Some of us lament NZs lack of heavier fighting vehicles. Could a company of LAV105s go some way to addressing this? Would it be affordable? Would have great commonality with NZLAV. I am a merely an enthusiastic amateur as far as land forces go, but would welcome comments from the more experienced and knowledgable.
Could NZ use LAV105?
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
I dont think its likely in the near-forseeable future..It would be nice though..but the Govt just got away with convincing a pacifist public that the army needed $600+ mil worth of armoured vehicles..the public wont understand why we could possibly need more. The closest thing the army will be getting will be some model of 40mm auto grenade launcher..although the tendering process for that has been delayed at least till 2008 due to the defence ministry stating that none of the Existing types on the market are satisfactory: http://www.defence.govt.nz/acquisit...tion-projects/direct-fire-support-weapon.html I aint no expert but i hope this sheds some light.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
NZLAV's already come with a 25mm Bushmaster which has FAR greater firepower than any 40mm AGL's. The problem is it's not man-portable, which the 40mm AGL WILL be.Boolag said:I dont think its likely in the near-forseeable future..It would be nice though..but the Govt just got away with convincing a pacifist public that the army needed $600+ mil worth of armoured vehicles..the public wont understand why we could possibly need more. The closest thing the army will be getting will be some model of 40mm auto grenade launcher..although the tendering process for that has been delayed at least till 2008 due to the defence ministry stating that none of the Existing types on the market are satisfactory: http://www.defence.govt.nz/acquisitions-tenders/current-acquisition-projects/direct-fire-support-weapon.html I aint no expert but i hope this sheds some light.
The 105mm guncar WOULD be a nice asset to provide a bit of "weight" to NZ's rather anaemic land forces. 2x Sqn's worth plus training assets in a similar setup to Australia's M1A1 purchase would give a serious bit of beef to NZ's forces, and is unlikely to cost anywhere near as much either. I'd reckon they could buy enough to equip the QAR with 2x Sqn's a support Sqn and training/development assets for less than $350m.
It'd give the Queen Alexandria's Regiment a serious role too instead of it's current half and half sharing arrangement with 2/1 RNZIR (I think) over possession of the existing 40 odd NZLAV's...
Other options might be better though. NZ needs an artillery and mortar firepower upgrade more than it needs a 105mm direct fire gun. It's direct fire assets aren't too bad with 7.62mm MAG-58, 0.50cal HMG;s, Carl Gustav 84mm RCL and Javelin ATGW, plus the new 25mm on NZLAV. This will be further boosted once 40mm AGL is introduced.
Maybe they need to focus on in-direct fires for a bit, given their lack of air support? An M777/Excalibur and 120mm mortar purchase would benefit NZ more I'd think and would hardly "break the bank"...
I agree with AD, added to M777 and 120mm I would include a UAV/Recon ability ro 'own' the area of operations and make the most of the mobility of the LAVs and the fire power.Aussie Digger said:NZLAV's already come with a 25mm Bushmaster which has FAR greater firepower than any 40mm AGL's. The problem is it's not man-portable, which the 40mm AGL WILL be.
The 105mm guncar WOULD be a nice asset to provide a bit of "weight" to NZ's rather anaemic land forces. 2x Sqn's worth plus training assets in a similar setup to Australia's M1A1 purchase would give a serious bit of beef to NZ's forces, and is unlikely to cost anywhere near as much either. I'd reckon they could buy enough to equip the QAR with 2x Sqn's a support Sqn and training/development assets for less than $350m.
It'd give the Queen Alexandria's Regiment a serious role too instead of it's current half and half sharing arrangement with 2/1 RNZIR (I think) over possession of the existing 40 odd NZLAV's...
Other options might be better though. NZ needs an artillery and mortar firepower upgrade more than it needs a 105mm direct fire gun. It's direct fire assets aren't too bad with 7.62mm MAG-58, 0.50cal HMG;s, Carl Gustav 84mm RCL and Javelin ATGW, plus the new 25mm on NZLAV. This will be further boosted once 40mm AGL is introduced.
Maybe they need to focus on in-direct fires for a bit, given their lack of air support? An M777/Excalibur and 120mm mortar purchase would benefit NZ more I'd think and would hardly "break the bank"...
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #5
Have seen version of LAV with Brandt 120mm mortar in a turret. Would this be suitable for NZ, or were you thinking more of a mortar to be towed or mounted on Pinzgauer? I agree that indirect fire support is urgently needed by NZ, but mortars may be easier to sell to a public who only see arty at ANZAC day dawn service.
Already done. 2/1 Doesn't have any LAVs anymore. QA Squadron has 25.Aussie Digger said:It'd give the Queen Alexandria's Regiment a serious role too instead of it's current half and half sharing arrangement with 2/1 RNZIR (I think) over possession of the existing 40 odd NZLAV's...
Unless they buy more LAVs or modify some of the existing then I think that it would be towed. I think it would make more sense to have them on a LAV tho.Padman said:Have seen version of LAV with Brandt 120mm mortar in a turret. Would this be suitable for NZ, or were you thinking more of a mortar to be towed or mounted on Pinzgauer? I agree that indirect fire support is urgently needed by NZ, but mortars may be easier to sell to a public who only see arty at ANZAC day dawn service.
Depends on what force structure they decide on, e.g. will the 2/1 stay light or become motorised?
I think that decision has probably already been made. There aren't enough vehicles to put 2/1 in LAVs.Whiskyjack said:Depends on what force structure they decide on, e.g. will the 2/1 stay light or become motorised?
They could go to 2 x 2 company battalions with a small light infantry force.Rocco_NZ said:I think that decision has probably already been made. There aren't enough vehicles to put 2/1 in LAVs.
I believe there was a review of force structure last year that has yet to be released.
The review hasn't gone to government yet. I think thet a 2x2 config would be extremley unlikley - everything that has come out over the last several years has pointed to more force in each battalion, not less.Whiskyjack said:They could go to 2 x 2 company battalions with a small light infantry force.
I believe there was a review of force structure last year that has yet to be released.
The one caveat to that is if they are looking at providing a wider range of force elements under a task force type command arrangement - basially not using the battalion HQs to command larger groups any more.
I think we will have to wait and see, the issue, as I see it, is that the Army has is that to keep on battalion deployed for more than one rotation means they need another battalion equipped the same.Rocco_NZ said:The review hasn't gone to government yet. I think thet a 2x2 config would be extremley unlikley - everything that has come out over the last several years has pointed to more force in each battalion, not less.
The one caveat to that is if they are looking at providing a wider range of force elements under a task force type command arrangement - basially not using the battalion HQs to command larger groups any more.
I wonder how the MOD here and Australia are veiwing the multiple potential flash points in the Solomon's, East Timor and Fiji as the moment. Hardly the area of ops for mech forces.