/UAVs.
Fire support, IMHO, I would be looking towards a 120mm mortar and NLOS-LS (which can also be fitted to the RNZN’s OPVs and MRVs). The reason for this is that a 155mm option will take up logistics and man power and IMHO is very unlikely to be deployed.
Another major issue, which Australia has also foreseen, the NZDF will suffer from an inability to put boots on the ground. at the moment the Army consists of 2 battalions with a total of 6 infantry companies (all under strength) and 1 Cav squadron. Even with the current 10 year plan to build up numbers it will only bring these formations up to full strength.
The last issue is a surface combatant for the navy. My idea would be to build something like a Absalon and fit it out to the same standard as an upgrades ANZAC (build it in Denmark and fit it out in Australia).
it all comes down to funding, and while there may be an increase it is not going to be much, so it muct be spent on preparing and equipping the NZDF to face the most likely threats to NZs interests and that starts in the home region as far as I am concerned.
RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
Nice one...
Great points all of them Whisky,
Do you think as a replacement for Endeavour when its time would a add on to the Canadian Joint Support ship be out of line? It has everything that good be desired for a improved sea lift and as a provider for a replenishment ship, out of the Question?
From what I can see the first thing they need to get people in the army is raise the salary for the grunts, a NZ$25,000 dollar salary is absolutely terrible I mean a active reservist in Aus can earn just about half that. If they want people get them off the minimum wage.
Great points all of them Whisky,
If the A400 can land on the same strip as a Herc, then a C27 is redundant-ish, as it does have designed for refuelling capability,Whiskyjack said:
Do you think as a replacement for Endeavour when its time would a add on to the Canadian Joint Support ship be out of line? It has everything that good be desired for a improved sea lift and as a provider for a replenishment ship, out of the Question?
In terms of additional number increases if possible, would it be recommended to return to 4 companies per Batt, plausible considering everything?Whiskyjack said:
From what I can see the first thing they need to get people in the army is raise the salary for the grunts, a NZ$25,000 dollar salary is absolutely terrible I mean a active reservist in Aus can earn just about half that. If they want people get them off the minimum wage.
It is a possibility, but not at the cost that the Canadians are going to pay.robsta83 said:
Not a bad idea, the main issues revolve around funding and low unemployment, the same as Australia. As with anything it takes time and investment. Another option is to have a researve force of 3-4 company groups (1,000 people) that is at a higher readiness for deployment in the local region where training in the high end capabilities may not be as important.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #93
1) Just quickly, there was a high speed landing craft program developed as an alternative to the EFV called HAVIC (High Speed Assault Vehicle and Interdiction Craft) made by MAPC ( http://www.mapcorp.com)Whiskyjack said:
But you can't find it anywhere on the internet now. Here is an exert from a cached page on my desktop.
This would be a good "poor man's alternative" to the EFV and the ships boats on the MRV. It was basically a 40 knot landing craft.MAPC said:
2) If I was the one with the cash I would dump the A400 for the AN70. Cheaper, (70million as opposed to 100million) carries more (35 tonnes as opposed to 30 with the A400) and exists. [What is the price of a C130J-30? 45 to 50 million?]
New Zealand would have to accept responsibility for the build though. Sure you can go with the vendor, saying everything would be OK, but I would seriously look at getting it built indigenously (or outside Russia) with the help of an outfit like IAI who have experience it upgrading Russian aircraft avionics.
But that is me and my "build an industry" bias coming through again. But even with that, it is doable, is a great aircraft and can be done for a song. An opportunity just begging to be taken by a no-nonsense, business oriented Aviation team. i.e. don't let the Australian DMO near it!
(Just joking, couldn't resist).3) Further to the LOLO. What ever happened to the old M.V. James Cook which then became the M.V. Anro Melbourne circa 1990?? She was a hybrid LOLO/RORO built in the 70's about 27000 DWtonnes, Max speed of 27 knots , but most importantly was the only merchantman I know of that had a fully anodized hull. That means zero rust and 30 years on she would be worth a look and a refit.
Couldn't find anything, so I figure it must have been scrapped.
Anyway, The LCAC/hatch concept I mentioned before, would be a cheaper alternative to the AAV and EFV, but if you wanted to conduct air operations on the same v/l you would need to go with a 12K to 16000 DWT ship to get the deck space that would be eaten up by the LCAC(s). Using the LCAC as the hatch would be great for maintenance as it would lift it up off the deck. You just have to ensure that she has a rectangular seat on the underside to match the hatch coaming and a hatchless container v/l rating for when it was deployed. IIRC a hovercraft can break about 40 inches of first year ice as well, so it gives you plenty of options patrolling the EEZ around Antarctica. I would stick the AMOS on an LAVIII and stick that on the LCAC or the HIVAC
Nothing like maritime patrol in a little tank.Another concept I spoke of briefly was the heavy lift ship with modular barges for the intended operation. Like the old LASH ships pre containerization. That way you can build a cheap Hospital module, Expeditionary Lift module and even a UAV carrier module and change the ship's mission literally over night. The added benefit is that you can leave the modules were they are needed, and go pick up another one. That amounts to an overall increase in speed of cargo Load on Load off operations. To add insult to injury you could make it big enough to lift the MRV (You know, just in case. but more seriously, then you have a floating drydock that can handle nearly every ship in the Australian and NZ navies).
Does anyone see the cost benefit of that?
As always, ran out of time WJ, sorry.
Cheers
W
Last edited:
This sounds good, definitely something that the NZDF should be looking at it.Wooki said:
2) If I was the one with the cash I would dump the A400 for the AN70. Cheaper, (70million as opposed to 100million) carries more (35 tonnes as opposed to 30 with the A400) and exists. [What is the price of a C130J-30? 45 to 50 million?]
New Zealand would have to accept responsibility for the build though. Sure you can go with the vendor, saying everything would be OK, but I would seriously look at getting it built indigenously (or outside Russia) with the help of an outfit like IAI who have experience it upgrading Russian aircraft avionics.
But that is me and my "build an industry" bias coming through again. But even with that, it is doable, is a great aircraft and can be done for a song. An opportunity just begging to be taken by a no-nonsense, business oriented Aviation team. i.e. don't let the Australian DMO near it!
The AN70 would be unacceptable to the NZDF, the risk would be too great. As a rule the NZDF buys equipment that the UK, US, Canada and Australia are using, because they know it has been used (eg proven) and that the logistics are secure.
Also the A400M has a 37ton payload according to their website. Price wise the J version is around US$ 75-85m the A400M I expect will be around US$140m. The M will carry 25t from Auckland to Darwin. The J will carry 16t but will have to refuel in Brisbane. Please note everyone that 16 tons will not include a LAVIII! The M also comes plumbed to act as a tanker. Accepting it isn’t flying yet.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
For a modular heavy lift ship, assuming the modules were of reasonable price and effectiveness, I think that would make a great deal of sense. Given the limits NZ places on the NZDF budget, and the limits in terms of personnel, NZ basically needs to follow a strategy where they are able to perform as many different possible missions using the same basic equipment. Given these limits, NZ isn't able to afford separate vessels to act as hospitals, troop transports, aircraft support, etc. With the MRV they have a vessel that can do a bit of each. Now if they could arrange to get a vessel that can be configured to concentrate on certain types of missions to provide a greater capability than the MRV, but be changed quickly to a different role, that would offer the NZDF greater flexibility.Wooki said:2) If I was the one with the cash I would dump the A400 for the AN70. Cheaper, (70million as opposed to 100million) carries more (35 tonnes as opposed to 30 with the A400) and exists. [What is the price of a C130J-30? 45 to 50 million?]
New Zealand would have to accept responsibility for the build though. Sure you can go with the vendor, saying everything would be OK, but I would seriously look at getting it built indigenously (or outside Russia) with the help of an outfit like IAI who have experience it upgrading Russian aircraft avionics.
But that is me and my "build an industry" bias coming through again. But even with that, it is doable, is a great aircraft and can be done for a song. An opportunity just begging to be taken by a no-nonsense, business oriented Aviation team. i.e. don't let the Australian DMO near it!
3) Further to the LOLO. What ever happened to the old M.V. James Cook which then became the M.V. Anro Melbourne circa 1990?? She was a hybrid LOLO/RORO built in the 70's about 27000 DWtonnes, Max speed of 27 knots , but most importantly was the only merchantman I know of that had a fully anodized hull. That means zero rust and 30 years on she would be worth a look and a refit.
Couldn't find anything, so I figure it must have been scrapped.
Anyway, The LCAC/hatch concept I mentioned before, would be a cheaper alternative to the AAV and EFV, but if you wanted to conduct air operations on the same v/l you would need to go with a 12K to 16000 DWT ship to get the deck space that would be eaten up by the LCAC(s). Using the LCAC as the hatch would be great for maintenance as it would lift it up off the deck. You just have to ensure that she has a rectangular seat on the underside to match the hatch coaming and a hatchless container v/l rating for when it was deployed. IIRC a hovercraft can break about 40 inches of first year ice as well, so it gives you plenty of options patrolling the EEZ around Antarctica. I would stick the AMOS on an LAVIII and stick that on the LCAC or the HIVAC
Another concept I spoke of briefly was the heavy lift ship with modular barges for the intended operation. Like the old LASH ships pre containerization. That way you can build a cheap Hospital module, Expeditionary Lift module and even a UAV carrier module and change the ship's mission literally over night. The added benefit is that you can leave the modules were they are needed, and go pick up another one. That amounts to an overall increase in speed of cargo Load on Load off operations. To add insult to injury you could make it big enough to lift the MRV (You know, just in case. but more seriously, then you have a floating drydock that can handle nearly every ship in the Australian and NZ navies).
Does anyone see the cost benefit of that?
As always, ran out of time WJ, sorry.
Cheers
W
As for NZ, or a joint NZ/Australia production facility for an An-70 type aircraft, I'm not so sure that would make sense. Not that a good aircraft couldn't be made, but they would be competing with large, already established aircraft manufacturers that have global sales and reach. Now if a different type of transport were to be made, one that doesn't compete directly with the likes of Boeing, Lockheed Martin, or Airbus, that could be a different story. My vote for that would be an aircraft similar to the An-74 which is a STOL jet, similar in size and performance to the C-27J. Assuming the right niche could be found (or carved out) then Australia/NZ could build aircraft again. Aside from the Plastic Parrot I mean.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Going out on a limb with an idea here
Currently, the RAAF has 6 Wedgetail AEW&C on order with Boeing, with an unexercised option for a 7th aircraft. If the Australian, US and NZ governments, and Boeing agree, would it be worthwhile for NZ to exercise the 7th option? Granted the program is what, 18 months behind schedule or more. I can see the Elint capabilities of the Wedgetail being very useful for maritime reconnaisance.
Or as a variation, the NZ gov't paying the ADF some of the cost to acquire and operate the 7th aircraft, with the understanding that it would be made available for use in support of the NZDF periodically.
I haven't found a list for the cost of the Wedgetail, but apparently the cost to go from 4 to 6 aircraft only increased the program cost by 10%. Does anyone see this as a possibility, or is the idea too expensive, not useful enough, or too much of a diplomatic hot potato to happen? I welcome people's input on this.
Currently, the RAAF has 6 Wedgetail AEW&C on order with Boeing, with an unexercised option for a 7th aircraft. If the Australian, US and NZ governments, and Boeing agree, would it be worthwhile for NZ to exercise the 7th option? Granted the program is what, 18 months behind schedule or more. I can see the Elint capabilities of the Wedgetail being very useful for maritime reconnaisance.
Or as a variation, the NZ gov't paying the ADF some of the cost to acquire and operate the 7th aircraft, with the understanding that it would be made available for use in support of the NZDF periodically.
I haven't found a list for the cost of the Wedgetail, but apparently the cost to go from 4 to 6 aircraft only increased the program cost by 10%. Does anyone see this as a possibility, or is the idea too expensive, not useful enough, or too much of a diplomatic hot potato to happen? I welcome people's input on this.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #97
Well that is just the thing WJ, the AN70 has been flown and is proven compared with the "plastic parrot" as Tod calls it (thought that was pretty good). And the max load is 47 tons as opposed to 37 of the A400. Actually, from what I read, the AN70 can nearly airdrop as much cargo as a C17 because of the ramp strength.Whiskyjack said:
I am aware of the downsides in taking on a project like that, but I think with the right team you could mitigate that risk to one lower than that of going with the A400. I would look at someone from Boeing Australia as they have an impressive record in turning chicken shite into chicken salad with the F111 and they are expecting a downturn in business. You can either poach their skillsets and import it or actually hire them on and do the project in Oz.
And with regard to risk, the 70 million dollar figure for the AN70 is a throw away number. Its been my experience that the Russians just double what it actually costs when the word "export" is mentioned. So when all is said and done it might actually be cheaper.
New Zealand IIRC has a cheap manufacturing base compared with the rest of the "Western" world.
If you turned out 8 of these for the NZAF and Airbus continued to have problems for just another year (which may well happen), it would create an unfavorable environment for the A400, where a competitor could capture the A400 orders. Most notably Germany, who is already considering the AN70 over the A400.
And remember the A400 has not even been built. You are already ahead of the game, with a flying platform that can be vamped up to make an indigenous aircraft with world beating capability.
Airbus and Boeing are strange people in the risks they have taken with the A380 and the "dreamliner". I can understand a startup doing that, but not multi conglomerates.
Anyway, The situation won't last long and I don't have the cash to pursue it.
: But there is no reason NZ can't, you just need the right people to pull the trigger and finish the A400 off [IIRC, there are quite a few very aggressive NZ businessmen and women, so its not as if you don't have the skillset to pull it off]. As for the C130. It simply can't compete against either the A400 or the An70 and if no one takes up the AN70, the C130 might win the day yet.:rotfl
cheers
W
Last edited:
It is tempting Wookie, the issues as I see it for the NZDF:Wooki said:Well that is just the thing WJ, the AN70 has been flown and is proven compared with the "plastic parrot" as Tod calls it (thought that was pretty good). And the max load is 47 tons as opposed to 37 of the A400. Actually, from what I read, the AN70 can nearly airdrop as much cargo as a C17 because of the ramp strength.
I am aware of the downsides in taking on a project like that, but I think with the right team you could mitigate that risk to one lower than that of going with the A400. I would look at someone from Boeing Australia as they have an impressive record in turning chicken shite into chicken salad with the F111 and they are expecting a downturn in business. You can either poach their skillsets and import it or actually hire them on and do the project in Oz.
And with regard to risk, the 70 million dollar figure for the AN70 is a throw away number. Its been my experience that the Russians just double what it actually costs when the word "export" is mentioned. So when all is said and done it might actually be cheaper.
New Zealand IIRC has a cheap manufacturing base compared with the rest of the "Western" world.
If you turned out 8 of these for the NZAF and Airbus continued to have problems for just another year (which may well happen), it would create an unfavorable environment for the A400, where a competitor could capture the A400 orders. Most notably Germany, who is already considering the AN70 over the A400.
And remember the A400 has not even been built. You are already ahead of the game, with a flying platform that can be vamped up to make an indigenous aircraft with world beating capability.
Airbus and Boeing are strange people in the risks they have taken with the A380 and the "dreamliner". I can understand a startup doing that, but not multi conglomerates.
Anyway, The situation won't last long and I don't have the cash to pursue it.
But there is no reason NZ can't, you just need the right people to pull the trigger and finish the A400 off [IIRC, there are quite a few very aggressive NZ businessmen and women, so its not as if you don't have the skillset to pull it off]. As for the C130. It simply can't compete against either the A400 or the An70 and if no one takes up the AN70, the C130 might win the day yet.:rotfl
cheers
W
1. the Russians/Ukrainians are not secure as far as logistics go
2. Still many unknowns about the AN70
3. how much development money? NZ only need 6-8
4. through life maintenance costs, the Russians have not got a great record here IMO.
5. It would need more than just Australia
6. yes there are the people, but no experience in this sort of enterprise
7. When NZ decides on the C-130 replacement it will be a risk free decision. The NZDF has publicly stated many times it will only go OTS, it reduces risk and means the equipment arrives on time and to spec.
Don’t get me wrong, if Germany had split off from the A400M 5-6 years ago and co developed the AN70 like they were threatening to do, or EADS, BAE etc had gone into partnership then I would be all for the RNZAF operating the AN70.
But to do it now, given the ‘intolerance’ to risk that the NZDF has (especially when looking at some of the projects out Australian cousins are involved with at the moment), and how well the OTS policy works for a country with limited budget.
I would like to see some projects in the UAV/Engineering field as you mentioned above, where the Govt can put a million or two into them and help the companies get some project funds from overseas. But a project on the scale of the An70 would be political suicide here at the moment.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
These are some of the reasons I am somewhat hesitant on going with the An-70. I actually have similar concerns regarding the A400M, particularly given the status of the A380 and the impact that looks to be having on Airbus. Last I had heard, Airbus was no longer expecting to make a profit on A380 sales for some time, and without a significant growth in orders, might end up taking a loss on the aircraft. These things do not bode well for the A400M either in terms of availability to order, or cost. Also, does know if the floor strength of the A400M will equal that of the C-130? I thought I had read in an AW&ST that the A400M will have greater cargo capacity in overall tonnage, but won't be able to carry items of the same density.Whiskyjack said:
Have to go, more later.