Forum: Air Power

snypa777 wrote:

No offence meant to New Zealand. Me old mucker Wrighty (A Kiwi) E-mailed me this picture. With all the defence cuts in New Zealand, the government succumbed to pressure and expanded the military role for all.

Well the advantage to using sheep for combat is that casualties can be eaten and you can make a nice cardigan out of them.....Win/win if you ask me. And if you hit them with a flamethrower it saves a step and the smell makes you hungry.

F-16.net Sponsor

No thats the Australian seasprites. New Zealands ones are doing well, although they are just another piece of rubbish the government decided to buy.

This is an argument presented by a former soldier. I like his argument and agree with him on most things. Yes its long but it is very true and well written.

http://afwweb.orcon.net.nz/defence.html
http://afwweb.orcon.net.nz/defence2.html
http://afwweb.orcon.net.nz/defencesolutions.html

Defence(less) New Zealand Defence Debate

Please forgive me if this rant goes all over the place. Such is the complex yet simple nature of the argument.

Isn't it ironic that we have recently purchased Mistral SAM systems. Nice that someone worked out that the Army, much less the rest of the Defence Forces might be in need of some sort of air defence system worth a grain of salt. Now, or thought the design is over ten years old, that's okay, better than having nothing at all. What is really ironic is the fact that we have brought French equipment. It's okay they can commit acts of terrorism against a pacifist organisation and then what do we do? Buy their hardware for defence. But the French are funny like that, they sell to anyone. Our forefathers spilt their blood over there and we get a TERRORIST bombing in return. But that is history, and those in power disregard history, and thus we are in our current predicament. But I digress.

Being a former soldier I do understand a little about ground based warfare, and I know this for sure - the Army can't do without the Airforce. That includes the A4 Skyhawks. Outdated? Yes, but flown better by our pilots than modern state of the art fighters flown by the US, the RAF and the Aussies. And they are not my words but the words of pilots of those airforces' and many other besides. There is a great deal more at stake than tradition now.

How about giving the Army a capacity to defend itself against armoured threats? Perhaps Politicians don't understand just how dangerous a TANK is? Peace-keeping I hear you say, New Zealand doesn't need to defend itself against tanks. Well, guess what happened when Kiwi Coy encountered a tank in the Balkans? They had to call up the Brits. Thanks guys, I surely hope you can make it next time too. Like our radio sets and various other bits of out dated equipment, our Anti-tank capacity dates back to Vietnam too. Seems to me that many of the people in power who make these decisions have never had to fight a war on the ground or proceed at great peril forth in a peace-keeping capacity. A term I have always been ill at ease with. Armed soldiers are sent into a given location because, low and behold, they might have to fight an armed aggressor. All we get is bickering and argument while Defence personnel put their lives on the line. And those that say we don't need a defence force... are always the first to call for help when things go belly up. And who gets blamed? Yes... you guessed it, those in the green, blue, and white. I can use a rifle, survive in the bush, live without the convenience of a flush toilet. Pity that those who make these disgusting decisions on defence can not. Even worse, they have no idea of what it is that allows them to live in the conditions they do. Far too much is taken for granted by the few who dictate the many. Democracy? I think not.

Kiwis' getting on with business
In recent times I've been doing research on the history of the NZDF and it has absolutely astounded me how many units have been disbanded, so many that I was familiar with, gone. Oh how things used to be. Even the Aussies are having doubts about their forces capacity, no wonder they are so upset with us. Rightly so. It really is a pity that the government doesn't bother to tell the people of New Zealand the kinds of things that really happen in East Timor. Then we wouldn't have so called experts in military matters claiming the pointlessness of Air Combat Wings.

A first world country, its capacity in economic matters, its security and ability to act in the wider global community is directly proportional to the capacity of its military. No wonder this once proud nation is (read has) gone to the pits. Every year I go to the dawn service. ANZAC day reminds me of why I am free. But I can only think of what a terrible insult this current situation is to those who laid down their lives that we all might live in peace. Those in power have not even the slightest idea of what is involved to maintain and keep that peace. It is an insult to think that some academic ability gives a right of passage to make discussions on defence. Now that our first rate pilots are gone, even if we wanted to, training new pilots for our future would be horrendously expensive. All manner of degrees and political clout does not define nor does it provide common sense. The last major exercise with the US had New Zealand fighter pilots in their antiquated Skyhawks sink the US navy 16 times. The designers of the aircraft couldn't believe we were still flying them. The government seems quite happy to muck around with this paper and that paper, this review and that review. They argue the points and dwell on our military history and prestige... all of which they had no part in making. Instead, debate on military matters runs much like the Clyde dam. What very un-PC word is 'military' - I know plenty worse - words which only a well trained, well equipped military can prevent. Now as others' have indeed pointed out, you don't have advisers who know what they are talking about. And if you do and you decide you don't like what they say, then you sack them and get a bunch of monkeys who do say and agree on exactly what you want. It doesn't matter how many lives are at stake, nor the impact on the country as a whole.

What is East Timor to the Labour government, some kind of joke? No war zone is a joke. Do they know who the aggressor is and do they know what Malaya was, Borneo? Indonesia has over 250 tanks, yes an armoured vehicle that makes mince meat of a M113 Armoured Personnel Carrier which dates back to Vietnam, modified armour added or not. The Aussies have 90 odd older generation tanks, we have none. Work it out. Then go and read some history. We have no deterrent. As I have said elsewhere, and similar to what Adrian Winskill said, it is not Wellington that was bombed by the Japanese, it was Darwin. Kiwis didn't fight in Bluff against the Japanese they did that in Singapore. No wonder Singapore and Australians will never let their defence issues slip. The people won't let their governments do it. Quite frankly, as a New Zealander I am not only feeling quite uneasy, but also more than a little embarrassed. For now, I brace myself to see the smoke plumes and flames reaching out into the skies of my own land, not in some far off place curtesy of CNN or BBC.

I've held grown men crying, trained beside bright young men and women, stood on ANZAC day parades from one end of the country to the other. I had talked to veterans, shared drinks and stories with them. It sickens me that such a predicament on defence could be burdening such a fine country. My country. And it burdens not just us, Australia, the region. How could possibly be happening? It is. Sorry to say, Education and Health and Welfare and Culture and whatever else is a fine thing and critically important to a society. Something I will defend to the death, and I have worn the uniform of my nation's Army in the pretence that I might have to. But these things are worth precious little if you are denied the capacity to defend them. A sleeping dog awakes hungry, rabid of mouth and keen to partake in the meal of venerability.

Here forthwith is the continuation of what the writer perceives to be an issue of the utmost importance.

Just in GDP terms NZ spends less than 1 percent. Just as some comparisons, Singapore spends 5.6, even Fiji spends 2 %. Malaysia spends 4, Australia is raising its spending drastically, and Japan has the lowest percentage at 0.9. Japan is a special case but even they are spending more than we are in real terms, and certainly more effectively. Not like the way it is in so many other countries, if New Zealand put as much thought into its Defence as it did Health, Education and Trade, then maybe we might have some capacity to stand up for those very things we hold so dear. For now we do not, and the region becomes more unstable every day. We expect the likes of Singapore, Malaysia and Australia to bear our load. Unlike the old days we have become more than just selfish. Too bad the average person in this country has little idea on such matters, just how much it effects such things as trade negiation. Much to the delight of the present government I am sure. We are part of the world, how about we take a part in it?

It is more than simple shame that those who make statements or comments about the role of the Skyhawk can, as expected, only make such statements to compliment their own ends. It does not matter how 'state of the art' these aircraft are. It matters how effective they are. Both them, and the pilots who made them so are now gone. Will any politician how took part in this decision of disbanding come forward and please state that these aircraft are a deterrent. Deterrent. Yes, that means they stop war. Stop it from ever starting. But now that they are gone, as our potential enemies know well, we do not have that deterrent. So much for keeping them until we had a replacement. But there again, no replacement was seriously intended was it? Enemies are not only those who fire rifles at you on a conventional battlefield.

Outdated or not, the RNZAF A4Ks' are (or rather were) in the top ten percent of air combat efficiency status in the world coupled with their crews who are now welcomed into other Air Forces around the world including the RAAF, RAF and Saudi Arabia. The Australians considered our combat force 20-25% of our total force in this capacity regionally. That is well beyond the relative share if you consider the two nations separately. This was all abandoned in a time when the world trend is so blatantly going in the other direction. F16s' which are refused by Pakistan one should be very wary of in my opinion. A bit like the US offering Taiwan Kidd class destroyers. Well out of date, and not fitting the requirements of Taiwanese defence requirements. Handy are multiple designations of aircraft and other hardware which the general public are not aware of. That way a government can buy older models of the latest and greatest on the cheap, while seeming to do their country a favour to win political advantage, but in reality buying outdated equipment with a limited shelf life.

The whole Skyhawk fiasco is as rancid as the ill informed decisions on the LAV III. Decisions made to keep contractors, biased tenders satisfied, while not asking the people who know the real, critical facts, in combat, peacekeeping that sort of garbage gets people killed. Servicemen and women, and others due to those in the services not being able to do their jobs either properly or safely. A day in the Beehive never even comes close to holding such horrific consequence.

The Israeli's use 'out of date' M113s' the same as we have currently but wisely upgraded. The British use Warriors. Both tracked. Tracked vehicles are a good idea in both rough terrain and in combat. Wheeled vehicles like the LAV III are fine in rear echelon locations but positively dangerous to use in places were roads are washed out and so forth. East Timor is just such a place. Soldiers are used as peace keepers because of the threat of armed force. Otherwise police would be used. Therefore a vehicle which can be shot up with automatic weapons / cheap and plentiful RPG rockets, or slip down a bank because it lacks the required traction is simply a menace.

Much of what New Zealand, and Australia is called to do involves work in close country, jungle and environments where, simply put, LAV are dangerous or totally inappropriate. New Zealand is in danger of losing its Light Infantry skills which have been forged over years of experience and are considered by many world wide to be amongst the best, if not the best. As technology increases smaller units have greater control on the battlefield and larger units are more difficult to control and progressively less effective. Even in more traditional battlefield situations where peacekeeping operations are taking place an Armoured vehicle becomes prone to ambushes and must be defended when soldiers are working under the constraints of rules of engagement. Therefore for the dismounted soldier, their primary support is lost. Militia must be tracked by men on foot, this is not the job for men mounted in APC or LAV. It can quickly argued that Territorial Battalions would continue this vital role. Unfortunately, as East Timor has shown, only a small percentage deployed there are TF. That the unit operates dismounted is of little consequence as it will be ambushed when all men are inside the vehicle. Even if this is not the case, new tactics utilising the 25mm weapon in support will quickly be made redundant when the vehicle itself is destroyed while the remaining infantry are deployed.

Isolation is not wise and neither does it help a nation geographically in respect to modern warfare. If you are not concerned with defence then you are inherently not concerned with security. In the days of propeller aircraft our isolation was indeed a benefit. Today a jet fighter can travel around the globe in a matter of hours. All it requires in refuelling. A Special Forces team can be deployed months ahead of time and bring a city to its knees within hours of activation by destroying power grids, dams or other critical elements of infrastructure. Does anyone remember the Mercury power crisis? I will not even begin to speak of government consideration to disband our Special Forces and what that would mean to internal security and the threat of Terrorism.

As the way warfare in the information age, or indeed operations as a whole including peace keeping and humanitarian aid, is changing, any modern and effective Defence Force must be multi fasided. That is, it must be balanced. As the effectiveness of lower echelon groups becomes more a key role in operations, so does the need for this balance. That means both naval and airpower in support of required land forces for any given operation. This means logistical and security providing elements. While the government is quite happy to pull out of third ANZAC class frigate, disband the Skyhawks before and while no replacement is sort, and abandoned required upgrades of the Orions, this goes against such vital balance in the gravest of ways. Quite frankly we have a severe inability to protect our 'peacekeepers' and there is no alternative to this other than to correct the errors of the past regarding defence spending.

Well meaning intentions are not a viable alternative.

It is interesting that in a national poll taken over 70% believed that disbanding the Skyhawks was a mistake, and over 70% of people felt better that they were present. For the government to go against such things, to ignore demonstration such as SOS, is as obviously anti-democratic as you can get. The underhanded tactics of politicians these days is severe. It is extremely easy to persuade a population in the direction of one's motives if they are blase and ill informed. The New Zealand population, in general, is both. Like many, my faith in politicians is minimal and we need people who we can trust, with integrity and honesty.

If East Timor is not close enough to home, if September 11 is not example enough, then I don't really know what will convince any New Zealand government to not only be concerned with the Defence issues of the country, but also make the right, informed decisions. Its not just about defence. Frustration doesn't even begin to describe how a great many people feel. Our traditions, global weight, and respect are more than simply eroding away. Nationally, internationally and even personally.

On a micro-management scale side issue, screwing around with our tactics costs people's lives. We are not guinea pigs for anyone who wants to try out theories on how things should go. Small unit tactics, we had them perfected in the 60's and 70's. This kind of thing does not need to change with the times. The equipment changes, the tactics don't. Just to clarify, weapons are essentially the same, both personal and support. Night vision devices and so forth are simply more prolific.

If one really wants to consider the economy of this country and its potential then someone really needs to begin advocating our home talent. We can build APC / IFV vehicles from the ground up. We can design them, build them, sell them. This is the same with about 80% of our defence requirements. Look into Singapore's defence industry and you'll get a idea of what I am talking of. Great potential. Tailored equipment specifically for our requirements rather than off the shelf over priced equipment which is not wholly suitable. It also means direct consultation with those who are using whatever item we are talking about. Compatibility with defence partners can be worked in from the ground up. There is no reason why not, simply excuses. We are riddled with mismatched equipment, a poor rifle, a lack of support weapons which, by forecast, will take several years to acquire and the prospect of a continuing two frigate navy and incompatibility and obsolescence in the RNZAF. We have a massive coastline. Patrol boats and gunboats can effectively patrol localised waters but we still need at least 3 frigates. Patrol boats and gunboats can easily be built here. New Zealanders being employed and trade trained as a result.

Te Kaha - she needs a few more mates...

Thank you Australia for supplying our Army with air support when we need and thank you for taking up the short fall which this current government seems quite happy to ensue. The subsidy which Australia provides for the NZDF should definitely be used to finance the shortfall. When Australia herself sees major holes in defence, it is the last thing they need, a defence partner unwilling to pull their weight. Especially as the region becomes increasingly unstable and other countries close to home are gearing up. Perhaps if the government where forced to keep the people informed of the realities of the real world New Zealand might never have got into this situation. German made submarines shadowing the deployment of forces to East Timor, threats by the Indonesian Air Force during same.

If we wish to maintain peace in the region then we must ensure that we do not become a viable target. The longer one leaves the expense of keeping up to date in this field, as with any, the graver the consequences.

Let us win the war without having to fight a single battle. If we are not seen to be prepared for even one battle, be assured we shall be made an example of.

Introduction

Regardless of popular theory, a country such as New Zealand, with its remoteness and reliance on massive trade routes through a less than stable region does require a self sufficient and well maintained Defence Force. This must be coupled with a effective means of surveillance and logistical capacity to act effectively both independently and alongside our allies. There is no argument that current economy decline does not support such a reality, but Defence must be treated with much more respect than it has been for the last twenty years. The fact is Defence in this country is in dire straits and it is time to stop making excuses. Polls make it clear that Kiwis' regard a solid and capable Defence Force, but for some reason few are willing for any real monies to be spent to ensure it. Being unwilling to pay the price comes at a much higher cost. Not all options have been explored, and some will not be. After all, New Zealand could not possibly purchase MiG aircraft or use ASN or Groza weapons because it just wouldn't be politically feasible. Some might have perceived it a good exchange for dairy and wool produce.

New Zealand Army

Individual Weapon Options

It has been found that many personnel deployed in Afghanistan in recent months have had one major issue with the otherwise successful M16 series of weapons. Knock down power. That is, the weapon's ability to take down a target with minimal difficulty at reasonable ranges, rather than the potentially life threatening necessity of having to take multiple shots. During the '91 Gulf War many British soldiers used the old SLR, which is chambered for the full power 7.62mm cartridge. A new rifle, with the advances of modern technology, and chambered for the NATO standard round seems like an ideal proposition. If the way could be seen forward to produce a rifle from the ground up considering feedback from soldiers, it wouldn't be foolish. New Zealand has the engineers and the know how.

In the end it defies belief that a country like New Zealand can be a major player in the world spygame with the likes of Echelon yet we are unable to provide a satisfactory rifle for our soldiers, sailors and airmen. Some in the services have even begged the question how you can be issued a light machinegun which, while it can take M16 magazines in an emergency but our current rifles, the Steyr, negates this benefit. That being said the C9 Minimi is probably one of the best weapons we currently have in our armouries regarding its designed application. This, therefore, is a minor argument for the M16A2 or similar.

Steyr

When they say the sale goes to the lowest bidder in military circles they were certainly not wrong when it came to the Steyr. We have had this Australian version of the original Austrian AUG for the better part of 20 years and only the adequate training of our personnel has countered its less than reasonable performance in the field. The Australians are currently looking for a more satisfactory replacement. So should we. Fogging optics, junk magazines and a barrel that can not sustain a reasonable rate of automatic rifle and fallible safety mechanisms are just some of the issues with this rifle. Not acceptable no matter the good accuracy it produces, when there are plenty of sturdy and more reliable options available. To prevent any need for a change in training the New Zealand government could quite easily invest in a replacement lot of rifles from the original designer, Steyr of Austria. Otherwise purchasing the M16A4 or similar would be wise. This is the most recent rifle in the M16 family. One aspect of the F88 Steyr can be summed up by an actual order by the Australian Army, order No. 7196-94 which indicated that the Steyr should not be used on rapid fire for long because plastic parts melted.

Colt M-16

The M16A2 and many derivatives have been used without fault by the US since 1985. One of the few complaints from troops is its lack of fully automatic fire, the US Army opting for a burst mode of three rounds instead, for ammunition conservation. This is easily remedied by changing trigger group options, as can be seen with the M4A1 Carbine used by US SOF personnel. Diemaco C7 and C8 weapons, as an alternative could be purchased from Canada. These are product improved models and are considered amongst the best available. The SAS use Diemaco.

Diemaco SFW

Heckler und Koch G36

Germany has recently introduced the G36 and MG36 series which is made by Heckler und Koch, makers of the famed MP5 series of submachineguns used by our own Special Forces. With the failure of the British SA80 in service the German G36 seems to be the avenue UK Forces will be taking if not the M16 route, as the British Special Forces use the US rifle. The G36 can mount the native HK AG36 40mm grenade launcher while the MG36 Light Support Weapon (LSW) model comes with a bipod and uses C-MAG100 drums, which allow for sustained fire. They are also better for ammunition in unfavourable terrain then more common loose belts. This weapon system comes with x3.5 magnification optics as standard.

Singapore Assault Rifle SAR21

This compact light and tough modern rifle from CIS in Singapore has built in x1.5 optics for target clarity and a Laser Aiming Device (LAD) for rapid target acquisition as standard. But like the Steyr, the SAR21 is a bullpup rifle and therefore an operator has difficulty making full use of cover when firing around an off-hand corner. For the upcoming mechanisation of the Regular Force (RF) Infantry battalions a bullpup rifle would be favourable, and the SAR21 would be a good alternative to the Steyr. This rifle can mount an under-barrel 40mm grenade launcher, an essential requirement not only for the Infantryman in an offensive capacity but also for a operator who requires 'less than lethal' means, enabling the use of baton and teargas rounds.

This rifle is a local version of the Israeli TAR21 with some innovations including a floating point recticle for improved operator accuracy and increased target acquirement. The SAR21, like the current Steyr features a transparent magazine enabling the operator to rapidly inspect their ammunition status. The SAR21 has yet to be extensively tested in the jungle environment.

SAR21 Assault Rifle and 40mm GL

DSA SA58 Battle Rifle

This rifle, coming in many different layouts for different operational requirements, is FN FAL based off the SA58 model from Austria. DSA of the United States uses the orginal blueprints and have modified this classic rifle to be a highly effective modern rifle using NATO standard 7.62x51mm ammunition. This provides the first hit knock down power negating the often required follow up shots from 5.56mm rifles. The substanically more powerful ammunition is used in current issue General Purpose Machine guns (GPMG) and Sniper Rifles. Some form of Light Support Weapon (LSW) would be required to replace the C9 Mimini in this role if an entire rifle section was to have single round commonality. The new MG43 is being considered to be being produced in 7.62mm so this could be an option, from Heckler und Koch. The US conversion of the C9 Minimi to 7.62mm, the Mk 48 Mod 0, is another option.

While the rest of the western world complains and pains the uses of a calibre which is not up to the task, New Zealand could take the lead and demonstrate some inititive, solving a problem that didn't need to have arisen in the first place. The realities of combat against extremists means wounded opposing forces are a danger to our personnel, not a liability to the enemy.

There is no reason why a 7.62x51mm could be reintroduced, or a 7.62x45mm could be made. To support this one only needs to see the sense of the Russian move to 9x39mm ammunition which uses the same length of existing cartridge while increasing the calibre. With the likes of the OT-14 series of new bullpup Assault Rifles there is the 9x39 and the 7.62x39mm (AK / AKM fame) offering yet no 5.45x39mm option offered, which was for the later AK-74 rifle. Basically the new cartridge would be based off a necked up 5.56x45mm (M16 / Steyr), taking a 7.62mm projectile (SLR / GPMG). Rifling would be modified in order to maximise the preformance of the new round. We can reduce recoil while increasing impact potency.

If the US can develop the 20mm grenade launcher for the OICW XM29, then surly we too can come up with improved grenade munitions for a Rifle / Grenade Launcher system to replace the outdated single shot pump action 40mm M203. Developed, designed and manufactured, proven to be a effective weapon, the export potential is unquestionably positive. If one needs a regional example Singapore should be suitable example. Less than Lethal (LTL) rounds would also be developed along with traditional ammunition types, including desintergrating riot control grenades.

Any rifle must be modular and capable of taking dedicated specialist accessories for any percievable task of NZDF personnel. This will include all manner of sighting and survillance scopes, which will negate the need for resighting between modules. Effective low light optics are essential. Good quality field sights are a must in the event that optics fail. A grenade launcher, either semi-automatic or pump-action, and magazine fed, should be utalised in order to increase the capacity of traditionally single shot weapons while permitting rapid follow up shots where required. Intergral bipods can be considered to increase accuracy of stationary and prone shooting. The values of snap shooting and traditional marksmanship must be constantly reinforced, as opposed to the modern concept of firepower suppression.

Shotguns

The flexiability of loads for the shotgun, and its effectiveness in urban environments, jungle and close country should not be overlooked and the proposition for pressing its application in both warfighting and peace keeping roles should not be overlooked. New Less than Lethal (LTL) ammunition could be developed while lead scouts could be armed with either a semi-automatic or pump action shotgun for effective counter ambush work. While combat type scenerios are becoming more and more urbanised, the Infantry has more and more call for such small arms options, where perhaps traditionally it has been more typical of Speical Forces to have had the shotgun in their armouries. Riot control, house to house fighting / clearing, door breaching and prisoner handling are all common duties of the Infantry where the shotgun should be preferred over the issue assault rifle.

Support Weapon Options

Fire Support must be addressed and comes in several forms. In order for a force to be effective, both in Peacekeeping type operations and those of warfighting means, in order for our forces, most especially those at greatest risk, need multi faceted defence and support weapons. Indirect fire consists of automatic grenade launchers (AGL) which the New Zealand Army does not have, combat support Indirect Fire (IF), which commonly comes in the form of Artillery and mortars, which needs to be addressed. The existing systems may be sustainable for some time to come if the Army can acquire an AGL weapon and updated Anti-armour weapons. This seems to be the way the government is looking at this aspect currently.

Direct Fire Support Weapons (DFSW) are line of sight type weapons whereby the operator can see their target or otherwise can gain a more or less flat plane to the target. This comes in several forms depending on threat type. Machineguns are covered by the present GPMG and .50 calibre Heavy Machinegun and are anti-personnel. Anti-armour weapons, or Anti-tank are the other form of DFSW. These are, broadly speaking used for killing vehicles, both armoured and light and destroying bunkers and emplacements. Currently the Army has 66mm LAW which are designed for taking out bunkers and soft positions, and light vehicles but is unable to be utilised against serious armoured threats. It is a highly popular weapon being light and of a one shot disposable nature so as such is a good force multiplier against personnel on light infantry operations. We also have Carl Gustav which, or though packing more punch at 84mm as a Medium Anti-armour Weapon (MAAW) it is too old to be used for its original design purpose, that of eliminating tanks. The New Zealand Army seriously needs a new Anti-armour system to be capable of dealing with hardened emplacements and modern armoured threats. This was highlighted in Bosnia when Kiwi Company was threatened by armour and had to call on British personnel to counter the threat. In a tactical environment this is far from ideal. Any force must be reasonably capable of dealing with what, on a modern battlefield, would be deemed a reason expected threat.

We require both forms of support and it would be unwise to buy into obsolesence, much less leave our troops tactically vulnerable because we have not allocated all requirements.

Mk19 Mod3

The most proven of Automatic Grenade Launchers (AGL) the Mk19 is an American system by Saco Defence and has been around since the Vietnam era where it was first used by US Navy Patrol Boats. Current versions are simple to maintain and reliability is high. Special Air Service (SAS) troops use these these mounted on 4x4 Landrovers to impressive effect against both light armour and exposed infantry.

These types of weapon have a impressive range, somewhat in excess of two kilometres, and are able to engage soft armour with the correct ammunition. They are also able to fire in the Indirect Fire mode and mount a full range of sight systems. Discharging multiple explosive grenades from short bursts makes for the capability of personnel to supress a large target area with little effort effectively. These factors are true of all AGL options.

CIS 40mm

This AGL from Singapore has the advantage of what is called the Air-Bursting System (40mm AGL-ABS) which increases both lethality and accuracy. This is enabled by way of a targeting computer and fuse timed ammunition. This allows for the engagement of hidden targets and those in slit trenches for example.

Heckler und Koch GMG

This system from Germany is very similar to a machinegun and can be fed from either side. The modular trigger group can be replaced with a solenoid for remote-control fire, when vehicle or helicopter mounted. It is fed by a NATO standard 32 round box which protects the linked 40mm belts from the environment ensuring a reliable fed. Making extensive use of aluminium this system is substanically lighter than the US Mk19. The GMG is also able to fire in the single shot mode as required, as opposed the normal fully automatic mode.

Santa Barbara LAG 40 SB-M1

This AGL from Spain looks very much like the Mk19 but is quite different. A low rate of automatic fire makes the weapon easier to control whereas ammunition, being that is of the explosive variety means this has little impact on the weapon's performance. Feeding of ammunition can come from either side and maintenance is quick, being done without tools. The LAG 40 is currently in use by Spain and Portugal.

New Zealand would most likely go with the US system for logistical and historical reasons, with the CIS having similar merits. Either way a combined DFSW and IF system is required for complimentary roles on the tactical battlefield. The former requires both a machinegun / cannon option for conventional ballistic firepower and the anti-armour / bunker buster explosive capacity for dealing with the full range of armoured vehicle threats and fortifications.

Spike

The Spike of the Israeli Rafael Armament Development Authority is a man-portable 3rd generation electro-optical anti-tank missile system with target auto-homing system capabilities. The missile provides exceptionally high-target destruction by way of using a top down mode of engagement. A standard fire and forget mode is present also a launch, observe and strike capability. This allows the operator to make a change in target after launch. In conventional warfighting this means a belated option of engaging a more worthwhile target, or preventing accidental engaging of friendly forces'. In peace keeping operations the same benefits can be accrued while also preventing unnecessary structural damage to civil buildings wherever possible. Regionally speaking Spike is used by Singapore. It is also used by Finland, and the Netherlands uses the dedicated fire and forget Gill version.

Euro Missile Milan

This ATGW, in use with British forces' is a highly effective battle tested weapon which was successfully used by several countries during the 91' Gulf War and also by the UK during the Falklands War. It is also relatively light and therefore can be used by dismounted infantry providing them with sufficient means to deal with any armoured threat. Milan 2 provides an improved warhead. A standard Thermal Imaging (TI) sight allows for all weather / night operation. As several nations' look to viable replacements for their Milan systems it may be possible for New Zealand to purchase Milan 2 at a reasonable price while still holding to a proven system of modern technology well capable of defeating any perceivable regional threat during operations. Milan 2T and 3 both have duel warheads for dealing with Explosive Reactive Armour (ERA) which is becoming more and more common. Milan 3 has a more advanced Thermal Imaging sight, enhancing night / all weather operation.

Hughes TOW II

Not a man portable system, the TOW requires to be mounted on vehicles for rapid movement. It is also mounted on helicopters. If TOW were to be adopted LAVIII or M113 armoured vehicles could mount these systems as is done in the US. In saying that TOW is one of the most effective ATGW in existence, able to destroy any armoured vehicles known. The Israelis' have developed a laser guided version of the TOW which dispenses with the need for a wire making it more useful in terrain such as forests where a missile can become tangled. If TOW was considered a viable option for the mobility of our forces then this rendition should be investigated. Both the UK and the US are looking for viable alternatives to this system, though it is in use by many countries and has greater range than most other systems.

SMAW

The Shoulder Launched Multi-purpose Assault Weapon is strongly based off the Israeli B-300 and is in use by the US Marines. A rocket launcher rather than computerised guided missile system it is used as a bunker buster designed for destroying hardened positions. Although it is effective it can not be deemed a substitute for a true ATGW, so as a result it can only be considered a viable replacement for current systems, the 66mm LAW and 84mm Carl Gustav. Minor issues with components of the SMAW would need to be investigated but the US Army used the system during the Gulf War and were suitably impressed with it. Night sights can be fitted and a built in 9mm spotting rifle permits the operator to fire a submunition before firing the main warhead increasing the chance of a first round hit. The Anti-armour round allows all but the most modern tanks to be engaged effectively.

Bofors RBS 56 BILL

This extremely effective ATGW uses a duel warhead to penetrate armour and also approaches a target vehicle from top down where the armour is weakest. Though the world’s first overfly top attack, or OTA system, weapons' like Javelin, Spike and the replacement for LAW80 all use this technology now. Like many of the contenders the BILL is man portable, with a crew of four, which may be tactically limiting, otherwise the Bofors would be a very likely contender. It should be seriously considered on leathality alone. This benefit would have to be weighed up with a perceived potential threat analysis.

Javelin ATGW

This US Anti-tank Guided Weapon (ATGW) has been recently picked up by Australia and will increase their capacity in this regard tremendously. While Javelin is both light and has a top down attack vector it also has a direct attack capability, to engage concealed targets. It may be wise for us to go with the same system for training and logistical purposes or though a system like Milan may be both more cost effective and more suitable to our needs.

LAW80 and Saab MBT LAW

We could get this heavy duty one shot disposable from the UK for a fair price as British forces look to the new MBT LAW as its replacement. It is another alternative, more effective light effective weapon in the nature of the current 66mm LAW. Either way it always wise for light infantry to have several LAW type rockets on hand in order to deal with aforementioned taskings, where a missile system is not warranted. A built in 9mm spotting rifle allows increased accuracy. Also these single shot alternatives are designed to be carried by a single man for faster movement on foot, they can destroy current Main Battle Tanks (MBT) at close range and can be used in confined spaces. The latter is important to note in urban operations and peace keeping missions. MBT LAW from Saab is entering British Army service in 2006/7.

MBT LAW

Other options include the AGL Striker from South Africa but like rifle options from that country it would be most unlikely to procure weapons from there. Politics is such that we don't always get the best options, nor the cheapest, just what is deemed 'appropriate'. Tenders also seem to be very specific in that regard. The LAVIII is a case in point.

.50 calibre Browning Heavy Machineguns and L16 81mm Mortars which the Army is currently equipped for the DF and IF roles need to be replaced if this is not already tabled. Both systems are superb and widely available. From an experience base and tactical efficiency base it would be wise to replace these weapons with the same or upgraded models rather than different systems. For the M2 Browning HMG it would be advisable to acquire the Quick Change Barrel (QCB) version to prevent the need for readjustments after changing the barrels out or assembly.

Light Armoured Vehicle Options

An effective Armoured Vehicle coupled with adequate firepower is able to provide a realistic deterrent against hostility. That is, prevent it from happening in the first instance. If a hostile force has a readily exploitable means presented to them then Peacekeepers, those providing humanitarian aid and security are put at unnecessary excessive risk. The Armoured Vehicle provides fire support for the infantry, and light protection unt

il such time as they dismount to engage opposing forces on foot. It also provides greater mobility over conventional light infantry movements. Unfortunately this is limited or impossible in close country such as bush and jungle, and dangerous in urban built up areas. Armoured Vehicles can mount automatic light calibre weapons, as well as anti-tank and surface to air (SAM) missile systems to counter those particular threats.

LAVIII

The Australians have their own version of the LAV, the ASLAV, which is the second generation of this series of vehicles. The Generation III of this vehicle which is proposed for this country is of little improvement in the way of armour protection and any other benefits such as Central Tyre Inflation systems are grossly outweighed by inflated prices. To compete with effective Russian systems which are being introduced into the region, such as the BMP3, a vehicle like the Warrior Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) needs to be considered, for both New Zealand and Australia if we are to expect a reasonable chance of success militarily against such threats. A upgraded M113 has limited enhancement potential and is not future dependable, nor is it recommended for modern tactical or operational environments. Such a reasonable expenditure has only become unreasonable because the wrong decisions have been made and purchases have not been made at an earlier stage. A simple ambush by militia using RPG-7 rocket launchers and Assault Rifles would totally wipe out a column of LAVIII vehicles which have wheels, not tracks, have inadequate armour, and are dependant on good roads for travel. A Warrior IFV has the firepower, mobility and protection required. Without the correct equipment even the most ill equipped militia will dictate where and how a contact will take place, at the expense of the better trained professional force. Thinking that such combatants (militia) are primitive, unremorseful or not tactically minded is foolhardy.

The best variant of the LAVIII, an Armoured Recce (reconnaissance) model called the Coyote, which is equipped with modern Thermal imaging kit is able to provide highly effective battlefield intelligence for vital warfighting efforts. These assets are transparent for operations other than war, such as peacekeeping and even Search and Rescue (SAR). Coyote is not not being considered and this is unfortunate as it would make a valuable contribution to the mechanising of New Zealand Army Battalions.

LAV

Warrior

This Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) has an upgrade path to Warrior 2000 which could be purchased in and around 2010, while any prospective upgrade packages in that time could be purchased at a later date. These vehicles can not be destroyed or otherwise tactically incapacitated by small arms and lack the obvious mobility issue of having tyres which can be shot out. A full range of weapons can be mounted on Warrior including 105mm guns which essentially make the IFV a fully functioning Light Tank. This final option might seem excessive, but to have the capacity for choice by way of variant of vehicle it gives more flexibility in deployment therefore allowing the best measures against envisioned threats.

Warrior IFV

Stormer

Stormer of Alvis provides effective recce and light armoured support for dismounted infantry in light conflict / peacekeeping operations but does not provide a mechanising of the infantry force. This would not be difficult but a more purpose built design would probably save money. 30mm cannon provides adequate firepower to defeat any LAV and anti-tank missiles of various types can be mounted to defeat more stubborn targets or Main Battle Tanks (MBT) even though the latter are unlikely to be a threat in the foreseeable future. The Stormer is based on the very successful Scorpion which the New Zealand has previously had in service. The same company, Alvis makes the CV90, a dedicated IFV recently chosen by the Swiss Army. Also a tracked option. This family of vehicles allows a wide variety of weapons fits and task options including armoured ambulance, anti-tank, anti-aircraft missile, command vehicle and so on with the major advantage of commonality of parts which reduces logistical strain while providing all tactical needs. Such options make the Stormer very feasible giving great tactical flexibility while coming at a very reasonable price. Indonesia is the most recent customer to purchase Stormer, taking several variants including command vehicles.

Stormer APC

Government support for an inadequate vehicle

They will be used as fire support vehicles (FSV) and infantry mobility vehicles (IMV).

M113 provide mobility, even on washed out roads and through bogs. The Army will get plenty of experience in vehicle recovery in the coming years. They can provide fire support so long as they are able to be in the right place. In many tactical situations this is much more difficult with a wheeled vehicle. In many cases where New Zealand operates in small light infantry units it is impossible regardless, for example in close country, that is jungle or bush. The 25mm Bushmaster is unable to provide cover fires in such terrain where Indirect fire (IF) is both effective and possible. Neither Anti-tank or mortar systems are being considered for the LAVIII.

NZ no longer has a fire support vehicle. The Scorpion was withdrawn from service in 1998.

A M113 can mount a 25mm cannon. They did mount the Scorpion turrets for a time. Turrets can also mount more effective options such as 90mm HV guns. Chartered Industries of Singapore has also developed a "40/50" turret for the M113. The turret carries a CIS 40mm Automatic Grenade Launcher (AGL) and 0.50in CIS .50 machine gun. Such an option must still be present on a missile carrier or other such variants enabling the vehicle to continue to have a reasonable influence on on a continuing engagement. It is also vital for self defence.

NZ's existing armoured personnel carrier, the M113 is over 30 years old. It is unreliable, expensive to run, and struggles to meet the operational requirements expected of it (e.g. it is deficient in speed and protection)

The LAV III has no more protection than the current APC and is more vunerable to small arms due to its wheels. A LAVIII which is riddled with small arms fire, due to a ambush, that is, a small unit inside the arc of the turret armament, will be killed regardless of its speed. The M113 is expensive to run. Also if you can show me a tactical situation where the 100 kph of the LAV will be a constant benefit over the M113, particularly in an off road environment, I will eat my hat. To consider such speeds as a benefit only related to rear echelon situations and light armoured reconnaissance for the purposes of unit survival. Additional armour to improved protection can be brought for both vehicles, at additional cost, and vehicular weight.

Many of the US fleet M113 vehicles will be replaced with a new updated variant, the M113A4, which demonstrates that, or though our current vehicles do need replacing, their type is still an option, be it a more modern type.

The LAVIII is able to carry two patients on stretches and can be used in this role when needed.

So can an M113, no different in this regard. Pointless using a factor which does not advance the argument for the new vehicle.

Tracked vehicles require more support.

This is true. Pity that that means more people being employed in various trades. Even in the short term, operational advantages will be show through for the tracked option far outweighing these minor disadvantages. Any advantage of wheeled vehicles will soon be countered logistically as they get bogged down, are shown to only have any real advantage on well maintained roads and their mobility systems are shot out by small arms fire.

Royal New Zealand Airforce

Air power has been shown to be a decisive component of modern conflict. Considering New Zealand's remote location, which in modern terms makes us more vulnerable in the wake of modern technology, not less so as it was years ago, it is imperative that some means comes by which we can counter any reasonably proposed threat. Australia is hard pressed to meet its own Defence needs and it would be both unwise and untenable to lump them with the responsibility of defending our shores. Naval assets alone here are stretched and perceived encounters must be met with strong multi level resources to provide deterrents and prevent escalation. Our isolation also emphasises that any threat to our shores, although it may be detected could not be held. Distance is such that no other friendly nation could effectively prevent such an unlikely yet very possible situation.

Fixed Wing Options

Prior to disbandment the Fixed Wing elements of the Royal New Zealand Airforce consisted of the following;
Squadron

Aircraft

Pilots

Ground Trades

TOTAL
14 SQN

17 Aermacchi MB-339CB

11

63

84
75 SQN

12 A-4k Skyhawk

9

62

71
2 SQN

4 TA-4k Skyhawk
2 A-4k Skyhawk

6

41

47

A-4 Skyhawk

One option suggested to me recently to replace disbanded aircraft was the Hawk 200. As a jet trainer this would only be sufficient for 14 Squadron, but would be a good start. The suggested option is just a stop gap until dedicated aircraft can be purchased. Unfortunately many have fallen into the marketing trap of the 'Light Strike Fighter' syndrome. Such an aircraft is fine for training and transition to dedicated fighter aircraft but you can't use them as a mainstay combat aircraft. One needs the right tools for the job. A bit like towing your boat with a Honda Civic, it can be done but is not advisable. A little like sniping with an Assault rifle.

The acquirement of the F16 fighter was quosted by the current Labour government in favour of putting funds into, predominantly, the LAVIII for the Army. In Defence, like anything else you can not forgo one component for another. Despite public outcry, a well administered misinformation campaign and the government wish for an essentially exclusively Peacekeeping force it is very unlikely an Air Combat Wing will be re instated any time soon.

The government is now looking towards Attack Helicopters, but this approach is again much like the LSF option. Maritime Strike is severely limited by range and such an option still leaves Australia out in the lurch, thereby the region. And even with the correct weapons fits, a Attack Helicopter is not well matched to take on other fixed wing fast movers. They are predominantly designed for troop support and anti-tank missions. We would still be left with a major gap in defence with this option, though it is ever critical that we remedy the troop support deficiencies.

F-16 Fighting Falcon

The F16 has the distinct advantage of being one of the most well used and supported fighter aircraft in the western world, and indeed the Middle East. If we were to get the F16 it must be ensured that it is of a later model, not the A for example. Though the F16 has more operational range than New Zealand would require, it has numerous weapon fits for a variety of roles. It is not as good for key roles like Maritime Strike as they A4K that it would replace but that is outweighed by what would be a new, or near new aircraft. We do not want to buy into antiquated technology. Any new aircraft of any type needs to have reasonably up to date sensors, Electronic Counter Measures (ECM) suites and communications. We have left many issues in defence so long that this is the key reason for the expensive outlay now.

F/A 18 Hornet

Australia use these aircraft making it an effective option regarding cross training. Former RNZAF pilots have trained on these. With the news of Australia joining the US in the JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) project we would not doubt be encouraged to purchase the Australian Hornets as a interim measure.

F-20

Marketed as the F5F "Tiger II" this aircraft is both cheap and highly effective. It would need to be need to purchase through third party nation now though a high turn out of pilots can be trained due to Advanced Training component initiated by Northrop. Perhaps the only real disadvantage with this option is the lack of all-weather capability. Over 20 countries have at some stage used the Tiger II variant of this very popular aircraft.

Harrier

Dating back to the 80's where the RAF used the Harrier against Argentine Skyhawks during the Falklands war, this aircraft has proven itself to be effective and flexible. Used under several guises, including the United States Marine Corps Harrier AV 8B the Jump Jet would be ideally suited for the NZDF in a defensive capacity and also complimentary to overseas coalition efforts in the future. Most certainly this option would allow the purchase of RAF aircraft on the second hand market. It is able to operate on Naval flight decks and from relatively unprepared field bases. Due to the Vertical Take off and Landing (VTOL) nature of the Harrier it has no need of conventional runways. The Harpoon Anti-submarine missile can be utilised by the Harrier for the ASW role.

While the US looks to take up the new Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) it might be a good chance to purchase a squadron compliment of these aircraft.

Rotary Wing Options

The RNZAF helicopters are in serious need of replacing and a danger to those who fly them. Any replacement option needs to be able to perform a

multitude of tasks and be able to operate in conjunction with operational partners. The two main approaches are; to hold a single aircraft type to carry out a multitude of tasks or, the more effective but expensive option which is to hold several types of aircraft to preform more specific tasks. In New Zealand it has always been the former, but with that comes the added expense that aircraft are pushed a great deal further by having to fulfil a great many more tasks. In the long term logistical strain and equipment wear is increased.

Regardless of options chosen any combination of Rotary Wing Squadron(s) must be able to effectively conduct these roles;

* Troop transport SAR - civil and military search and rescue and diaster relief
* ASW - in support of maritime missions, supplement RNZN Observation -
* Airborne battlefield reconnaissance
* Forward Observation (FO) taskings for Artillery
* Gunship capacity
* Logistical support duties

AH-6 Hughes 500 Defender / OH-6A Cayuse / AH-6J Little Bird

The above aircraft are all military variants of the Hughes 500. Being able to use civilian power plant this means a save on running costs, while able to switch to milspec power plant on Operations. A 4 man carrying capacity suits NZ light infantry tactics. Here such an option forces two aircraft up where before only one Huey was used. This forces tactical defence and enhances deployment survivalability. There are a great number of the H500 on the NZ civilian market. Flexible warload possibilities including Anti-tank missiles, rocket pods and 25mm Chaingun allow for effective ground support in realistic combat and peacekeeping operations.

Kiowa Bell 206B (OH-5 Cool

Kiowa is also a popular and sensible alternative. This aircraft is a military version of the civilian 206A Jet Ranger. One advantage with this option is they are operated by the Australians. They were chosen in 1971, over the Gazelle, In the late 1960’s when the Australian Army had established a requirement for a Light Observation Helicopter (LOH) to replace the Bell 47G Sioux. A model which the RNZAF is still using. 161 and 162 Recce Sqn used these aircraft in East Timor. They are ideal for the observation and training roles.

SFOR US Kiowa

Gazelle AH1

Used by the British Army Air Corps and the Royal Navy. Most useful for Airborne Reconnaissance missions, with quality transferable capacity in civilian roles such as Search and Rescue and Law Enforcement. Gazelle can also be armed, being capable of an Anti-tank missile fit such as the very effective US produced TOW. This helicopter from Aérospatiale is known for its agility and speed which dramatically increases a light helicopter's survival in a hostile situation. It is in widespread use around the world.

EC-120

Civilian rotary wing aircraft being produced by Eurocopter for the Australian civilian market while the same firm is putting together the ADF ARH variant of the EuroCopter Tiger. Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter for Project Land 128. It is proposed that aircraft of this type are also being put together in this order for the New Zealand civilian market which increases the viability of this option substantially.

EC-635

Another Eurocopter product, this military light helicopter is designed for SAR, utility, medivac and observation taskings while also being able to act in the ground support in both light assault roles and air to air. Very much a European equivalent of the Hughes 500 above.

Utility Helicopter Options

The state of the RNZAF Iroquois fleet is beyond that of safe now and any proposal to upgrade these aircraft would be foolhardyneedired enabling safe and effective communicatiwith other operational elements.

Huey

There are newer models of our current rotary wing aircraft. They are widely used and such an option provides us with a previous personnel experience base. Twin Engine models improve surviability but increase maintenance costs. In service models could be upgraded but this, due to the already worn out componentry would not be advisable. Airframes beyond service live for some time are now deemed unsafe. To continue reducing standards to keep these aircraft in the air is not acceptable and could have severe consequences. New versions such as Bell 212 would be sufficient and an easy transfer for personnel.

Blackhawk

Used by Australia these aircraft have an unsatisfactory safety record. Used extensively by the US and Australia. Many different options available but just like using a Light Strike Fighter for any Air Combat role, it is best to have a dedicated aircraft for any combative role. Here, the Blackhawk would be adequate for both troop transport and logistical taskings. Any adoption of these aircraft would warrant a study of US and Australian experiences to establish a counter to prevent possible accidents. Also it is worthy of note that the Blackhawk option was explored by Australia for the Gunship option which EuroCopter Tiger won, but was rejected.

Lynx

Possibility of acquirement of Westland Lynx as UK forces work towards the Future Lynx (an upgrade of the Super Lynx 300) BLUH project. Battlefield Light Utility Project. Issues of maintenance / logistics need to be considered for this option for a reliable flow of spare parts. Initial training would be part of any purchase package.

Gunship Options

While the above models all have the capacity for Gunship operations, they are not specifically designed for this role. Like using a 'Light Strike Fighter' as a fighter when it is essentially a trainer, if you want to do a job, it is often more prudent to use the correct tool. We would wish for effective combat operations and safe peacekeeping operations and a single squadron of Attack Helicopters would ensure this.

The Army is severely devoid of a modern Anti tank capacity and the Gunship option would help to remedy this in a airborne form both increasing survivability of the given assets while decreasing the mobility problems of man handling such weapons by Infantry personnel. A single gunship is also an incredible deterrent to counter potential violence of militia where, without, this violence is sure to occur. Electronic Countermeasures (ECM) and other defensive packages are also mandatory to counter the threat of missile systems but equipped with modern missiles a gunship is able to engage a greater number of targets out of harms way at 'stand-off'. Gunships also have the tactical ability to loiter nearby land forces' to be rapidly brought forward as required.

EuroCopter Tiger

Tiger is being acquired by Australia but this would seem at first sight to be 'overkill' for NZDF requirements. These purpose built gunships would only be necessary where by fixed wing purchases were not significant enough to fore fill all operational requirements. As an extra model to maintain and train this would make logistics unnecessarily complex. It would seem more sensible to adopt adequate fixed wing aircraft and suitable rotary wing aircraft in support of Infantry operations, maritime missions and peace keeping roles. Though an expensive option, costs can be reduced substantially if New Zealand brought in with Australia in a package deal. Logistics are enhanced significantly if New Zealand follows the Australian lead. Cross training is also a negated requirement.

AH-1 Cobra

There are several options in the Cobra family. If a gunship option is considered the Cobra combines availability with both proven effectiveness and favourable cost analysis. The US Army is phasing these older models out. While many nations use these highly effective Attack Helicopters they are still being made by Bell. They are far cheaper than models such as the AH-64 Apache, and Eurocopter Tiger. The USMC use Cobras. In the recent Australian options for a gunship, the AH-1Z Viper of the Cobra family was rejected but for New Zealand purposes and budget restrictions Cobra is a much more viable option.

Sea Cobra

AH-64 Apache

Apache is used by the British Army (WAH) and by the US Army (Longbow and AH). This option is somewhat extravagant for New Zealand and does not provide compatibility with Australia. Effective and lethal, the Apache does not offer any significant advantage over Tiger ARH or Cobra which is not thereby rapidly overridden by its excess in cost in both outlay

Quote:

National returns to fight over strike wing

Monday July 24, 2006
By Mike Houlahan

National is keen to put the potential restoration of the Air Force's strike capability back on the defence agenda, but the Government is asking how National thinks the country could afford it.

Five years ago, the Government scrapped the Air Force's strike wing, a decision National criticised.

Yesterday, National Defence spokesman Murray McCully said although it was unlikely the country could afford the immediate cost of re-establishing an air combat wing, it would be worth exploring if a deal could be done with Australia which would see the Air Force equipped with fighter planes. Australia is about to buy up to 100 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter air craft.

"I'm not saying that we're committing to anything," Mr McCully said. "I'm simply saying that we should have an intelligent discussion about our future defence requirements across the board without artificially scrubbing any participation in air combat from our agenda."

There would be opportunities in the future to allow greater co-operation between the air forces and they should be explored, he said.

Defence Minister Phil Goff said restoring jet fighters to the Air Force was unaffordable, and to suggest otherwise was illusory and misleading.

"If he points out to me where he will get the extra $207 million a year it will cost to operate it, which is $2 billion a decade, plus a billion dollars to buy it ... he knows that it's utterly unrealistic, which is why he's talking about investigating it rather than doing it. It will come to absolutely nothing."

Don't count NZ out from getting the strike force up and running again. In the next fifteen years the government will have to realise that there will be a need to protect our large soverign territory with the likes of asian countries (China etc) who are rapidly expanding and have an obvious interest in the South Pacific region. Some may say that they are just using soft power to gain national interest, but we have already seen that they have threatened the likes of Tonga with the use of force in the recent riots. With China expanding in all directions, NZ at least will need to look like it can put up some sort of fight, and the government WILL see this, maybe not in the next two governments, but it will happen.

ALSO- NZ is not a small country, if placed over Europe, it reaches from the bottom of Spain to the top of Belgium Exclamation

Quote:

ALSO- NZ is not a small country, if placed over Europe, it reaches from the bottom of Spain to the top of Belgium

Not to mention the huge amount of ocean that we control, as well as that of the our pacific neighbors which we are pretty much responsible for.

John Key is meant to be going through most of the National Party's policy (including that of defense) this year. I am worried with him perhaps being more centralized he may decide against it.

There is no doubt in my mind we need to have a huge defense spend up, perhaps even in line with Australia's (similar in its effects but on a NZ size scale)

With asea, asraam, sbds,plasma stealth and photon cannon the latest release of the block 69 stealth sheep puts fear in the hearts of all oppressors and smiles on the chinese fast food outlets (they will replace the legacy cows with guns)