NZDF General discussion thread

[ngatimozart]

I tend to agree with a lot of your assessment and I'll walk back some of my earlier comments (rushed thoughts and writing whilst getting ready for work this morning etc).

Future options such as Boxer could fit the bill perhaps, for IFV & medium fire support provided by the same vehicle (or did you have something else in mind)?

But for now we have the LAVIII until a decision on replacement or upgrade is made. Can you see any realistic upgrade options for the LAVIII?

And are you envisaging IFV's being supplied by an armoured regiment (eg QAMR) or equipping one or both infantry battalions as per the original LAVIII requirement?

I'm not convinced of the LAVIII base options for heavy fire support (something that has been raised here over the years eg the 105mm gun option). So rather than basing heavy fire support on whatever base is chosen, would the NZ Army be better off looking at self-propelled howitzers (such as the Singaporean SSPH1 Primus or following Australia's lead with the K9 for interoperability reasons)?

I know you are an advocate of ditching the unprotected towed howitzers, so perhaps some contenders?

In terms of tanks, yes I would now say unless NZ forces are fighting peers with heavy tanks it probably isn't the most pressing item at the moment or foreseeable future, when better equipping and sustaining a mobile light / medium force would be needed first. I'll park that idea up.

In terms of having some for training purposes (and I was envisaging something slightly older, second hand and thus super cheap, as they wouldn't be deployable or needed to be at FOC levels nor need the full range and quantities of ammo etc), but I guess anything else could substitute for training in NZ conditions (as it can be simulated anyway), but presumably the key is something that is actually up-to-date and fully inter-operable and has the necessary data-links to contribute to the modern battlefield environment (even if it is another IFV or similar type) .

Considering the current geostrategic and geopolitical situation as well as the JATF concept and planning, I would go for the BAEs ACV being introduced into service by the USMC, as the NZLAV replacement. It would also be the base vehicle for the 105mm turret and the SPAAMG turret. Each ACV is able to carry one NZ Army section of 10 bods plus a crew of 2 and it would have a remote Rheinmettall 30mm turret with Spike LR ATGM. The ACV is designed for a capacity of 13 bods plus 3 crew so with the NZ army section size there would be ample room left for extra section weapons and kit. The way I see it is that the section and crew could basically live out of the vehicle. The vehicles would belong to the platoons / companies / battalions, not a separate unit and the vehicle crew would be part of the section. They would provide fire support to the section when its dismounted.

The reason why I chose the Rheinmettall 30mm gun and Spike LR ATGM is that the Rheinmettall 30mm ammo and the Spike LR missiles are to be licence built in Australia and it would be logical and practical for us to have our munitions source close by rather than half a planet away. I hose the remote turret because it doesn't have the basket hanging down taking up space. The ACV because it can swim ashore freeing up the LCM for other required vehicles. The SPAAMG turrets because the army doesn't have any AD capability and these turrets give it a mobile SHORAD capability with gun out to 2 - 3,000m and missile to 5 - 6,000m. The 105mm gun / howitzer turret because it's still cable of doing damage and on an ACV is able to keep up with the infantry and provide heavy arty when and where required. I did look at tracked 155mm but I went for speed and agility instead because that's what's required with the structure of the infantry. We are talking of a fast moving Mounted Rifles Regiment, rather than a heavy armoured regiment.

I have deliberately used the Mounted Rifles because of the history of Mounted Rifles within the NZ Army and their actions in Gallipoli specifically Chunuk Bair, and Palestine. I see it as a similar MO of riding ones steed into battle, dismounting and fighting on foot. In this case the steed has eight feet, is armoured, armed and has 12 fighters inside it, ready to inflict righteous justice upon the enemy. Then home for tea and medals.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

Considering the current geostrategic and geopolitical situation as well as the JATF concept and planning, I would go for the BAEs ACV being introduced into service by the USMC, as the NZLAV replacement. It would also be the base vehicle for the 105mm turret and the SPAAMG turret. Each ACV is able to carry one NZ Army section of 10 bods plus a crew of 2 and it would have a remote Rheinmettall 30mm turret with Spike LR ATGM. The ACV is designed for a capacity of 13 bods plus 3 crew so with the NZ army section size there would be ample room left for extra section weapons and kit. The way I see it is that the section and crew could basically live out of the vehicle. The vehicles would belong to the platoons / companies / battalions, not a separate unit and the vehicle crew would be part of the section. They would provide fire support to the section when its dismounted.

The reason why I chose the Rheinmettall 30mm gun and Spike LR ATGM is that the Rheinmettall 30mm ammo and the Spike LR missiles are to be licence built in Australia and it would be logical and practical for us to have our munitions source close by rather than half a planet away. I hose the remote turret because it doesn't have the basket hanging down taking up space. The ACV because it can swim ashore freeing up the LCM for other required vehicles. The SPAAMG turrets because the army doesn't have any AD capability and these turrets give it a mobile SHORAD capability with gun out to 2 - 3,000m and missile to 5 - 6,000m. The 105mm gun / howitzer turret because it's still cable of doing damage and on an ACV is able to keep up with the infantry and provide heavy arty when and where required. I did look at tracked 155mm but I went for speed and agility instead because that's what's required with the structure of the infantry. We are talking of a fast moving Mounted Rifles Regiment, rather than a heavy armoured regiment.

I have deliberately used the Mounted Rifles because of the history of Mounted Rifles within the NZ Army and their actions in Gallipoli specifically Chunuk Bair, and Palestine. I see it as a similar MO of riding ones steed into battle, dismounting and fighting on foot. In this case the steed has eight feet, is armoured, armed and has 12 fighters inside it, ready to inflict righteous justice upon the enemy. Then home for tea and medals.

When was the Lav 3 scheduled for a replacement, or was it refit? Also, given how other chioces for equipment like for the Hercules replacement and P3 were turned down citing some of the other aircraft suggested lacking maturity? This vehicle also being relitvly new doesn't it also ?

 

[ngatimozart]

When was the Lav 3 scheduled for a replacement, or was it refit? Also, given how other chioces for equipment like for the Hercules replacement and P3 were turned down citing some of the other aircraft suggested lacking maturity? This vehicle also being relitvly new doesn't it also ?

The NZLAV is due for the replacement / MLU shortly. I believe the project is underway at the moment. The NZLAV is approaching 20 years in service.

WRT the P-3K2 replacement the following were submitted:

• Boeing P-8A
• KHI P-1
• Airbus C295 MPA
• SAAB Swordfish MPA
• ELI 3360 MPA

Of the five, only the P-8A and the P-1 met the project requirements. The P-8A won because it was being operated by two FVEY countries and that's what counted. It was the least risky option.

For the C-130H(NZ) replacement the other contenders originally were:

• Airbus A400M
• Airbus C295
• Lockheed C-130J-30
• Embraer C-390
• KHI C-2
• Antonov AN-178

The Antonov aircraft was quickly discounted because it was regarded as being far to risky. The C-295 isn't suited to NZ CONOPS because of the distance / payload requirements. Both the A400M and the C-2 are regarded as strategic airlifters in the NZ context so were outside the scope of this capability replacement. The C-390 was attractive on paper but it was regarded as being to risky because it wasn't in service an air force and it was operated by a FVEY country. The C-130J-30 ticked all the boxes and a political decision was made to acquire it on a like for like basis.

In both cases the capabilities acquired are the latest variants without any capabilities being deleted. Both the P-8A and C-130J-30 will be the latest Block off the production line.

 

[Rob c]

In both cases the capabilities acquired are the latest variants without any capabilities being deleted. Both the P-8A and C-130J-30 will be the latest Block off the production line.

Just as well Helen was not still around or we would have got most of the capabilities that looked remotely war like deleted. However it would have been nice to get a full weapons loadout. Won't happen anytime soon though with the current major parties showing no sign that the have taken their heads out of the sand yet in regard to the deterioration of the world order that they quote as a reason for not having an adequate defence force that could actually defend something.

 

[ngatimozart]

Just as well Helen was not still around or we would have got most of the capabilities that looked remotely war like deleted. However it would have been nice to get a full weapons loadout. Won't happen anytime soon though with the current major parties showing no sign that the have taken their heads out of the sand yet in regard to the deterioration of the world order that they quote as a reason for not having an adequate defence force that could actually defend something.

I am quite happy that they haven't acquired the Harpoon missile because it's passed its use by date. I would prefer the LRASM and the NSM / JSM. They have acquired Mk-54 LWT new builds so looks like the Mk-46 stocks will be retired. IIRC the Mk-54 is being acquired for both the RNZAF and RNZN.

 

[STURM]

ngatimozart,

What roles do you see the IFV 105mm guns performing? Engaging IFVs and bunkers/structures? If so, the 30mm variants are more than capable for engaging OFFs and would a IFV mounted 120mm mortar in your view be a more practical.alternative for engaging bunkers/structures?

 

[ngatimozart]

ngatimozart,

What roles do you see the IFV 105mm guns performing? Engaging IFVs and bunkers/structures? If so, the 30mm variants are more than capable for engaging OFFs and would a IFV mounted 120mm mortar in your view be a more practical.alternative for engaging bunkers/structures?

More of an artillery role as indirect fire rather than direct fire on bunkers structures per se. Currently 16 RNZA Regiment field the M118 105mm light howitzer and I would think that a howitzer would be best to stay with. The advantage of the 105mm artillery piece over the 120mm mortar is the range and versatility.

 

[STURM]

Do AFVs mounted with 105mm guns have the sights for indirect fire? Do they even train for this role? I was under the impression that the main purpose in having them was to provide direct fire support.

 

[kato]

not stated was that the Fuchs was only armed with a single MG (I think subsequent manufacturer versions have included cannon armament)

TPz Fuchs in the infantry carrier and reconnaissance roles may be armed with a Milan ATGM launcher and has pivot mounts for up to three machine guns while carrying 8 troops. Typically when Milan is mounted one of the MG mounts is not used as that gunner would have the missile launcher right behind his head.

Arming it with a small turret with a 20mm cannon was considered during the early to mid 90s as an escort vehicle for road marches, checkpoints etc in peacekeeping (with a view towards first Somalia, then Bosnia in particular at the time). The available SpPz Luchs were used for the role instead.

The Fuchs was originally intended to be a battlefield taxi, protected transport for an infantry squad, not expected to fight.

It was originally not intended for infantry, but meant to provide limited armor, amphibious capability and most importantly NBC protection to various combat support troops (reconnaissance squads and radar, engineer squads, NBC and engineer recce, electronic warfare, five (!) different variants for communications/HQ). Since they were buying over 1,000 of them anyway a limited number for infantry transport derived from the recce squad version were also procured, as well as a few reconfigured for medical transport.

In most roles the Fuchs replaced M113 used as a stopgap previously, freeing those up to be reused as more general infantry battle taxis at the time.

The main purpose behind using the Fuchs vehicles was to provide the above capabilities on a system derived from unarmored trucks used by the Bundeswehr (in particular the engine and drivetrain), and procurement occured in parallel to a general renewal of the truck fleet in the late 70s to mid 80s.

 

[Gooey]

Good article by Lucy Craymer about CCP influencing our neighborhood.

Stuff

www.stuff.co.nz

And ABC reporting on CCP DDG in the Coral Sea, being unfriendly.

Prime Minister accuses Chinese military of 'reckless' intimidation after laser shone at RAAF aircraft

Defence says on Thursday, an RAAF P-8A Poseidon with up to 109 personnel on board detected a laser illuminating the aircraft while in flight.

www.abc.net.au

Thanks to NG linking the Review of NZDF & MoD Committee from last week.

I'm wondering when the press will join the dots with the above news and CDF saying we have 1 FF and 4 P-3B as our fighting force?

 

[Stuart M]

It is good that CDF has bought this up at the Select Committee. He won't be doing himself any favours because the government will not take kindly to this, but he does highlight the inability of NZDF to do its job.

No favours, but I have no doubt that his comments will have been carefully thought out, the "four colonel's " incident, I'm sure, is something still remembered.

 

[Kiwigov]

In most roles the Fuchs replaced M113 used as a stopgap previously, freeing those up to be reused as more general infantry battle taxis at the time.

Thanks for the info. From the pov of 5EYS commonality (at the time of the early 2000s, and subsequently) the NZLAV clearly has the edge over the Fuchs - given the US Army have 4,500(sh) Strykers, and the Canadian Army around 700 LAV3s (defer to Canadian experts). I know the NZ Army has been advertising 20-30 NZLAVs for sale - be interesting if there is any serious interest, given the plethora of competing options on the market. Hopefully it won't turn into another Skyhawk debacle.

 

[Shanesworld]

Thanks for the info. From the pov of 5EYS commonality (at the time of the early 2000s, and subsequently) the NZLAV clearly has the edge over the Fuchs - given the US Army have 4,500(sh) Strykers, and the Canadian Army around 700 LAV3s (defer to Canadian experts). I know the NZ Army has been advertising 20-30 NZLAVs for sale - be interesting if there is any serious interest, given the plethora of competing options on the market. Hopefully it won't turn into another Skyhawk debacle.

A decision has been made. A FOI request should make available the details on the nz lav fleet.

 

[ImJustDubzzz]

Apologies if I am mistaken, but isn't there a defence white paper or defence capability assessment due this year?

 

[ddxx]

It is good that CDF has bought this up at the Select Committee. He won't be doing himself any favours because the government will not take kindly to this, but he does highlight the inability of NZDF to do its job.

Arguably, as it’s government which sets out the roles and objectives for Defence, they shouldn’t be shocked to hear investment/size doesn’t meet said government directives.

Whilst governments of the day can do silly things at times, you’d hope they’re not quite *that* warped in their thinking.

Certainly not an issue unique to NZ.

 

[ngatimozart]

Apologies if I am mistaken, but isn't there a defence white paper or defence capability assessment due this year?

The DCP 2019 (Defence Capability Plan) was released in 2019 and that was informed by the 2018 Strategic Defence Policy (pdf file). There was a Defence Assessment released last December, but it isn't the same as a DWP or a Strategic Defence Policy paper. I remember submitting a submission last year for a defence policy paper but I can't remember if it was for the 2012 Defence Assessment or an upcoming DWP / SDP. If the latter is the case then we may see something by the end of the year. May not too.

 

[Samson]

Apologies if I am mistaken, but isn't there a defence white paper or defence capability assessment due this year?

During the recent Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade Committee meeting on the 17th February Secretary of Defense, Andrew Bridgeman said that there will be no white paper this year. He said that it is a long process that will take a couple of years. He went on to say there will be a terms of reference to Ministers that talks about defense policy settings and from there they start looking at the force structure that would support those settings.

Although, if one reads Wayne Mapp’s articles published on the DefSec website he thinks that the Labour government needs to order the replacements for the ANZAC Class Frigates this political term as they have an outright majority. He says that if they don’t and the Greens get in there with Labour after the 2023 election new frigates are likely to be quite a problem for them. Next year is election year so politically this year would be the best time to do it.

 

[Aerojoe]

With respect to the “freedom” protest at parliament and the apparent slow response from Defence to the police request for assistance, what is the main driver for this apparent caution - is it a minister not willing to act or officials cautious about becoming involved?

 

[Gooey]

During the recent Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade Committee meeting on the 17th February Secretary of Defense, Andrew Bridgeman said that there will be no white paper this year. He said that it is a long process that will take a couple of years. He went on to say there will be a terms of reference to Ministers that talks about defense policy settings and from there they start looking at the force structure that would support those settings.

I entirely agree with Mapp.
At the same time, it appears that the long process described by SecDef is being used to defer anything meaningful for 2+ years.
Given the current strategic situation, our woeful ability, and this Governments demonstrated spend-up over COVID, now is the time to do something fast.
If I was capable I'd form a political, minor, party to do something. As I'm not, I am unaware of any other way to influence our current sleepwalking into the next conflict which I'll anticipate will be local, bloody, and very long

 

[Kiwigov]

I entirely agree with Mapp.
At the same time, it appears that the long process described by SecDef is being used to defer anything meaningful for 2+ years.
Given the current strategic situation, our woeful ability, and this Governments demonstrated spend-up over COVID, now is the time to do something fast.

Unclear what could be practically done within the next 2 years, given fundamental constraints. Defence staff shortages can't be addressed by conscription (completely politically infeasible), and a above-inflation pay rise would be nixed on grounds it would spread to all other parts of the state sector. Buying new assets is reliant on overseas supply lines - and we are in the queue for the P-8s and C-130Js.
Purchase of strike aircraft; there are 2nd-hand options on the market...but I imagine the USA and Euro nations will be hanging on their fleets given recent events. And extensive training would be needed for new aircrew.
NZ could act to increase its stockpiles of missiles and ammunition (esp CAMMS, Penguin) in the likely event overseas supply lines become untenable due to submarine warfare.