Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[Aussie Digger]

But that is my point with 2 Battalions one is light and one is mech, so how will NZ ever deploy more than a reinforced company? Also the NZ army will have two doctrines for two different types of force. Or pay to train a force that is not suited to its environment?

As an example why not have two battalions based around the Royal Marines, with the QA providing the armoured lift as needed? That means that NZ can deploy one complete battalion and maintain it for a year, without having to re-role a battalion.

With the disbandment of airstrike where is the extra airlift that is needed? Plan on two 12,000 ton enforcer type LPDs and configure the army around them. Members of the NZ army should expect to be spending time on them as a force projection platform, not as an A to B ferry.

NZ has an opportunity with a 10-15 year plan to organise and equip a force that will be well suited to operations in NZs environment and useful in UN/Multinational forces.

Also most importantly, it is affordable!

As another option the NZ Army could keep the structure it has now and base a 'taskforce' around 1 x Mech, 1 x Light with support and recon elements. But it still needs the lift to go with it.

NZ deployed a battlion group in East Timor for an extended period (greater than 12 months) in 99/00.

Just because 1 unit IS equipped with a motorised/mechanised capability does not mean they cannot "re-role" for light infantry operations.

If an extended deployment came along, the light inf battalion would deploy and the other would begin workups for light inf ops. If a deployment came along that required a motorised force to be deployed, the motorised battalion would go and the other would begin workups on the remaining motorised capability and relieve the other battalion "in-situ" and operate their equipment.

The difference between motorised and light infantry ops is not that great. The motorised capability is used to provide a transport and light firepower capability. The bulk of the "fighting" is still done as a light infantry force. It's not a mechanised situation where the vehicles will assault positions WITH the troops...

 

[Whiskyjack]

Deploying a battalion for a short duration isn't a problem. Concievably two could be deployed in an emergency. Don't presume that a battalion sized deploymen has to be made up or forces from the same battalion either.

Doctrine isn't really effected. Tactics may change, but they always do according to various vactors. Nothing I have seen or heard suggest that motorised forces couldn't be employed in the pacific. The main islands in Tonga, for example, are easily trafficable by LAV.

I don't think we are talking about the same thing here. Well I would have done something different with the Army organisation, it is a workable organisation. The LAV is a good piece of kit and as mentioned above I would like to see task groups based on the light and mech companies.

With the 10 year plan that has been introduced around manpower and enlistment I think that the Army will have more personnel to work with and reediness levels will increase.

The issue I have is that with the exception of the MRV, how do we deploy the Army? To my mind the MRV is a good vessel and leaps and bounds better than nothing. IMO NZ needs 2 ships capable of deploying 500-600 men across a beach, not in an opposed landing, but across the beach in a hostile situation, and support them for at least two weeks. These ships are also floating hospitals, disaster relief and UN/Coalition support ships.

If NZ had to move a task force of 500-600 men made up of units from both battalions and support units in a hurry to Fiji or East Timor, how would it get them there and support them with no close logistics base?

The MRV gives NZ the ability to deploy an LAV company world wide, but it limits the deployment IMO.

 

[Whiskyjack]

NZ deployed a battlion group in East Timor for an extended period (greater than 12 months) in 99/00.

Just because 1 unit IS equipped with a motorised/mechanised capability does not mean they cannot "re-role" for light infantry operations.

If an extended deployment came along, the light inf battalion would deploy and the other would begin workups for light inf ops. If a deployment came along that required a motorised force to be deployed, the motorised battalion would go and the other would begin workups on the remaining motorised capability and relieve the other battalion "in-situ" and operate their equipment.

The difference between motorised and light infantry ops is not that great. The motorised capability is used to provide a transport and light firepower capability. The bulk of the "fighting" is still done as a light infantry force. It's not a mechanised situation where the vehicles will assault positions WITH the troops...

I disagree that the LAV structure is motorised, from what I can see of motorised units the dismounted unit is an infantry platoon, e.g. Stryker in the US and Saxon in the UK. The LAV in NZ service is structured a cross between, neither Mech or Motorised. The make up of an LAV platoon is more reminiscent of a Warrior or Bradley platoon.

See my comments above as far as deployment goes. I do not agree with the current org, but I can live with it, if it is used to its full potential.

The lack of recon in all its various forms is an issue as well.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I don't think we are talking about the same thing here. Well I would have done something different with the Army organisation, it is a workable organisation. The LAV is a good piece of kit and as mentioned above I would like to see task groups based on the light and mech companies.

With the 10 year plan that has been introduced around manpower and enlistment I think that the Army will have more personnel to work with and reediness levels will increase.

The issue I have is that with the exception of the MRV, how do we deploy the Army? To my mind the MRV is a good vessel and leaps and bounds better than nothing. IMO NZ needs 2 ships capable of deploying 500-600 men across a beach, not in an opposed landing, but across the beach in a hostile situation, and support them for at least two weeks. These ships are also floating hospitals, disaster relief and UN/Coalition support ships.

If NZ had to move a task force of 500-600 men made up of units from both battalions and support units in a hurry to Fiji or East Timor, how would it get them there and support them with no close logistics base?

The MRV gives NZ the ability to deploy an LAV company world wide, but it limits the deployment IMO.

Chartered civilian ships and RNZAF B-757 aircraft I'd imagine.

The C-130's and MRV would be used for deploying "small elements" of forces to "seize" or secure a beachhead or airport. Civilian modes of transport and the B-757 would have to make up the remainder of the transport capacity, assuming of course that NZ woud "go it alone" and would not utilise Australia's ever increasing transport capability. Afterall Australia has a very high opinion of NZ forces and are always pleased to operate alongside of them.

Perhaps a high speed craft similar to the lease HMAS Jervis Bay that Australia used in 99 should be looked at for NZ?

Such designs are very affordable, offer great carrying capacity at very high speeds over long ranges and have little manning requirements.The bigger vessels can operate in heavy sea states and carry large numbers of troops in relative comfort, but can also carry significant quantities of vehicles and materiel.

Just one of these to support the MRV would make a HUGE difference. HMAS Jervis Bay deployed the bulk of Australia's forces, equipment and supplies singlehandedly in ET... NZ could probably pick one up for less than $50m too...

 

[Rocco_NZ]

I don't think we are talking about the same thing here. Well I would have done something different with the Army organisation, it is a workable organisation. The LAV is a good piece of kit and as mentioned above I would like to see task groups based on the light and mech companies.[/COLOR]

You seem to be looking for a barracks with 'infantry task force' painted on its door. You're not going to find one.

What you will find is light infantry companies and motorised infantry companies; foot, light and medium reconaissance squadrons and the necessary support units.

Before adding more ships the first step would be to increase the availability of the existing ones. The MRV will only be funded for 90 sea days.

 

[Rocco_NZ]

The lack of recon in all its various forms is an issue as well.

Explain please.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Chartered civilian ships and RNZAF B-757 aircraft I'd imagine.

The C-130's and MRV would be used for deploying "small elements" of forces to "seize" or secure a beachhead or airport. Civilian modes of transport and the B-757 would have to make up the remainder of the transport capacity, assuming of course that NZ woud "go it alone" and would not utilise Australia's ever increasing transport capability. Afterall Australia has a very high opinion of NZ forces and are always pleased to operate alongside of them.

Perhaps a high speed craft similar to the lease HMAS Jervis Bay that Australia used in 99 should be looked at for NZ?

Such designs are very affordable, offer great carrying capacity at very high speeds over long ranges and have little manning requirements.The bigger vessels can operate in heavy sea states and carry large numbers of troops in relative comfort, but can also carry significant quantities of vehicles and materiel.

Just one of these to support the MRV would make a HUGE difference. HMAS Jervis Bay deployed the bulk of Australia's forces, equipment and supplies singlehandedly in ET... NZ could probably pick one up for less than $50m too...

Look I am not disagreeing that NZ could go that way. All I am saying is that in a 10 year plan NZ could afford to structure and equip in such a way that it can carry out independent operations or contribute in conjunction with Australia. A LPD type ship (whatever form it takes) operating with an RAN LPH will allow for options for any taskforce commander. The doctrine and technology is there and it is affordable for NZ. I think that the ability to deploy and sustain a task force from one ship is desirable and well within the national interest.

I also happen to think that NZ which is prone to many natural disasters needs such ships to support disaster relief efforts, both local and international.

 

[Whiskyjack]

You seem to be looking for a barracks with 'infantry task force' painted on its door. You're not going to find one.

What you will find is light infantry companies and motorised infantry companies; foot, light and medium reconaissance squadrons and the necessary support units.

Before adding more ships the first step would be to increase the availability of the existing ones. The MRV will only be funded for 90 sea days.

I am not looking for that, what I am looking for is a command group that has experiance operating with such a force composition, and I have yet to see that happen. The bricks are there it just needs to be built on a more regular basis. If it does not train together on a more regular basis it will not deploy together as well it it could do.

The MRV is a good ship but IMO it is seen as a A to B transport for the Army. I would like to see the MRV used and experimented with to build a force structure in the future that is deployable and able to be deployed.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Explain please.

NZ is a well educated nation that has the ability to use technology. I would like to see a recon force that can network the army, navy, air force to make a small force more powerful due to situational awareness. What I see now is a bit to traditional given current technology.

 

[Rocco_NZ]

I am not looking for that, what I am looking for is a command group that has experiance operating with such a force composition, and I have yet to see that happen. The bricks are there it just needs to be built on a more regular basis. If it does not train together on a more regular basis it will not deploy together as well it it could do.

The MRV is a good ship but IMO it is seen as a A to B transport for the Army. I would like to see the MRV used and experimented with to build a force structure in the future that is deployable and able to be deployed.

Can you support those comments? 1 RNZIR has spent the last couple of years operating both light infantry and motorised infantry together. Where to you think that experience goes?

 

[Rocco_NZ]

NZ is a well educated nation that has the ability to use technology. I would like to see a recon force that can network the army, navy, air force to make a small force more powerful due to situational awareness. What I see now is a bit to traditional given current technology.

You haven't offered anything to suggest that it can't now.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Guys for the record, I am looking at how I would like to see the CURRENT NZDF evolve in the next 10 years or so. A direction I would like to see it take that is in keeping with the national interests and budget.

 

[Lucasnz]

Before adding more ships the first step would be to increase the availability of the existing ones. The MRV will only be funded for 90 sea days.

I'm assuming by that you mean 90 Days of Sealift and the rest on Training etc.

Frankly I'm not convinced about the structure of the army in NZ. Is seem to hung up on maintaining obsolete structures like Corps, when its existing personnel could form a standing regular brigade.

I am not looking for that, what I am looking for is a command group that has experiance operating with such a force composition, and I have yet to see that happen

A three Battalion Group Structure (call them regiments) with a single command element controlling all the companies (say 900 people) within the unit, might be better suitted to NZ. Brigade Level assets could be included.

If NZ is to seriously deploy anywhere in the South Pacific (With more than 30 people on standby (re East Timor) - Really what a joke for a country our size), it needs more sea lift. Something like the Singapore Endurance class that brings its own NGS capability.

 

[Rocco_NZ]

I'm assuming by that you mean 90 Days of Sealift and the rest on Training etc.

Nope. 90 days sea-time total. It will probably increase in subsequent years, but the first year of operation is only 90 days worth.

 

[Whiskyjack]

You haven't offered anything to suggest that it can't now.

Mate you haven't offered anything that says it can

Where is the tactical UAV? will it be able to operate from a ship, what about a UAV like the Mariner that offers regional surveillance? Can the Army get a feed from an upgrades P3? I have not herd any plans in this direction.

 

[Rocco_NZ]

Mate you haven't offered anything that says it can

Where is the tactical UAV? will it be able to operate from a ship, what about a UAV like the Mariner that offers regional surveillance? Can the Army get a feed from an upgrades P3? I have not herd any plans in this direction.

I didn't suggest the current system needed changing either. With modern digital comms gear you can pretty much transmit anything you like. If you wan't to send a video feed from an Orion to a ground station of some kind it shouldn't be difficult.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Can you support those comments? 1 RNZIR has spent the last couple of years operating both light infantry and motorised infantry together. Where to you think that experience goes?

I am not aware that it is NZ doctrine to fight such groups, I am hoping that it is in the new report that has yet to be released. Also hoping for recon asstes that will operate as force multipliers.

 

[Whiskyjack]

I didn't suggest the current system needed changing either. With modern digital comms gear you can pretty much transmit anything you like. If you wan't to send a video feed from an Orion to a ground station of some kind it shouldn't be difficult.

Militay project history is littered with phrases like 'it shouldn't be difficult', not to mention the IT industry.

Until it is reality and used all the time it is not operational.

Once again I am talking where NZ needs to be, not where it is.

I am sure that it will move there.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Hi Rocco, can I ask where you would like to see the NZ army in 10 years in relation to organisation, equipment and the ability to deploy in the Pacific and wider?

I've got to go now but really enjoying discussion, look forward to some more tomorrow.

 

[Cootamundra]

Frankly I'm not convinced about the structure of the army in NZ. Is seem to hung up on maintaining obsolete structures like Corps, when its existing personnel could form a standing regular brigade.

A three Battalion Group Structure (call them regiments) with a single command element controlling all the companies (say 900 people) within the unit, might be better suitted to NZ. Brigade Level assets could be included.

If NZ is to seriously deploy anywhere in the South Pacific (With more than 30 people on standby (re East Timor) - Really what a joke for a country our size), it needs more sea lift. Something like the Singapore Endurance class that brings its own NGS capability.

Good point re; maintaining obsolete structures. Certainly the AusArmy is taking to the old structure with a knife. Units still belong to the various brigades and corps but in reality the regs and reserves are being re-structured (and in some cases re-roled) to fit into the BattleGroup concept. You're all aware of this I'm sure, but for my mind the US Marine MEU approach to combined arms warfare certainly makes the most sense for most (small to medium) modern armed forces. Certainly with a little reorganisation and some additional lift the NZArmy would be able to replicate the land forces component of a standard BattleGroup. As Lucas suggests re-form into the 3 battlions plus HQ. And then over the next few years procure more C-130 lift (some of the RAAFs H models will do), modern comms, organic air defence and perhaps a larger LPD type ship with onboard C&C facilities. That would leave you with an Army used to working with combined teams, not focused on the old structure and very capable in terms of the regions probable scenarios.