New Zealand Army

[KiwiRob]

In the late 1940's and early 1950s' the Pom's develop a .270 weapon system that they wanted as the standard NATO round,Their studies at the time had shown that this was in their view the ideal size of round. But they were overruled by the US military. Maybe they were to far ahead of their time?

It was .280, the rifle it was designed for was the EM-2, there was a program on discovery which mentioned this rifle and round last weekend, I remembered your post so here is the wikipedia entry on the system, it looked really interesting and as you said probably before it time, but what goes around comes around.

EM-2 rifle - Wikipedia

 

[ngatimozart]

It was .280, the rifle it was designed for was the EM-2, there was a program on discovery which mentioned this rifle and round last weekend, I remembered your post so here is the wikipedia entry on the system, it looked really interesting and as you said probably before it time, but what goes around comes around.

EM-2 rifle - Wikipedia

Yep it was a particular Colonel within the US Army who managed to get that over turned. He was in charge of their main armoury, had connections almost to God, and didn't like any goddamned foreigners telling him what rifle & round the US Army was going to use. He was stubborn, obnoxious, and due to retire so the new rifle and round was the legacy that he was absolutely determined would go through and by God it would be a US one come hell or high water. I read the story a couple of years or so back, but didn't keep the link - bugger. That's why we got the SLR in 7.62 mm instead of 6.8 mm which was the agreed round. We may have got 25 round mags in the SLR with the 6.8 mm cartridge. From what I remember reading the EM-2 wasn't half bad either in the 6.8 mm calibre.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

Can anyone here provide a history on how and why the Mistral MANPAD was acquired? The RBS70 was in service in Australia at the time so wouldn’t it have made more sense to cooperate on the acquisition?

 

[htbrst]

Can anyone here provide a history on how and why the Mistral MANPAD was acquired? The RBS70 was in service in Australia at the time so wouldn’t it have made more sense to cooperate on the acquisition?

IIRC Stinger was what was desired, but export approval was denied or not able to be provided as one-man operated MANPADs were not available in the region (whereas Mistral required 2 men and a tripod).

 

[t68]

IIRC Stinger was what was desired, but export approval was denied or not able to be provided as one-man operated MANPADs were not available in the region (whereas Mistral required 2 men and a tripod).

That’s interesting haven’t heard or seen that before, did a quick google search nothing came back. Do happen to have a source for that by chance?

 

[htbrst]

That’s interesting haven’t heard or seen that before, did a quick google search nothing came back. Do happen to have a source for that by chance?

Sorry, I remember reading it in a newspaper circa 1995 so predating the internet getting flowing. It was a response to our experience in Bosnia, and there was a little bit of a stink about it disadvantaging the SAS or similar being not able to operate with one man - and given our special forces were operating places the US wanted us, they should have considered exporting them too us. However its recollection only so may have been an opinion piece.

It was the "Very Low Level Air Defence" project if that helps with Googling...

However there is a report here by Andrew Finnie who was "involved" in the purchase who states that the Mistral was the first choice - even with US Special forces (? ). Its a write up on why he qualified to speak on MH17 so take from that what you will - Dates etc also don't line up with the project timelines which can be found in an Office of the Auditor General report i'll link to at the bottom

The document is copy protected so I can't just pull out the relevant quotes easily, but it includes

@Despite the Rainbow Warrior, I had to reluctantly go with the French Mistral System (the next best alternative was the US Stinger)@

https://justthetruth.ch/Analysis for New Zealand’s Purchase of a Very Low Level Air Defence System (VLLAD), written in November 2015.pdf

This OAG document provides some key dates:

Very Low Level Air Defence Alerting and Cueing System — Office of the Auditor-General New Zealand



(and in keeping with his copyright requirements on that document he would like the SHA256 Checksum published document: 03d2e3f746ce6a4f25da527bcb9812428b8822767760433e81640df5a022d617)

 

[htbrst]

The document is copy protected so I can't just pull out the relevant quotes easily, but it includes

https://justthetruth.ch/Analysis for New Zealand’s Purchase of a Very Low Level Air Defence System (VLLAD), written in November 2015.pdf

Just adding that if as written in there, it was an abnormal process with this dude along with a DOTSE expert doing the analysis in a rush then conceivably they could have missed the RBS-70 altogether (though you would think they would check what Australia were using..)

From the document they only contacted 5 or 6 vendors directly. The document name-checks US, France, Israel (who I don't think had home-grown MANPADS at the time?) ) . 4 would get the UK (starstreak, perhaps Javelin?).

 

[Novascotiaboy]

So if they were bought to ensure protection for deployed troops on missions overseas why are they listed as stored on the NZDF Army website?

 

[Todjaeger]

So if they were bought to ensure protection for deployed troops on missions overseas why are they listed as stored on the NZDF Army website?

Because MANPADS have been withdrawn from NZDF training and use. Yet another unfortunate casualty of the limited funding in Vote Defence.

The Value for Money (VfM) of the cost to retain an organic air defence capability was deemed insufficient to retain the capability. In a number of respects, the logic of the decision is hard to argue with. While I suspect it would not require buckets of tin to have actively kept the capability up, the likelihood of deployed NZDF personnel being engaged by, or needing to engage hostile air is pretty low IMO. After all, the Kiwi gov't of the day can (usually) opt to not deploy personnel to trouble spots unless/until air control is established by partner-nations. With that in mind, even the little funding which would likely have been required to keep the Mistral system in service was deemed more useful elsewhere within the NZDF.

The flipside of the logic behind that decision though, is that the NZDF is now less capable, and unprepared for a situation where deployed personnel are exposed to hostile air while without friendly/allied air defence capabilities.

 

[RegR]

Because MANPADS have been withdrawn from NZDF training and use. Yet another unfortunate casualty of the limited funding in Vote Defence.

The Value for Money (VfM) of the cost to retain an organic air defence capability was deemed insufficient to retain the capability. In a number of respects, the logic of the decision is hard to argue with. While I suspect it would not require buckets of tin to have actively kept the capability up, the likelihood of deployed NZDF personnel being engaged by, or needing to engage hostile air is pretty low IMO. After all, the Kiwi gov't of the day can (usually) opt to not deploy personnel to trouble spots unless/until air control is established by partner-nations. With that in mind, even the little funding which would likely have been required to keep the Mistral system in service was deemed more useful elsewhere within the NZDF.

The flipside of the logic behind that decision though, is that the NZDF is now less capable, and unprepared for a situation where deployed personnel are exposed to hostile air while without friendly/allied air defence capabilities.

I actually heard the gunners rolled a vital (and very expensive) peice of kit in a training accident which was in turn cost prohibitive to repair, possibly the cueing/IFF radar, so I guess this coupled with the tech training/cost/commitment, manpower shortages and most likely lack of perceived actual use (I can't think of any major deployment since post Bos that would require such a system) ala ACF reasoning and again out comes the axeman and his apparently beneficial decision making process...

 

[Gibbo]

I actually heard the gunners rolled a vital (and very expensive) peice of kit in a training accident which was in turn cost prohibitive to repair, possibly the cueing/IFF radar, so I guess this coupled with the tech training/cost/commitment, manpower shortages and most likely lack of perceived actual use (I can't think of any major deployment since post Bos that would require such a system) ala ACF reasoning and again out comes the axeman and his apparently beneficial decision making process...

Yes I believe it was a trailer mounted controller or queuing / tracking thing - can picture the image of it but can't find anything online. AIUI they only ever bought 1 and the original purchase was cocked up as no IFF module was purchased so allies wouldn't let use it near their aircraft.

I know the arguments used to justify it's removal from service but I firmly believe it is a capability we should retain... we haven't use artillery since Vietnam IIRC but that hasn't seen a push to drop the capability. There's also a need for anti-drone capability although granted that's very much in it's infancy.

 

[RegR]

Yes I believe it was a trailer mounted controller or queuing / tracking thing - can picture the image of it but can't find anything online. AIUI they only ever bought 1 and the original purchase was cocked up as no IFF module was purchased so allies wouldn't let use it near their aircraft.

I know the arguments used to justify it's removal from service but I firmly believe it is a capability we should retain... we haven't use artillery since Vietnam IIRC but that hasn't seen a push to drop the capability. There's also a need for anti-drone capability although granted that's very much in it's infancy.

Yes I seem to remember it was pretty new and abit unfortunate it was not more gunner proof haha.

Exactly, I've brought up the artillery point before ref its use, or more lack of, and its importance in the overall scheme of things especially when the inevitable talk of upgrades to 155s comes up ie if we are not using the 105s operationally then why would we do any different with 155s, I would rather see the ACF return and we all know what happened there. Gunners seem to deploy more as quasi infantry these days rather than artillery elements.

 

[ngatimozart]

Yes I seem to remember it was pretty new and abit unfortunate it was not more gunner proof haha.

Exactly, I've brought up the artillery point before ref its use, or more lack of, and its importance in the overall scheme of things especially when the inevitable talk of upgrades to 155s comes up ie if we are not using the 105s operationally then why would we do any different with 155s, I would rather see the ACF return and we all know what happened there. Gunners seem to deploy more as quasi infantry these days rather than artillery elements.

It would be stupid to get rid of the guns. Yes we haven't used them in anger since 'Nam but they are an integral part of the Army TOE. Yes the ACF needs to return but returning it at the expense of the guns is just as idiotic as getting rid of the ACF in the first place. Yes maybe 155's would be good, but I think that 105's are a gun that is not to heavy for a light infantry army and it's not too light to deal with most threats. My own view is that we should have a mix of 105 mm SPG's and towed arty.

Shame that there isn't a land based variant of the 5 in / 127 mm naval gun that was reasonably light and portable.

 

[old faithful]

It would be stupid to get rid of the guns. Yes we haven't used them in anger since 'Nam but they are an integral part of the Army TOE. Yes the ACF needs to return but returning it at the expense of the guns is just as idiotic as getting rid of the ACF in the first place. Yes maybe 155's would be good, but I think that 105's are a gun that is not to heavy for a light infantry army and it's not too light to deal with most threats. My own view is that we should have a mix of 105 mm SPG's and towed arty.

Shame that there isn't a land based variant of the 5 in / 127 mm naval gun that was reasonably light and portable.

The modern defence force.
The learning curve of recent conflicts has changed our defence forces greatly.
Some massive new lessons learnt.
But those new lessons must be added to the old lessons, not replace the old lessons.
In my current job, old lessons are being totally ignored and written off to accommodate the new P.C way of doing things.
I would love to elaborate, but unfortunatly can not. Only to say that we, as tax payers are being ripped off blindly in Corrections.

 

[old faithful]

Just saw a line up of Boxer, CRV 35, Abrams, and Aslav.
My god the boxer is huge. It has a massive profile, like a house or double Dekker bus.....I hope. It is the right choice.

 

[RegR]

It would be stupid to get rid of the guns. Yes we haven't used them in anger since 'Nam but they are an integral part of the Army TOE. Yes the ACF needs to return but returning it at the expense of the guns is just as idiotic as getting rid of the ACF in the first place. Yes maybe 155's would be good, but I think that 105's are a gun that is not to heavy for a light infantry army and it's not too light to deal with most threats. My own view is that we should have a mix of 105 mm SPG's and towed arty.

Shame that there isn't a land based variant of the 5 in / 127 mm naval gun that was reasonably light and portable.

Oh I'm not suggesting to get rid of artillery, just like I did not support getting rid of the fast jets but I am just pointing out that when push came to shove come replacement/upgrade time and when the costs began to boggle the beans they did'nt reach for the chequebook they instead got out the axe, justification, lack of use, changing operating enviro, other priorities blah blah blah, it's not that I don't support the capability per se more I don't feel the capability support from those that really make the final Ds, I fully understand how defence is always left wanting at the politicians whims. TBH though if I did have to choose between an ACF and Artillery then actually for what we do and have done post "nam" and what could be meaningfully offered operationally to our allies (ie in Bosnia, Timor, Afghan etc) then I would still probably go ACF as warfighting has evolved, conventional is not so conventional anymore and bar WWIII not sure it ever will be either, not for us anyway.

These are times where for combat capabilities unless they have some kind of generic/humanitarian/ally crossover use then bar perhaps some baseline mods and upgrades to keep a minimal relevance (more for safety than anything else) then they are always next in line for possible downgrade/downsize/mothball or even downright termination. All that is required to trigger the expert formal reccomendation from whichever former "expert" is the next financial crisis, critical manning, funding shortfall, public outcry or even just simply replacement time and voila, millions "saved" and the sharp end apparently sharpened or pointy in a different direction at least.

The P8s where a good tick in the box $$$ wise but again they have the saving grace of other sells besides just hunting submarines which all adds up, the next big litmus I reckon will be the LAVs and then the frigate replacement in terms of level of upgrade and/or replacement to really gauge our future intent and alot can (perhaps needs to) happen between now and then both here and around the world to influence.

 

[RegR]

Just saw a line up of Boxer, CRV 35, Abrams, and Aslav.
My god the boxer is huge. It has a massive profile, like a house or double Dekker bus.....I hope. It is the right choice.

I always think (for us anyway) about the types of scenarios and operational enviroments we would most likely encounter as to their effective use. I guess fo Aus itself they would be rather useful with the big wide open spaces but then in terms of actual ops such as Timor and (again for us) Afghan, bigger/heavier/beefier was actually more of a hinderance than a benefit in hindsight and actually directly influenced their employment and all this was with comparitively "light" light armoured vehicles of ASLAV/NZLAV compared to boxers anyway.

I guess it's a trade off in terms of protection and application that will always be hard as no 2 deployments are ever the same, sometimes in the same country even as our SAS found with open and urban which is currently influencing their vehicle type decisions as an example.

Hard road finding the perfect vehicle so to speak.

 

[ngatimozart]

@RegR the pollies and beans most likely will have to get the cheque book out and use it whether they like it or not. That is if they can pull their heads out of the sand.

A New Cold War Has Begun

 

[Rob c]

@RegR the pollies and beans most likely will have to get the cheque book out and use it whether they like it or not. That is if they can pull their heads out of the sand.

A New Cold War Has Begun

New Zealand pollies pull their heads out of the sand. that won't happen soon as they are too deeply buried, and probably cemented in place anyway. It will take a major shock to achieve that , or the formation of a completely new political party with guts.

 

[RegR]

@RegR the pollies and beans most likely will have to get the cheque book out and use it whether they like it or not. That is if they can pull their heads out of the sand.

A New Cold War Has Begun

Exactly Ngati, it's sad (not to mention dangerous) that it needs to take a wake up call for them/us to seemingly need to take action, especially with timeframes involved for any decent capability, wether that be maitaining, renewal or aqquisition.

With the bear in the room constantly poking the elephant it's only a matter of time before something breaks and we'll be stuck in the corner with no where to go.