New Zealand Army

[Rob c]

Also everytime we have operated a one off fleet of equipement it turns out expensive! just look at the Seasprites expensive to operate/repair should have purchased Seahawks.

First of all, Helicopter's are an totally different from land vehicle's, the comparison is not reliant. The second problem is the way the government does it accounting, which discriminates against capital expenditure with the capital charge. However operational costs do not incur this extra charge so are more acceptable. Seems crazy I know but anything in the ''bean counter'' world is not necessary logic to us mere mortals.

 

[recce.k1]

What I'm saying is we should buy the same support vehicles as the Australians not a completely different make/model that has to have a seperate logistics tail when there is an Aust/Pacific hub setup already operating now! setting up a new small support system will again cost more in the long run

What's the status of Hawkei production currently (i.e. mechanical issues recently alluded to by AusGov and production timelines)?

Might have to wait until the MoD or DefMin proactively releases the Cabinet Decision docs to get a clearer understanding of why Vamtac ST5 UV-Light was chosen.

Just guessing but for example perhaps the ST5's modularity was a feature the Army wanted? The ST5 is also lighter but so is its payload capacity.

Judging by the lack of extra information released on variants at this stage, again just guessing but going by numbers (40 ordered) suggest the CK3 UV-Medium may be the general service vehicle variant (e.g. geared towards domestic use or SW Pacific governmental/HADR support) or at least a proportion of them.

The tender documents as mentioned above talks about:
-48 two-door general service vehicles possessing a removable troop carrier module.
-24 command/command post vehicles of either two- or four-door configuration
-Approx 20 C2 forward information support team vehicles.
-16 four-door maintenance support vehicles
-Approx 12 two-door ambulances able to accommodate two stretchers.

This just announced procurement (tranche one) is earmarked to replace 25% of the current fleet, so there will be forthcoming opportunties to procure additonal vehicle/types that are fit for purpose for the above requirements and perhaps with additional scope to enhance direct interoperability with the ADF. If so, as an exercise, what could these potentially be?

 

[RegR]

Also the NH90's are now an orphan fleet in this part of the world and expensive to opperate! so will end up being an expensive option now the Australians have gone back to Blackhawks and Airbus are useless for supplying spares.
Also everytime we have operated a one off fleet of equipement it turns out expensive! just look at the Seasprites expensive to operate/repair should have purchased Seahawks.

So ironically both of those examples are exactly why/how we are in th position we find ourselves in today, we followed Australia's lead. We aqquired both seasprites and NH90 because essentially Australia did so where are these cost benefits you speak of? Some would say the complete opposite has happened and it's actually cost us more in the long term, not as much as our Australian brothers but for little old NZ it's very relative. We cannot afford Australia's luxury of swapping out fleets wholesale.

And most likely by the time our new fleet of vehicles will be fully operational Australia will no doubt be looking towards the g wagon replacement and we will again find ourselves literally chasing our own tail anyway. The problem we had with the pinzgauer is that we procured a new model, even our own model, at the end cycle of the vehicles lifespan then the company was sold and discontinued. Its not a case of being expensive to operate its become expensive to maintain as there are no more spare parts being made so just like the seasprite they eventually become hard to get as time goes by and supplies are exhausted.

This is why one of the stipulations were that the vehicle needed x amount of numbers in current service with x amount of operation and from what I have read the Aus g wagons are not as reliable as their govt makes out (shock!) so perhaps our govt has actually taken this onboard instead of blindly following down the rabbit hole? again.

 

[chis73]

I guess what surprises me the most about this vehicle tender is the apparent lack of UV-M artillery tractor variants for towing the L119 105mm light guns. Urovesa even make a special artillery tractor variant (see this video - link) with a double cab (large enough to take the 6 crew) and enough space to carry a limited amount of ready use ammunition in the back. Perhaps the UV-L ST5 variants are supposed to be used for this role (like the Americans use M1152 & M1097 Humvees)?

I don't see any up-armoured weapons carrier variants requested either (the ones that look most like the HMMWV). I still think there is a necessity for a lighter 4x4 IED/mine-protected patrol vehicle (something like the Hawkei or the British Foxhound/Ocelot) for overseas peacekeeping operations. Bushmaster would seem overly large.

Also, I'm wondering, given the low numbers (basically half the size of the existing fleet of Pinzgauers & Unimogs) - what are the reserve units supposed to be using? Their feet? Bicycles (ding, ding!)? These UV-L & UV-M vehicles would seem ideal for reserve units to have on hand for regional disaster relief efforts & weekend exercises.

 

[RegR]

I guess what surprises me the most about this vehicle tender is the apparent lack of UV-M artillery tractor variants for towing the L119 105mm light guns. Urovesa even make a special artillery tractor variant (see this video - link) with a double cab (large enough to take the 6 crew) and enough space to carry a limited amount of ready use ammunition in the back. Perhaps the UV-L ST5 variants are supposed to be used for this role (like the Americans use M1152 & M1097 Humvees)?

I don't see any up-armoured weapons carrier variants requested either (the ones that look most like the HMMWV). I still think there is a necessity for a lighter 4x4 IED/mine-protected patrol vehicle (something like the Hawkei or the British Foxhound/Ocelot) for overseas peacekeeping operations. Bushmaster would seem overly large.

Also, I'm wondering, given the low numbers (basically half the size of the existing fleet of Pinzgauers & Unimogs) - what are the reserve units supposed to be using? Their feet? Bicycles (ding, ding!)? These UV-L & UV-M vehicles would seem ideal for reserve units to have on hand for regional disaster relief efforts & weekend exercises.

Still early days yet WRT variants (these alone are not due until 2027) so plenty of time, scope and opportunity for tweaking to suit. I actually like the look of those armoured weapons carriers as for me using a bushmaster for that purpose is alittle overkill and somewhat waste of a vehicle ie too big. I have no doubt armoured variants and artillery tractors are in the mix (gunners are actually still using the mogs atm) for future tranches which at this rate could still be years away...cough cough hurry up govt!! I get the feeling those pics provided are stock images more for reference only as I remember when the pinz were first announced they actually showed 4x4 versions which obviously we didn't get anyway.

An even better upgrade would be a self propelled option ala archer...hint hint govt!!