New Zealand Army

[Panzer_Leader]

Speaking of Javelin and M3 Carl Gustaf, to what extent are these available to line companies / squadrons in 1 RNZR, 2/1 RNZR and QAMR versus the support company / squadron as outlined in the New Zealand Army Order of Battle published in Army News February 2013? I imagine heavier weapons systems like these, except maybe the M3, are held by the support company / squadron and centralised or distributed to line companies / squadrons as the situation demands.

 

[40 deg south]

What chance NZ up grading from 105mm to 155m with a M-777 buy in the future? It would seem to make sense but I suppose it would come down to money, as would a 120mm mortar acquisition.

In the last couple of months I read that the 105s are undergoing a major rebuild in Australia to give them a couple more decades of service life.

Given that, the chances of upgrading to 155 is slim. While the M777 is lighter that previous 155 systems, the gun plus logistics is still, I understand, considerably heavier than the M119.

http://army.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/army-news/armynews449.pdf

Just found the link. Work is being done by BAE, whose technical staff have time on their hands while waiting for M777 to come on line. Due to remain in service until 2030.

 

[Cadredave]

Ready close support is the advantage of artillery embedded in the Battle Group and infantry mortars where possible down to platoon level or in the not too distant future counter defilade weapons i.e. the XM-25 trialled by the US in Afghanistan and the current generation of programmable 40mm grenades. For armoured units DFS and mortars, either mortar carriers or turreted breach loading mortars with 120mm delivering similar terminal performance to 105mm artillery over similar ranges and are even capable of six multiple round simultaneous impact missions and would be ideal for a retrofit to surplus LAV hulls. There was also a M-777 LAV mount by BAE several years back that was proposed for Canada, the tube was pivoted off the back for the vehicle with a large automatically deployed spade.

Still attack helos would be nice if you could afford them. If you ever do Apache and leave Australia for dead like ever other regional nation that has bought attack helos in h last decade or so.

Volk,
We had 60mm Mortars in Afghan down to patrol level, unfortunately the 81mm were in a state of flux with 16 FD Regt taking over the role from the Infantry Battalions. If NZ AO was a lot more kinetic in nature you would of seen 16 FD deployed IMO. No brainer about attack helo's remember a discussion in here about the cost to activate them in NZDF was about the same as the ACF?

 

[Richo99]

javelin vs spike nlos

1. A couple of things wrong first off Jav is not Line of site since its a cold launch fire & forget MRAAW that’s has both top attack & direct mode of attack. Second the M3 MRAAW is used to provide a variety of battlefield support to the Infantry Company either with Illum, smoke, HEDP, HE or HEAT & HEAT RAP rounds.

2. NLOS Spike is the Israeli version of JAV so why would the NZ Army buy another system that provides the same capability as Jav, yes Spike can be used on other platforms as a trained support weapons operator/ Commander I still cannot see the benefit of what you propose..

Happy to be corrected but my unerstanding of Jav is that whilst it is fire and forget, its also lock on before launch, meaning it IS actually los. Top attack is not really nlos, its just a means of attacking the thinner upper armour.

Two other significant differences between Jav and spike nlos 1) spike nlos range is about 5x that of jav, 2) spike nlos is guided by a fibre optic link which allows this range to be exploited, and also gives it a secondary capability as an observation tool.

In my opinion two very different capabilities.

 

[Volkodav]

Don't remember the cost being the same as ACF but do remember discussing attack helos as nice but unaffordable to have.

Shame about the 81mm mortars being reassigned from the battalions, always seemed a bit strange to me, moving an infantry support weapon away from the infantry.

 

[Cadredave]

Happy to be corrected but my unerstanding of Jav is that whilst it is fire and forget, its also lock on before launch, meaning it IS actually los. Top attack is not really nlos, its just a means of attacking the thinner upper armour.

Two other significant differences between Jav and spike nlos 1) spike nlos range is about 5x that of jav, 2) spike nlos is guided by a fibre optic link which allows this range to be exploited, and also gives it a secondary capability as an observation tool.

In my opinion two very different capabilities.

And which Spike variant are you talking about? the dismounted version (Spike MR) Im referring to which has the same or very near to the capability of Jav which our School of Infantry investigated as well as Jav ie max range 2500m and a weight of 14kg or are you referring to the Spike LR/ER/NLOS Helo/vehicle mounted with a range of 25km at 70 Kgs which does not make Spike NLOS a man portable ATGM.

Im very aware of what top attack mode is and my reply was in response to KP stating that Jav was line of site and im more than aware of what it takes to lock on to a target with Jav but I still stand by what I posted Jav is not TOW or Milan in which the operator has to keep the cross hairs on target all the way to impact which during my anti armoured commanders course was the definition of LoS ATGM.

And I have yet to see a Fire & Forget ATGM system for dismounts that has the same or better sighting system than a AFV like NZLAV/AUSLAV or an M1A1SA to enable it to see 25km.

Cheers

 

[Richo99]

And which Spike variant are you talking about? the dismounted version (Spike MR) Im referring to which has the same or very near to the capability of Jav which our School of Infantry investigated as well as Jav ie max range 2500m and a weight of 14kg or are you referring to the Spike LR/ER/NLOS Helo/vehicle mounted with a range of 25km at 70 Kgs which does not make Spike NLOS a man portable ATGM.

Im very aware of what top attack mode is and my reply was in response to KP stating that Jav was line of site and im more than aware of what it takes to lock on to a target with Jav but I still stand by what I posted Jav is not TOW or Milan in which the operator has to keep the cross hairs on target all the way to impact which during my anti armoured commanders course was the definition of LoS ATGM.

And I have yet to see a Fire & Forget ATGM system for dismounts that has the same or better sighting system than a AFV like NZLAV/AUSLAV or an M1A1SA to enable it to see 25km.

Cheers

Well I'm talking about NLOS spike, which is the variant specifically mentioned by KiE, where he was talking about broadening the options available to the nz army...as you say spike mr would not do this, but spike nlos would. Didn't see where KiE specified use by dismounts, but an 8 cell launcher for spike Blois can be truck mounted according to Rafael. EO sighting system is part of the missile so the 25km is achievable in conjunction with an observer..I think an MBT might struggle with this.....

 

[kiwi in exile]

Well I'm talking about NLOS spike, which is the variant specifically mentioned by KiE, where he was talking about broadening the options available to the nz army...as you say spike mr would not do this, but spike nlos would. Didn't see where KiE specified use by dismounts, but an 8 cell launcher for spike Blois can be truck mounted according to Rafael. EO sighting system is part of the missile so the 25km is achievable in conjunction with an observer..I think an MBT might struggle with this.....

Here's a youtube link to the capabilities I was thinking of. [nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZVqUeA1FhQ"]Spike missiles - YouTube[/nomedia]
"Fire and forget plus" from about the 3 minute mark. I wasn't specifically thinking of a man portable system (but would be nice). If you look at my earlier post I was writing in the context to ad-ons to the LAVs.
CD- don't Javs weigh more than 14kg? closer to the 20kg mark?
I agree, there is probably no manportable ATGM that can compete with the sensors on a LAV or M1A1. What I was getting at was coupling that sensor capability with an mounted anti-armour capability. Seeing is one thing. Seeing and striking (without having to wait 20 mins) is another.
Cheers

 

[Cadredave]

Here's a youtube link to the capabilities I was thinking of. Spike missiles - YouTube
"Fire and forget plus" from about the 3 minute mark. I wasn't specifically thinking of a man portable system (but would be nice). If you look at my earlier post I was writing in the context to ad-ons to the LAVs.
CD- don't Javs weigh more than 14kg? closer to the 20kg mark?
I agree, there is probably no manportable ATGM that can compete with the sensors on a LAV or M1A1. What I was getting at was coupling that sensor capability with an mounted anti-armour capability. Seeing is one thing. Seeing and striking (without having to wait 20 mins) is another.
Cheers

But here the rub,
ok I get why you wish to bring in a missile system that none of our main potential allies has in there inventory ie USA, UK, AUST who by the way all have JAV there is a little thing called Doctrine, Training & Logistics,
1. we would need to develop a new doctrine to employ Spike NLOS not easy to do if you never had that capability before been there with NZLAV look how long it took to embed,
2. develop the TMP to support the training which would be based on an Israeli or Singapore model again takes time to get right,
3. develop the Logistic SOP to provide the full support of Spike not as cheap as some think it is.

this all takes time & money from across Army/JFNZ to bring on line so who is going to pay for all this, the main reason I don't like it is much more simple this missile system will be an orphan when we are a part of a coalition. With Jav we are currently tied in with our allies across the board with doctrine, training, & logistics which are producing synergies across those points I have mentioned when something goes right or wrong all users are informed and those lessons learnt are applied accordingly and quickly.

When the US was using up all there JAV rounds in Iraq who do you think had a ready available supply to fly out at short notice to restock there depleted stocks "NZ" we then got free of charge replacement missiles straight from the manufacturer same thing occurred with our 25mm HEI LAV 3 rounds for CAN Army these are synergies that we will not have if we purchase Spike unless we go in with Singapore.

at the end of the day there is no threat currently that requires an NZLAV mounted Spike NLOS for it to face in the Pacific/Asian AoR NZLAV & Jav will kill anything we might face if Aust or USMC M1A1 are not in support.

 

[kiwi in exile]

Thanks for the comments CD. They are all totally valid points. Just to reiterate something I stated in an earlier post: I realise that practically we are not going to acquire a new missile type, but on a theoretical level this would be the kind of capability I would want. Just speculating...

Like when people talk about restarting the ACF. Not likely to happen, but people still discuss F16s and Gripens.
Thanks

 

[Cadredave]

Thanks for the comments CD. They are all totally valid points. Just to reiterate something I stated in an earlier post: I realise that practically we are not going to acquire a new missile type, but on a theoretical level this would be the kind of capability I would want. Just speculating...

Like when people talk about restarting the ACF. Not likely to happen, but people still discuss F16s and Gripens.
Thanks

Mate it would work if NZ had brought Swingfire or TOW in the early 70's or 80's because we would of had Doctrine, training & logistics models of our own to modify for Spike NLOS, don't get me wrong its a very good system but if you have a look at NZLAV we tried for ten years to make it work and guess what happened we sent all the LAV back under command of QAMR.

The reasons were many but the main ones IMO were NZ did not take into account the lessons learnt by Canada or Australia that went thru the same process I think our No 8 wire mentality made Army arrogant, we failed to make the CAV concept work how we envisioned it would but that's another story for another day.

cheers

 

[Volkodav]

Somebody explained to me a long time ago that the more jobs you give infantry to do the less they will be able to do well and that if you want a robust capability you are better off letting the infantry concentrate on their core light infantry skills and concentrate the supporting capabilities in other corps. I suppose this is what NZ is doing now.

The other argument is while some soldiers are able to maintain competency across a range of skills many others aren't and expecting them to do so will inevitably degrade their performance.

 

[Cadredave]

Somebody explained to me a long time ago that the more jobs you give infantry to do the less they will be able to do well and that if you want a robust capability you are better off letting the infantry concentrate on their core light infantry skills and concentrate the supporting capabilities in other corps. I suppose this is what NZ is doing now.

Correct Volk this is why 1RNZIR has rerolled back to Light Infantry, its core skills had degraded to the point of non existence JNCO/SNCO could not navigate in open or close country with a map & compass, they couldn't live away from the vehicle for extended periods ie beyond 72 hours it took ten years for those up top to realise the experiment was a failure all goes back to a flawed doctrine.

Im old school Infantry did my time learning my craft in the Jungle of Malaysia our CSM ex Vietnam always said you cannot hide your deficiencies in close country it will expose your lack of basic fundamentals cruelly took me years to understand what he was saying. This generation always make me laugh when they say don't need a map & compass GPS will do it all, it takes us a short trip into native bush to show them GPS don't work under a primary canopy and AA batteries are required for more important things like NVG/NOD.

I should write a book about my adventures from Pte to CSM

 

[Shanesworld]

Mate it would work if NZ had brought Swingfire or TOW in the early 70's or 80's because we would of had Doctrine, training & logistics models of our own to modify for Spike NLOS, don't get me wrong its a very good system but if you have a look at NZLAV we tried for ten years to make it work and guess what happened we sent all the LAV back under command of QAMR.

The reasons were many but the main ones IMO were NZ did not take into account the lessons learnt by Canada or Australia that went thru the same process I think our No 8 wire mentality made Army arrogant, we failed to make the CAV concept work how we envisioned it would but that's another story for another day.

cheers

Look sorry guys, when I posed the question I was framing it in my own mind in the context of a rapidly changed geo-strategic scene. As in the likelihood of our forces being engaged in high intensity, high tempo combat but still within the boundaries of an allied coalition so likely integrated within an allied battlegroup or larger formation with armour, artillery and air. But this was more of the mind to provide improved lethality in rushed movement to contact where a full battlefield picture has not been developed to our forces and perhaps to alleviate some reliance on allied support or fighting out of ambush. This was a contingency scenario exploration rather than a call to re-prioritise given current realities faced by the rest of NZDF.

As a thought IF (thats a Big IF) some weapons fit was desired for the A109 would MBDA's SAL guidance for five inch rocket system (as in Zuni's like the Skyhawks used over a decade ago....and consequently little corporate knowledge might still exist within RNZAF) be explored. Learn the limits of this system and study technical, conops and logistical viability of mounting two or four LAU-10's to a turret for guidance by some derived solution with the remote possiblility of it being effective for use against armour and also attack helicopters? I have no idea if that is realistic but something maybe to look at in the future? Advertised as low cost but I cant find anything to quantify that.
Its not a system that is in the logistical system of our allies, nor is it combat proven but maybe for a future study?

 

[Cadredave]

Look sorry guys, when I posed the question I was framing it in my own mind in the context of a rapidly changed geo-strategic scene. As in the likelihood of our forces being engaged in high intensity, high tempo combat but still within the boundaries of an allied coalition so likely integrated within an allied battlegroup or larger formation with armour, artillery and air. But this was more of the mind to provide improved lethality in rushed movement to contact where a full battlefield picture has not been developed to our forces and perhaps to alleviate some reliance on allied support or fighting out of ambush. This was a contingency scenario exploration rather than a call to re-prioritise given current realities faced by the rest of NZDF.

NZ wont be rushing to advance to or in contact we would be either behind the vanguard or off to a flank looking for a weakness with the enemy to exploit you cannot get away from having to rely on your allies we haven't got the means to form a Division anymore our biggest force to deploy will be a enhanced Infantry Battalion.

As a thought IF (thats a Big IF) some weapons fit was desired for the A109 would MBDA's SAL guidance for five inch rocket system (as in Zuni's like the Skyhawks used over a decade ago....and consequently little corporate knowledge might still exist within RNZAF) be explored. Learn the limits of this system and study technical, conops and logistical viability of mounting two or four LAU-10's to a turret for guidance by some derived solution with the remote possiblility of it being effective for use against armour and also attack helicopters? I have no idea if that is realistic but something maybe to look at in the future? Advertised as low cost but I cant find anything to quantify that.
Its not a system that is in the logistical system of our allies, nor is it combat proven but maybe for a future study?

It would be more cost effective IMO to purchase AH1Z gunships than try an integrate something on the A109 but unfortunately there is no Corporate knowledge left in RNZAF to assist with the integration of a zuni pod onto the A109 let along work out how to operate it in support of land operations better to buy from scratch and bring the whole capability in from doctrine, training & logistics than use the No 8 wire mentality again.

 

[ngatimozart]

NZ wont be rushing to advance to or in contact we would be either behind the vanguard or off to a flank looking for a weakness with the enemy to exploit you cannot get away from having to rely on your allies we haven't got the means to form a Division anymore our biggest force to deploy will be a enhanced Infantry Battalion.

It would be more cost effective IMO to purchase AH1Z gunships than try an integrate something on the A109 but unfortunately there is no Corporate knowledge left in RNZAF to assist with the integration of a zuni pod onto the A109 let along work out how to operate it in support of land operations better to buy from scratch and bring the whole capability in from doctrine, training & logistics than use the No 8 wire mentality again.

The only thing I don't like about the AH1Z is its undercart, skids vs wheels. If we had such a capability we would want the ability to fly it from our ships and manoeuvring a helo with skids around a flight deck, on something like Canterbury wouldn't be fun in anything other than calm seas. I know the US Marines fly them off flight decks, but their flight decks a somewhat larger.

Realistically, the AW109s are fitted for but not with, so it would be just a matter of acquiring the appropriate weapons and the systems are already in use in other forces, so a knowledge base and systems protocols are already available. My own personal preference would be the AW159 Wildcat to replace the Seasprites because it only takes an hour or less to re-role it from a maritime role to a ground attack role and vice versa.

 

[kiwi in exile]

I should write a book about my adventures from Pte to CSM

Seconded. Sadly I fear that any wisdom you could pass on would be lost on those at the big end of town that get to make a lot of the decisions. You're input here at DT is appreciated though, especially by those that don't have insider knowledge.

 

[ADMk2]

NZ wont be rushing to advance to or in contact we would be either behind the vanguard or off to a flank looking for a weakness with the enemy to exploit you cannot get away from having to rely on your allies we haven't got the means to form a Division anymore our biggest force to deploy will be a enhanced Infantry Battalion.



It would be more cost effective IMO to purchase AH1Z gunships than try an integrate something on the A109 but unfortunately there is no Corporate knowledge left in RNZAF to assist with the integration of a zuni pod onto the A109 let along work out how to operate it in support of land operations better to buy from scratch and bring the whole capability in from doctrine, training & logistics than use the No 8 wire mentality again.

A109's are already integrated with an armaments package, including rocket and gun pods, targetting / combat systems and various sensor packages. Actual aircraft integration is a non-issue. The Philippine airforce for instance has just purchased a squadron of 8 A109 aircraft so equipped.

In the RNZAF context I imagine the physical installation would be a depot level contractor supplied modification only however doctrine, training etc would obviously be reliant upon NZDF development of such.

 

[ADMk2]

at the end of the day there is no threat currently that requires an NZLAV mounted Spike NLOS for it to face in the Pacific/Asian AoR NZLAV & Jav will kill anything we might face if Aust or USMC M1A1 are not in support.

And further to this, Javelin itself has a series of Product Improvement upgrades planned.

Javelin has already demonstrated a capability to engage targets at 4750ms and I believe it is an intention to deliver a true extended range missile at 8k + range, as well as provide flexible warhead options.

Testing of extended range engagements has been reported on previously...

Javelin Demonstrates Extended Range Capability in Recent Tests · Lockheed Martin

 

[Cadredave]

And further to this, Javelin itself has a series of Product Improvement upgrades planned.

Javelin has already demonstrated a capability to engage targets at 4750ms and I believe it is an intention to deliver a true extended range missile at 8k + range, as well as provide flexible warhead options.

Testing of extended range engagements has been reported on previously...

Javelin Demonstrates Extended Range Capability in Recent Tests · Lockheed Martin

Correct AD which we are very interested in its further development (caution this does not mean NZ Army will purchase this version) esp with the increase of extended range out to 8km unfortunately our model still has the basic 2.5km range.

cheers