Ministers Launch Defence Review 09 Document

[Bruce]

why not, the concept is just as sound - only you cant fit as many in a Herk....

[Naki]

According to Mr Wikipedia a A109LUH can carry the following

Guns: possibilities include 12.7 mm machine gun (250 rounds) in pod, pintle mounted 7.62 mm machine gun, door gunner post 12.7 mm machine gun

Missiles: possibilities include 2 × TOW missile launchers (2 or 4 missiles each), unguided rockets in pods (2.75 in or 81 mm rockets with 7 or 12 tubes per pod), rocket/machine gun pod (70 mm × 3 rockets and 12.7 mm machine gun (200 rounds))

[caromeg]

How about Defence considering the Harvest Hawk Kit - Roll on Roll off AC-130 conversion kit - converst any C-130 to the spectre of the night. I'm sure that would liven things up in 40 Sqn.
Sure scare the cr@p out of the region.
I have seen AC-130 fire in daylight/demo - yikes - hair on back of neck stuff.

[caromeg]

Defenders would be cheaper to operate, and more relevant to operations in the region. I hear the issue on another airframe type and it is valid but it doesn;t wag the dog if it costs a bit more to have an extra type - it costs a bit more. Thats the price of doing business that we can't duck under (but always seem to try to)

[30sqnatc]

Nov 27, 2009 6:20:15 GMT 12 @caromeg said:

Defenders would be cheaper to operate, and more relevant to operations in the region. I hear the issue on another airframe type and it is valid but it doesn;t wag the dog if it costs a bit more to have an extra type - it costs a bit more. Thats the price of doing business that we can't duck under (but always seem to try to)

Helo Defenders Nah Fletcher FD-25 Defender . Topdessing in the morning, kinetic rabbit culling in the afternoon with a spot of CAS training thrown in.

[nickj]

there has been a couple of cases of fletchers "bombing" illegal fishing boats with loads of super,
personally id like to see 2 squadrens of ah-1z cobras, 3 squadrens of bell 412 (1 each for waiouru, linton, and burnham),
i squadren of ch-53k for heavy lift ops, and a squadren of t-6b texan 2 light attack aircraft, id then convert the 8 nh-90 to sas specs and base them at papakura, id get a helicopter assualt ship similar to the ones the us navy has would be bloody handy in an east timor situation, 4 arleigh burke class destroyers to protect our water ways, as for transport 4 c-130j and 4 c-130j-30, 4 c-17, and 6 c-295 for lighter duties, along with a wc-130 to be operated by the rnzaf for niwa for weather research, and 2 mc-130js for the sas, and possibly even 2 ac-130j's, for the army 2 batterys of m777 155mm field guns, and 2 batterys of m109 155mm self propelled howitzers, 2 batterys of m1a1 abraams, or leopard tanks, and a squadren of a-109 lightly armed recon choppers, id also like to see all the old unimogs and mercedes general trucks to be replaced with new ones,

[caromeg]

Great idea and hate to be a downer but.....

I just worked out that the hardware cost of this proposal is roughly $7.859 Billion US. That does not inlcude the extra infrastructure and personnel costs.
It would also imply a significant increase in defence operating.
I have reasonably good figures on Capital of those items except DDs I worked on ANZAC cost. ( I have no suitable operating costs as this is more specialist and subjective to op tempo).

Please no feedback on debate as its all very subjective but those who have done defence acquisition will know I cant be too far wrong - even if I'm out by 50% - which I could be because we could do things like lease C-17s and M1A1 could be given to us for next to nothing, it's still a heck of a whack of capital cost.
This sort of acquisition would also have a huge impact on our trade deficit. These costs also include spares.

Where are the UAVs?

[Dave Homewood]

Welcome to the forum Nickj.

From everything I have heard about the M1A1 Abrams they would be totally unsuitable to the New Zealand Army. You couldn't drive them on our roads, you couldn't deploy them anywhere, and they are hugely unreliable and require massive spares and maintenance backup wherever they go apparently. So basically they'd only ever be any good at Waiouru, close to their garage. What's the point in that? The LAV's would be much more useful in a situation where the Army finds itself deployed or defending NZ.

[caromeg]

M1A1 would be great to use in built up areas in combined arms. But you're right Dave, Abrahms is very very expensive. - Also Turbine vs Diesel.
If you are going to go tanks its either provide a troop of personnel to drive aussie ones in aussie or..I dont know

[caromeg]

On the money Phil,
The other issue is where are you going to get the TRAINED personnel.Warm bodies are easy, experinced pers are bloody hard to get and keep.
Even with a recession its still not easy.

[nige]

Understandably heavy MTB's (eg M1A1's) are not viable. Does anyone have an opinion though, whether the NZ Army should be supplementing its LAV's (once the excess LAV's are sold off) with a dozen or so tracked APC's (to shift light infantry around in battle taxis, a la M113 era, seeing that LAV deployments are mostly not realistic) or maybe instead a dozen or so tracked FSV's (to properly replace the Scorpions in fire support/recon roles, or do we accept the previous "strange"(?) decison to use the additional LAV's that were bought for FS instead? Although same issue, LAVIII FS are not likely to be deployable mostly, thanks to terrain issues)? A role perhaps for QAMR, seeing Hawkeye said QAMR may be re-roled?

[Dave Homewood]

MTB = Main Tattle Bank??

;D

[nige]

Ooops, another reason why "MTB's" are not viable, they don't exist! :-)

[Dave Homewood]

Motor Torpedo Boats, now that's what we need rather than frigates.

[nickj]

what about combining all the forces into one "marine" corps type situation, where theres a lot less hq's, one rank structure, and a lot less paperwork and red tape

[caromeg]

if your looking at a mixed flet option - track and wheels...

one of the things the aussies found with their lavs is that they get to areas alot quicker than tracks and that they are a lot quieter on the road so movement is harder to detect in general. So they could deploy lav asap to an increasingly urbanised area using road networks, and use the FLIR capability to move/fight at night. This also left areas bypassed that were not suitable for wheels and followed up by M113 or tracks. They found out what most large AFV operators have known for some time the argument is not wheels vs track but wheel and tracks - you need both.
An NZ model would have seen 70 mulit variant M-113s being the grunt shunters with the odds and sodds to do this (recovery, mortar, c2 etc) and a Lav 2QAMR recon type role with about 24 vehicles being suffice for this role.
This config met Govt outputs, region engagement requirements, ANZAC interoperability (watch that space over the next few yrs) and was within budget. Did not need a major re-train of staff and logistics.

One of the key bits of capability that LAV 3 brought with it was the ability of the NZ Army to conduct better operations at night. This is not as much a platform issue rather a fact that a descent sensor was finally introduced into NZ Defence.

[phil]

Nov 28, 2009 11:57:57 GMT 12 nickj said:

what about combining all the forces into one "marine" corps type situation, where theres a lot less hq's, one rank structure, and a lot less paperwork and red tape

Then you would have even less people.

All three services have quite different cultures, and for good reason.

An AC in the Air Force is not only required to think for themselves and question everything, they are encouraged to. That's what stops aircraft falling out of the sky.

A private in the Army on the other hand is not permitted to question things.

The Army trains to go to war, the airforce carries out it's role everyday, in much the same way whether they are on operations or at home. To fly and maintain an aircraft is no different no matter where you are, you do it for real every time.

Different cultures for different roles. Try combining all three services and it wont work.

A point to note however, operational control is already combined under one HQ and command.

[nige]

Cheers Hawkeye! Ok so we have these excellent day/night fighting capability LAV's, (fully N.B.C. proofed too?), suitable for some terrains, thus limited in deployment options. What else then does Army require? I'm think extra tracked, to compliment the LAV's (cos that's what we have got)! Or is this a long term thing eg watch Australia's moves as their upgraded M113's are meant to be a temporary measure, I believe? Thus adopt what they do = ANZAC compatibility?

[caromeg]

I think the Marine corps model could work for the Army as a Land operations model which about changing army culture away from the different tribes of regiment, corps etc. This idea is not new and is also a variation of the German divisional model which was after all regarded superior to the British system. (cries of yikes hawkeye's gone sausage-side from the back seats)

UK Marines would be a better model for NZ although don't write off the Jar heads, they're a strange bunch but you definitely want them on your side and unlike most US forces, they demonstrate a reasonable amount of resourcefulness and ingenuity akin to poor defence forces a.k.a the commonwealth countries.
As far as different cultures, I think things are going to change over time with more jointness and the Army changing its paradigm to one similar to Air and Navy in that it is multi faceted and doing operations routinely/daily. ie The Army is moving away from the great big exercise mobilisation model of our grand fathers. Conversely the RNZAF and Navy have become increasingly involved in Army's core land operations business and often the feedback from these guys is that they really benefited from the experience as they actually got to see what the Army does for real.
With the paradigm shift into Coin and information war these lines are not just blurred - they're just gone.

[Kenny]

In regard to Hawkeyes nz model i think that is pretty much the way we should have gone.

Although id probably get the deal for AIFVs, muiltiple variants to fill different small roles, but in general much of what the Dutch Variants have to offer like the better amphib (Im told the NZLAV3s dont have amphib), 25mm cannons, Motar carrier variants, and ones with 40mm Gren.Launchers (although some of our armoured Pinzgaures seem to have this). Of course get some recovery setups too, perhaps plenty ;D

Have say, 40-50 AIFVs in total, supported by 20 Lavs. Drop artillery and bring in a small squadron of some sort of long range Attack Choppers... Or go down the alley of the Drones.

Oh. and some people arent seriously thinking about NZ getting M1A1s? Talk about heat seeking target on tracks.