New Zealand Army

[Gracie1234]

I think that we might see an increase in artillery based on the exposure they have received in Ukraine. The impact a SPG can have on a battlefield is undeniable. My guess is that we are heading towards 155mm as that seems to be a standard and there is development to enable fires out to 150km, The range revolution - Nammo. This would require an increased range UAVs.
The global order is not getting any more stable and there is plenty of political cover to increase defence capabilities and spend. NATO partners are all heading to 2% GDP, and other countries we would like to compare ourselves to in Scandanavia are joining NATO. It is not the 1990s and I bet there will not be any protests on increasing defence capabilities and spending as there were none of significance when we bought the P8s or the C130s.
The third point, the money is there. We are a rich country that has just in a few years increased our govt spending by 40%.

 

[ngatimozart]

I think that we might see an increase in artillery based on the exposure they have received in Ukraine. The impact a SPG can have on a battlefield is undeniable. My guess is that we are heading towards 155mm as that seems to be a standard and there is development to enable fires out to 150km, The range revolution - Nammo. This would require an increased range UAVs.
The global order is not getting any more stable and there is plenty of political cover to increase defence capabilities and spend. NATO partners are all heading to 2% GDP, and other countries we would like to compare ourselves to in Scandanavia are joining NATO. It is not the 1990s and I bet there will not be any protests on increasing defence capabilities and spending as there were none of significance when we bought the P8s or the C130s.
The third point, the money is there. We are a rich country that has just in a few years increased our govt spending by 40%.

That and HIMARs. Both make such a difference and I agree I think 155mm would be where we end up. The next question would be wheeled or tracked? That would very much depend upon our future CONOPS and considering that we won't be operating in vast open areas, but mainly in island archipelagos, I think some bush bashing may be involved. However, we will have to wait and see.

 

[Gracie1234]

Not too sure about HIMARs, it might be a step too far politically but I would fully support it. Does anyone know what work is happening on our CONOPS, I would presume that this will need to be refreshed post lessons learnt in Ukraine and the deteriorating regional environment.

 

[ngatimozart]

Not too sure about HIMARs, it might be a step too far politically but I would fully support it. Does anyone know what work is happening on our CONOPS, I would presume that this will need to be refreshed post lessons learnt in Ukraine and the deteriorating regional environment.

I would like to think that our CONOPS would be modified appropriately, taking into account lessons being learned from the Ukraine war, BUT I am not overly confident that is happening in bull$hit castle (NZDF HQ).

 

[pea032]

Training Ukrainian troops could inspire army 'regeneration' after MIQ exodus


Well latest is they are learning from Ukraine which is a bit positive. I think the interesting bit is the reference to the heavy use of artillery and assume they are trying to position it so the capability is retained. If it hadn't been for Ukraine I was assuming the current guns would be retired without replacement especially when they went with the upgrade instead of getting m777 and not replacing the 24th gun.

 

[SP_viewer]

That and HIMARs. Both make such a difference and I agree I think 155mm would be where we end up. The next question would be wheeled or tracked? That would very much depend upon our future CONOPS and considering that we won't be operating in vast open areas, but mainly in island archipelagos, I think some bush bashing may be involved. However, we will have to wait and see.

Sorry about this slight necropost, but I'd like to think about one of the benefits of having even just a token HIMARS force (~4-6 launchers) is the ability to have a cheap system that could easily operate in a strategic role. The range of our L119s is around 10km, while HIMARS can do 100km easy with GMLRS and be configured for more than double that with the new rockets being developed. What that gives a Kiwi force potentially stationed on an island in the pacific is the ability to cover so much ground. A L119 battery placed in the middle of Guam couldn't even cover the whole island, while a HIMARS battery could easily strike to Rota, heck even Saipan if you used ATACMS or PrSM. This would have the benefit of not having to rely on allied forces to provide those strategic assets.

I'm not an expert of course, but I'd have to assume that the reason we dont have HIMARS are that we're busy spending money on other projects. We probably need to get our hands on some sort of air defence and drone systems before we start worrying about strategic assets. With Australia getting some HIMARS though, I wonder if the army will indeed become interested in such system? They haven't shown any interest yet AFAIK.

 

[RegR]

Sorry about this slight necropost, but I'd like to think about one of the benefits of having even just a token HIMARS force (~4-6 launchers) is the ability to have a cheap system that could easily operate in a strategic role. The range of our L119s is around 10km, while HIMARS can do 100km easy with GMLRS and be configured for more than double that with the new rockets being developed. What that gives a Kiwi force potentially stationed on an island in the pacific is the ability to cover so much ground. A L119 battery placed in the middle of Guam couldn't even cover the whole island, while a HIMARS battery could easily strike to Rota, heck even Saipan if you used ATACMS or PrSM. This would have the benefit of not having to rely on allied forces to provide those strategic assets.

I'm not an expert of course, but I'd have to assume that the reason we dont have HIMARS are that we're busy spending money on other projects. We probably need to get our hands on some sort of air defence and drone systems before we start worrying about strategic assets. With Australia getting some HIMARS though, I wonder if the army will indeed become interested in such system? They haven't shown any interest yet AFAIK.

I personally think HIMARS has more than proven it's worth being the poster boy of the Ukraine war to date. Any option that can give the enemy as much of a headache, black eye and cause for pause is a golden goose as far as I am concerned. Throw in an anti-ship version for coastal defence along with all the other current missile options and you've got yourself a pretty decent deterrent right there, somehow incorporate anti-air in the future and it's actually a one stop shop gap system. Surely even 10 platforms would provide enough for 2 batteries and a small training/mantainence cell and not break the budget but alas I feel that whole public will and govt pander rule out any idea of long reach missiles, way too scary...

 

[SP_viewer]

I personally think HIMARS has more than proven it's worth being the poster boy of the Ukraine war to date. Any option that can give the enemy as much of a headache, black eye and cause for pause is a golden goose as far as I am concerned. Throw in an anti-ship version for coastal defence along with all the other current missile options and you've got yourself a pretty decent deterrent right there, somehow incorporate anti-air in the future and it's actually a one stop shop gap system. Surely even 10 platforms would provide enough for 2 batteries and a small training/mantainence cell and not break the budget but alas I feel that whole public will and govt pander rule out any idea of long reach missiles, way too scary...

PrSM can target ships, so if the NZDF acquires a cheap SAM, something like NASAMS, we could have a force ready to operate in high-intensity conflicts. Both HIMARS and NASAMS are operated by Australia too, so you have your beautiful ANZAC interoperability there.

 

[FormerDirtDart]

PrSM can target ships, so if the NZDF acquires a cheap SAM, something like NASAMS, we could have a force ready to operate in high-intensity conflicts. Both HIMARS and NASAMS are operated by Australia too, so you have your beautiful ANZAC interoperability there.

The current version of PrSM should reach Initial Operational Capability in 2023, it will only be capable of engaging stationary targets.
The next "spiral" upgraded capability with multi-mode seeker is hoped to meet Early Operational Capability in 2027. That anticipated capability set has extended two years since last year's target of 2025.
So I feel inclined to reference the age old adage, don't count your chickens before they've hatched.

 

[ngatimozart]

For ground based anti ship missiles we'd be far better off acquiring the NSM. It's already in use and we seriously should be looking at integrating it onto out frigates.

 

[SP_viewer]

For ground based anti ship missiles we'd be far better off acquiring the NSM. It's already in use and we seriously should be looking at integrating it onto out frigates.

Man these capabilities would be great but I doubt that the NZDF would operate separate anti-air, anti-ship and land-attack missile systems in my lifetime.

 

[ngatimozart]

Man these capabilities would be great but I doubt that the NZDF would operate separate anti-air, anti-ship and land-attack missile systems in my lifetime.

The NZ Government is allergic to risk in its defence acquisitions. It's finally learned the hard harsh lessons about cheap is best. The NSM is a tried and proven missile already in service with one FVEY partner and some of the NATO nations. The US Army are the ones pushing through the PrSM and the US Army doesn't have a good track record on introducing new capabilities into service. The NSM is also a 5th generation missile, with stealth capabilities specifically designed for Anti Ship Warfare, and BTW can attack land targets as well, whereas will the PrSM be a 5th gen missile?

 

[V33A]

Sorry about this slight necropost, but I'd like to think about one of the benefits of having even just a token HIMARS force (~4-6 launchers) is the ability to have a cheap system that could easily operate in a strategic role. The range of our L119s is around 10km, while HIMARS can do 100km easy with GMLRS and be configured for more than double that with the new rockets being developed. What that gives a Kiwi force potentially stationed on an island in the pacific is the ability to cover so much ground. A L119 battery placed in the middle of Guam couldn't even cover the whole island, while a HIMARS battery could easily strike to Rota, heck even Saipan if you used ATACMS or PrSM. This would have the benefit of not having to rely on allied forces to provide those strategic assets.

I'm not an expert of course, but I'd have to assume that the reason we dont have HIMARS are that we're busy spending money on other projects. We probably need to get our hands on some sort of air defence and drone systems before we start worrying about strategic assets. With Australia getting some HIMARS though, I wonder if the army will indeed become interested in such system? They haven't shown any interest yet AFAIK.

There's some simple reasons the NZDF does not have HIMARS, or are even considering such a capability.
Those reasons being HIMARS is a big ticket item and cannot be sold to the left leaning lovies as something useful for HADR.

 

[SP_viewer]

Question about NZ Army vehicles and doctrine for you smart blokes:

How come New Zealand doesn't operate a light fire-team vehicle? Australia is bringing in the Hawkei, US is replacing the Humvees with the JLTV, and many other countries operate small, 4-6 man vehicles. New Zealand on the other hand operates the Pinzgauer and is introducing the Bushmaster, both of which fit an entire section. What are the pros and cons of concentrating on larger vehicles and do you ever see the New Zealand army acquiring fire-team vehicles in the near future?

 

[ADMk2]

Question about NZ Army vehicles and doctrine for you smart blokes:

How come New Zealand doesn't operate a light fire-team vehicle? Australia is bringing in the Hawkei, US is replacing the Humvees with the JLTV, and many other countries operate small, 4-6 man vehicles. New Zealand on the other hand operates the Pinzgauer and is introducing the Bushmaster, both of which fit an entire section. What are the pros and cons of concentrating on larger vehicles and do you ever see the New Zealand army acquiring fire-team vehicles in the near future?

The New Zealand Army has chosen the Polaris MRZR for that role under it’s Protected Mobility Capability Project, which as you pointed out has also introduced the Bushmaster to NZDF service… I suspect over time this may also see an NZLAV replacement under a future phase of this project.

Military vehicles

Our fleet of operational vehicles has the capabilities to undertake operations in a range of complex and diverse environments.

www.nzdf.mil.nz

 

[OldTex]

The New Zealand Army has chosen the Polaris MRZR for that role under it’s Protected Mobility Capability Project, which as you pointed out has also introduced the Bushmaster to NZDF service… I suspect over time this may also see an NZLAV replacement under a future phase of this project.

Military vehicles

Our fleet of operational vehicles has the capabilities to undertake operations in a range of complex and diverse environments.

www.nzdf.mil.nz

View attachment 49751

Comparing the Polaris MRZR to the Hawkei and the JLTV is like comparing an Aixam to a Porsche 911. The MRZR, no matter how many weapons you put on it, is nothing more than a militarised ATV. The idea that it provides protected mobility only comes from the project name and is not supported by the included photo.

 

[RegR]

The New Zealand Army has chosen the Polaris MRZR for that role under it’s Protected Mobility Capability Project, which as you pointed out has also introduced the Bushmaster to NZDF service… I suspect over time this may also see an NZLAV replacement under a future phase of this project.

Military vehicles

Our fleet of operational vehicles has the capabilities to undertake operations in a range of complex and diverse environments.

www.nzdf.mil.nz

View attachment 49751

The Polaris is not that vehicle, it's a replacement for light quads etc and is definately not in the same class as hawkei or JLTV. The armoured pinzgauer was our version of those vehicles just like the soft skin versions were our land rover replacements, Aus g wagon, US humvee etc. The armoured pinzgauer could realistically only carry a fires team, their weapon and personal kit anyway due to weight constraints and weight related issues.

We currently do not have a direct hawkei/JLTV equivalent with the disposal of A pinz and trying to use bushmaster in the role (fire team) as envisaged is almost overkill. Much like Aus (and US to a degree) I think we need a hawkei(type)/bushmaster/LAV fleet to cover more/most roles and trying to simplify into a bushmaster/LAV mix will not be optimal much like the A pinz/LAV fleet wasn't as again the old "one size fits all" theory creates inefficiencies and inevitable gaps.

If cost was a factor then the UK has a fleet of Panthers that would/should be cheaper to aqquire but apparently came with their own deficiencies hence early disposal. As a weapons platform/recon/liaison platform however they could be adequate for our needs in the "light" armoured role, the newest version even more so. Obviously hawkei with its ANZAC commonality, US JLTV, UK ocelot etc but no doubt these platforms are obviously getting up there in price. The pinzgauer replacements are also mentioned to have an "armour" option so perhaps for fleet commonality this could be the direction although the armoured pinzgauer spawned from this way of thinking and ultimately failed. I can see mercedes doing well in the GS pinz fleet replacement with the new g wagon version though and they do offer some up-armoured and fully armoured variants that could fit the bill and fill the void being of a more proven build than the NZ orphan A pinz fleet which were merely a GS undercarriage, engine and trans with an armoured cabin bolted on for good measure.

Another point is that we are replacing 60 armoured pinz with 43 bushmasters so unless we take up the 15 options then, as per usual in NZDF projects, another fleet is actually getting smaller, again, rather than at least 1 for 1 or god forbid expansion. I actually envy Aus in this regard as usually when they replace fleets they generally up the numbers as well as capability, even if ever so slightly. We go for the old added capability requires less numbers to perform the same job whereas they do added numbers and capability ultimately do more and achieve a higher output! Many times our thinking, whilst similar, are poles apart...

 

[FormerDirtDart]

May I add a thought?
What the hell is a "fire-team vehicle" ? It's not really a thing.
What the poster seems to be referring to are generally considered "general purpose/command & control/liaison vehicles" or "weapons carriers/reconnaissance vehicles"
I can assure that a "fire-team vehicle" is not a doctrinal thing in the US military. Back in the day during 9th Infantry Divisions "Motorized" tests they put whole squads in cargo HMMWVs and during my later Paratrooper days our battalion was augmented with what was referred to as a "USAREUR mobility package". Essentially a cargo HMMWV per infantry squad
Which pretty much is followed along today with the US Army's fielding of the "Infantry Squad Vehicle (ISV)"

 

[RegR]

May I add a thought?
What the hell is a "fire-team vehicle" ? It's not really a thing.
What the poster seems to be referring to are generally considered "general purpose/command & control/liaison vehicles" or "weapons carriers/reconnaissance vehicles"
I can assure that a "fire-team vehicle" is not a doctrinal thing in the US military. Back in the day during 9th Infantry Divisions "Motorized" tests they put whole squads in cargo HMMWVs and during my later Paratrooper days our battalion was augmented with what was referred to as a "USAREUR mobility package". Essentially a cargo HMMWV per infantry squad
Which pretty much is followed along today with the US Army's fielding of the "Infantry Squad Vehicle (ISV)"

It's not hard to figure out what he is referring to, is it? It's kind of as if the rest of the world does not use American terminology in their day to day buisness, weird right?? And even if they did what would you assume a fire-team does out of interest? light fires??

 

[SP_viewer]

The New Zealand Army has chosen the Polaris MRZR for that role under it’s Protected Mobility Capability Project, which as you pointed out has also introduced the Bushmaster to NZDF service… I suspect over time this may also see an NZLAV replacement under a future phase of this project.

Military vehicles

Our fleet of operational vehicles has the capabilities to undertake operations in a range of complex and diverse environments.

www.nzdf.mil.nz

View attachment 49751

Seems kind of flawed having a vehicle with a 4 person capacity when fireteams can be u

May I add a thought?
What the hell is a "fire-team vehicle" ? It's not really a thing.
What the poster seems to be referring to are generally considered "general purpose/command & control/liaison vehicles" or "weapons carriers/reconnaissance vehicles"
I can assure that a "fire-team vehicle" is not a doctrinal thing in the US military. Back in the day during 9th Infantry Divisions "Motorized" tests they put whole squads in cargo HMMWVs and during my later Paratrooper days our battalion was augmented with what was referred to as a "USAREUR mobility package". Essentially a cargo HMMWV per infantry squad
Which pretty much is followed along today with the US Army's fielding of the "Infantry Squad Vehicle (ISV)"

I saw videos from the war in Afghanistan where MRAPS and Humvees would be manned with 4-5 people, a fireteam sized element. I heard about Lithuania buying 300 more JLTVs, saw videos from Ukraine of people operating from civilian vehicles, MRAPs and Humvees in groups of 4-5. Australia's introducing the Hawkei (a 4-6 seater) alongside the Bushmaster. I'm just wondering why New Zealand doesn't do that, and if there's a doctrinal reason why its not necessary or what. Something a little smaller than a bushmaster with doors for all occupants is what I have in mind. These vehicles seem to be used in frontline infantry service, not just as liason vehicles.