New Zealand Army

[RegR]

Just watched that clip on spike and does seem like a good piece of kit with a common family covering a lot of roles with a few handy features.

Man portable, vehicle, under armour and helo mounted gives it a few options that could open up options and all from the same family therefore training, maintanence and operation could all be streamlined to a degree.

I do think LAV mounting our missile system (Jav) similar to a Bradley set up, would have its benefits or would it need a dedicated turret/LAV? Just seems to me having to stop the LAV, dismount then aqquire the target exposed may not suit all scenarios. Do we even vehicle mount on weapons pinzgauer or do we just use man portable?

I do understand having gear in common with our allies does have its merits and synergies however they also have other options to cover other roles whereas we are not so lucky so have to make the most of what limited resources we have and then exploit it fully. I would hate to think we would aqquire equipment based on what suits our partners vs what would better suit us in the long run. We do seem to follow Aus a lot kit wise and this does have benefit, however sometimes our long term plans/goals are worlds apart.

 

[Todjaeger]

Just watched that clip on spike and does seem like a good piece of kit with a common family covering a lot of roles with a few handy features.

Man portable, vehicle, under armour and helo mounted gives it a few options that could open up options and all from the same family therefore training, maintanence and operation could all be streamlined to a degree.

I do think LAV mounting our missile system (Jav) similar to a Bradley set up, would have its benefits or would it need a dedicated turret/LAV? Just seems to me having to stop the LAV, dismount then aqquire the target exposed may not suit all scenarios. Do we even vehicle mount on weapons pinzgauer or do we just use man portable?

I do understand having gear in common with our allies does have its merits and synergies however they also have other options to cover other roles whereas we are not so lucky so have to make the most of what limited resources we have and then exploit it fully. I would hate to think we would aqquire equipment based on what suits our partners vs what would better suit us in the long run. We do seem to follow Aus a lot kit wise and this does have benefit, however sometimes our long term plans/goals are worlds apart.

No offense, but I think you might not be seeing the forest, because of all the trees...

An NZLAV is a Light Armoured Vehicle, emphasis on Light. AFAIK the armour protection levels for a LAV (before add-on armour) provides protection against 7.62 mm AP rounds and 155 mm shell splinters, with larger calibres getting through. Also the LAV is a wheeled vehicle, which means decreased offroad mobility in rough terrain and over obstructions. With those two factors in mind, the LAV is not designed for or intended to engage in a war of maneuver against opposing armoured columns (i.e. tanks and IFV's) which the 25 mm Bushmaster would be ineffective against.

Also, for the general area of operations for NZ, who really has any significant number of mobile targets which would require a Javelin? If the target is stationary, then the NZ army Javelin team can choose their approach and get to an optimal firing position. If the target is mobile, given the limited protection a LAV has against heavy weaponry, the Javelin team would want to fire from ambush, which is a bit easier to manage as an infantry team than a vehicle.

I feel it important to note that an NZLAV is not really an IFV like a Bradley, BMP, Warrior, or CV90-family vehicle is. Adding an ATGM launcher to the turret would still not change that, because there are inherent limitations to the armour protection and vehicle mobility. Also the increased vehicle weight for the launcher, carried ammunition, fire control and sighting systems would come at the cost of carried troops, range, mobility, vehicle frame life, etc. Nevermind the actual cost of such design and integration work.

Yes, if NZ has such a vehicle in the inventory, there would be more for NZ to bring to the table for an operation. However, it would IMO be a poor replication of capabilities other allies have in better configurations, and would also be something which would see little if any use in operations where NZ is the prime, or has a major role. After Italy, when was the last time NZ has fought enemy armoured elements, Korea maybe?

Some of us had in the past mentioned the potential utility for NZ to have some kind of mobile, armoured fire support to deal with enemy armour and hardpoints, but the types of systems usually mentioned were things like the CV90-120T, or a tracked, armoured AMOS capable of direct as well as indirect fire. Such a capability would be 'nice' but given the overall needs of the NZDF, as well as the likely threats and ops the NZDF would engage in, such a capability is not all that important.

-Cheers

 

[kiwi in exile]

A109's are already integrated with an armaments package, including rocket and gun pods, targetting / combat systems and various sensor packages. Actual aircraft integration is a non-issue. The Philippine airforce for instance has just purchased a squadron of 8 A109 aircraft so equipped.

In the RNZAF context I imagine the physical installation would be a depot level contractor supplied modification only however doctrine, training etc would obviously be reliant upon NZDF development of such.

Yes. I'd imagine it would be far easier to add a capability to a system we allready operate (early days, I know), than to try and gain a whole new system (AH1Z), not to mention certain economic benefits. Helo CAS would be new to NZDF so doctrine, training etc would have to be developed in either case. Given the JAFT direction we are travelling in, i think it would be worthwhile investigating the practacalities of adding rockets, gun pods (maybe even hellfires?) to the Sprites. They allready have the FLIR/EO. Similar capabilities to latest AUS/US Romeos.

 

[kiwi in exile]

For those still interested: Javelins have been successfullt test fired from remote weapon stations mounted on Strykers and Pirhanas (both cousins of the NZLAV). Still only tests though. From a technical point of view, how hard would it be to swap a RWS for an NZLAV turret?

Raytheon Stryker test 2010
Javelin Joint Venture Fires Javelin From Stryker Remote Weapon Station - Dec 7, 2010

Pirhana test 2012
Javelin Missile Proves New Capability during Vehicle-Launched Norwegian Tests · Lockheed Martin
“The live fire tests in Norway demonstrated that Javelin is capable of being deployed on vehicles with remote weapon stations and that the concept is mature and ready for implementation,” said Barry James, Javelin Joint Venture vice president and Javelin program director in Lockheed Martin’s Missiles and Fire Control business.

And there's this also (scroll down):
http://www.miltechmag.com/2012/08/eurosatory-2012-intense-week-of.html
"One benefit of using JAVELIN through the targeting system of the host vehicle is that the high performance EO of the Kongsberg PROTECTOR, for example, extends the missile’s effective range without changing the weapon itself. JAVELIN’s quoted range performance covers 65m to 2.5km, the maximum limited by the CLU’s ability to provide a good enough image to positively identify targets. With the better optics in the RWS, the range can be extended to 4km or even beyond"

 

[t68]

Yes. I'd imagine it would be far easier to add a capability to a system we allready operate (early days, I know), than to try and gain a whole new system (AH1Z), not to mention certain economic benefits. Helo CAS would be new to NZDF so doctrine, training etc would have to be developed in either case. Given the JAFT direction we are travelling in, i think it would be worthwhile investigating the practacalities of adding rockets, gun pods (maybe even hellfires?) to the Sprites. They allready have the FLIR/EO. Similar capabilities to latest AUS/US Romeos.

Yeah well that is doable, a modern integration package might be the problem. Back in the early 60's Kaman actly won a contract to provide a interim gunship package which according to this site was extremely capabile, So it has been proven to be achievable but was piped at the post by the UH1

Kaman H-2 "Tomahawk" helicopter - development history, photos, technical data

 

[RegR]

No offense, but I think you might not be seeing the forest, because of all the trees...

An NZLAV is a Light Armoured Vehicle, emphasis on Light. AFAIK the armour protection levels for a LAV (before add-on armour) provides protection against 7.62 mm AP rounds and 155 mm shell splinters, with larger calibres getting through. Also the LAV is a wheeled vehicle, which means decreased offroad mobility in rough terrain and over obstructions. With those two factors in mind, the LAV is not designed for or intended to engage in a war of maneuver against opposing armoured columns (i.e. tanks and IFV's) which the 25 mm Bushmaster would be ineffective against.

Also, for the general area of operations for NZ, who really has any significant number of mobile targets which would require a Javelin? If the target is stationary, then the NZ army Javelin team can choose their approach and get to an optimal firing position. If the target is mobile, given the limited protection a LAV has against heavy weaponry, the Javelin team would want to fire from ambush, which is a bit easier to manage as an infantry team than a vehicle.

I feel it important to note that an NZLAV is not really an IFV like a Bradley, BMP, Warrior, or CV90-family vehicle is. Adding an ATGM launcher to the turret would still not change that, because there are inherent limitations to the armour protection and vehicle mobility. Also the increased vehicle weight for the launcher, carried ammunition, fire control and sighting systems would come at the cost of carried troops, range, mobility, vehicle frame life, etc. Nevermind the actual cost of such design and integration work.

Yes, if NZ has such a vehicle in the inventory, there would be more for NZ to bring to the table for an operation. However, it would IMO be a poor replication of capabilities other allies have in better configurations, and would also be something which would see little if any use in operations where NZ is the prime, or has a major role. After Italy, when was the last time NZ has fought enemy armoured elements, Korea maybe?

Some of us had in the past mentioned the potential utility for NZ to have some kind of mobile, armoured fire support to deal with enemy armour and hardpoints, but the types of systems usually mentioned were things like the CV90-120T, or a tracked, armoured AMOS capable of direct as well as indirect fire. Such a capability would be 'nice' but given the overall needs of the NZDF, as well as the likely threats and ops the NZDF would engage in, such a capability is not all that important.

-Cheers

I wasn't aware the 'light' level of protection dictated the level of response as automatically being 'light' in turn, if anything I would have assumed it meant you would up your armoury to compensate where possible to counter any inbalance.
It would not be to go out looking for tanks/IFVs to engage but more to afford us better protection/defence from tanks/IFVs that seek us out on the battlefeild as surprisingly not everyone has our views on armoured capabilities or levels of.
It would be like saying our Orions do not need to detect/hunt/kill submarines as we do not ourselves possess submarines therefore no need.

If Jav is man portable than I'm sure a LAV can handle the added weight of a similar system akin to the Bradley launcher. You don't need a LAV full of missiles as compared to the current number (0) even a couple pre-loaded in the exterior tubes is a giant step forward and adds to the kitty. If it was a dedicated TUA vehicle than it would be designed from the outset (as per stryker version) and troop weight would not even factor into the equation.

What is the general area of operations for NZ? Are we always going to be able to choose or could it be thrust upon us or us drawn into it. I'm pretty sure 20 years ago we did not see ourselves in a prolonged conflict across the other side of the world that could have gone anyway due to its volatile neighbours or perhaps maybe we did in terms of WWI/II and what did we take from that.

I still think we de-faultly rely on our Freinds alittle too much sometimes as lets be honest if we were under siege than no doubt at least some of our allies will be having some issues of their own and therefore a little pre-occupied themselves. Why limit ourselves to limited abilities based on help from afar. If not than what else could/would they provide in assistance that we then do not need, frigates?, artillery? pilots? LAVs?

 

[Todjaeger]

I wasn't aware the 'light' level of protection dictated the level of response as automatically being 'light' in turn, if anything I would have assumed it meant you would up your armoury to compensate where possible to counter any inbalance.
It would not be to go out looking for tanks/IFVs to engage but more to afford us better protection/defence from tanks/IFVs that seek us out on the battlefeild as surprisingly not everyone has our views on armoured capabilities or levels of.
It would be like saying our Orions do not need to detect/hunt/kill submarines as we do not ourselves possess submarines therefore no need.

If Jav is man portable than I'm sure a LAV can handle the added weight of a similar system akin to the Bradley launcher. You don't need a LAV full of missiles as compared to the current number (0) even a couple pre-loaded in the exterior tubes is a giant step forward and adds to the kitty. If it was a dedicated TUA vehicle than it would be designed from the outset (as per stryker version) and troop weight would not even factor into the equation.

What is the general area of operations for NZ? Are we always going to be able to choose or could it be thrust upon us or us drawn into it. I'm pretty sure 20 years ago we did not see ourselves in a prolonged conflict across the other side of the world that could have gone anyway due to its volatile neighbours or perhaps maybe we did in terms of WWI/II and what did we take from that.

I still think we de-faultly rely on our Freinds alittle too much sometimes as lets be honest if we were under siege than no doubt at least some of our allies will be having some issues of their own and therefore a little pre-occupied themselves. Why limit ourselves to limited abilities based on help from afar. If not than what else could/would they provide in assistance that we then do not need, frigates?, artillery? pilots? LAVs?

Again, forest/trees.

The NZLAV as currently armed with a 25 mm Bushmaster can already deal with most things. Given that the NZ Gov't and NZDF decide where to deploy troops and kit, what is the likelihood an NZLAV being deployed somewhere that it would need (or even make a useful difference to have) an integrated ATGW? Is the probability of such a deployment sufficient to justify spending the resources for the NZ army to bring such a capability into service, especially since that would mean the NZDF has to cut the resources to other capabilities?

If one looks at policy statements from various NZ gov'ts of the day over the last thirty years or so, likely deployment areas for the NZDF would be in the South Pacific, and in support of international peacekeeping/monitoring operations. In short, Chapt. VI-type activities for the most part, not high intensity combat operations. Also, the deployment areas are not exactly overflowing with tanks and IFV's.

This then goes back to what the actual threat/need level is, and is that sufficient for the NZDF to add the capability on, since it pretty much would guarantee some other capability is going to either suffer, or go away completely.

I am not saying such a capability would be worthless, but within the context of the NZDF, the areas operated in, the types of operations engaged in, and the total resources available, is it really worthwhile? I honestly do not think so, since Army already has an ATGW capability in man-portable Javelin.

-Cheers

 

[RegR]

Again, forest/trees.

The NZLAV as currently armed with a 25 mm Bushmaster can already deal with most things. Given that the NZ Gov't and NZDF decide where to deploy troops and kit, what is the likelihood an NZLAV being deployed somewhere that it would need (or even make a useful difference to have) an integrated ATGW? Is the probability of such a deployment sufficient to justify spending the resources for the NZ army to bring such a capability into service, especially since that would mean the NZDF has to cut the resources to other capabilities?

If one looks at policy statements from various NZ gov'ts of the day over the last thirty years or so, likely deployment areas for the NZDF would be in the South Pacific, and in support of international peacekeeping/monitoring operations. In short, Chapt. VI-type activities for the most part, not high intensity combat operations. Also, the deployment areas are not exactly overflowing with tanks and IFV's.

This then goes back to what the actual threat/need level is, and is that sufficient for the NZDF to add the capability on, since it pretty much would guarantee some other capability is going to either suffer, or go away completely.

I am not saying such a capability would be worthless, but within the context of the NZDF, the areas operated in, the types of operations engaged in, and the total resources available, is it really worthwhile? I honestly do not think so, since Army already has an ATGW capability in man-portable Javelin.

-Cheers

Yes 25mm is good but as an added extra tool a missile system (especially one with multiple uses and launch options) can only be of benefit. Other than an extra cost I fail to see negatives, if we need to cut a 'capability' I'm sure there a few extra officers and politicians pay packets we could trim. I'm not saying we definitely need it but using the phrase we'll never go anywhere with tanks/IFVs because govt won't allow it is kinda setting us up from the start for something as simple as a launcher as I'm sure we thought exactly like this back before the great wars and look how that cost us. Better to be prepared then sit and wait.

Why are we so worried about Chinese, Russian and North Korean intentions (just to mention a few) around the world if we are never going anywhere near them if they decide to get angry? Not our problem someone else will look after them, we just do Island states and and at a push benign areas. It must be a good feeling knowing we will never be invaded/attacked/intimidated by anyone with a decently equipped army?

Bradley has the exact same turret as LAV and yet can manage to fit a missile system so the cost is there and sorted, what cost do you put on extra protection, capability and even added detterance? Man portable is good and yes does have its advantages but you don't always get the time or option to just park up, duck out find your trees in the forrest and set up a firing position. It's just another option and options are always good if they are sitting right there at the end of a button. NZ sadly does not have too many as it is.

The only reason we don't have 'extras' is because govt won't/can't pay and that is why they choose where we go as they know what level they have funded our military at. They pick and choose conflicts to cover themselves in an election as much as our personnel in a contact but if something major kicked off or dynamics shifted would we nesscessarily get a choice or have time to upgrade to suit?

If I took a bat to a knife fight and had the choice of a gun in my back pocket I would take it, I don't need to use it but it's nice knowing I have it available as there are a lot of different knives out there these days and they are getting bigger and more prevelant.

 

[Waylander]

Adding an ATGM capability to an autocannon turret is a decision which is not taken lightly even when it comes to heavy IFVs.

There are several heavy tracked IFVs out there which have no ATGM capability (Ulan, CV90, Warrior,...).

On the othr hand military operations in the past have shown how usefull an integrated ATGM capability (like on the Bradley or Marder) can be against symetric and asymteric threats.

I for one think that an integrated ATGM becomes more important when the IFV (be it wheeled or tracked) cannot rely on other mobile AT assets like tanks nearby or when one has to face a horde of enemy armour.

The second reason is unimportant for NZ. The first one not so much. Even a lonely T-55 may pose a serious threat to a mounted infantry force. Deploying handheld ATGMs takes time which may be crucial. And while employment is less sneaky it is also faster and can take advantage of the vehicles optics.

Add to that the ability to deploy a nice warhead while under armour and protected against small arms fire in an Iraq or Afghanistan like scenario and I can see why it may be beneficial to add ATGMs to the NZLAV, especially with there being no other mobile and armoured AT platform in service.

As always the question of it being worth the expenses is difficult to answer.

 

[ngatimozart]

Adding an ATGM capability to an autocannon turret is a decision which is not taken lightly even when it comes to heavy IFVs.

There are several heavy tracked IFVs out there which have no ATGM capability (Ulan, CV90, Warrior,...).

On the othr hand military operations in the past have shown how usefull an integrated ATGM capability (like on the Bradley or Marder) can be against symetric and asymteric threats.

I for one think that an integrated ATGM becomes more important when the IFV (be it wheeled or tracked) cannot rely on other mobile AT assets like tanks nearby or when one has to face a horde of enemy armour.

The second reason is unimportant for NZ. The first one not so much. Even a lonely T-55 may pose a serious threat to a mounted infantry force. Deploying handheld ATGMs takes time which may be crucial. And while employment is less sneaky it is also faster and can take advantage of the vehicles optics.

Add to that the ability to deploy a nice warhead while under armour and protected against small arms fire in an Iraq or Afghanistan like scenario and I can see why it may be beneficial to add ATGMs to the NZLAV, especially with there being no other mobile and armoured AT platform in service.

As always the question of it being worth the expenses is difficult to answer.

Turn the question around then. What would be more expensive - procuring and installing the ATGM etc., or the loss of the vehicle(s)? So what risk loading would you input into your factoring the cost?

 

[Waylander]

Looking at it from a pure military point of view makes it an easy choice IMHO. Take the capability and be happy about the added choices on the tactical level.

It becomes difficult when there is only so much money to go around. What is one willing to sacrifice to pay for it? Reduced vehicle numbers? Probably less P3 successors or naval helicopters? There it becomes difficult.

Even when the money comes out of the general budget. Where should it come from? Education, infrastructure, social needs?

 

[Ocean1Curse]

Looking at it from a pure military point of view makes it an easy choice IMHO. Take the capability and be happy about the added choices on the tactical level.

It becomes difficult when there is only so much money to go around. What is one willing to sacrifice to pay for it? Reduced vehicle numbers? Probably less P3 successors or naval helicopters? There it becomes difficult.

Even when the money comes out of the general budget. Where should it come from? Education, infrastructure, social needs?

Treasury hit it's bean counting talent wall years ago. Any new spending presumably would come from increased taxes. It would be preferable to write into the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement, a clause that would see fee's paid for new defence spending in order to maintain trade routes. Just a suggestion.

 

[Cadredave]

Treasury hit it's bean counting talent wall years ago. Any new spending presumably would come from increased taxes. It would be preferable to write into the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement, a clause that would see fee's paid for new defence spending in order to maintain trade routes. Just a suggestion.

Any new spending will come out of the current defence vote & will be taken from another requirement within the capital works programme. You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about the TTPA did NZ negotiate this clause in any of our other FTA ie China? I think the answer will be no.

PS TTPA has got nothing to do with the NZ Army please stick to the topic at hand.

Cheers

 

[Eeshaan]

Recruitment, Regional Engagement Among Goals of NZ Army's 5-Year Plan | Defense News | defensenews.com News|p

New Zealand army has released it's new 5-Year plan called Army 2020. With a focus on attrition rate, training and development on skills, and combined-arms effectiveness on land.

 

[Volkodav]

Found something some of you may appreciate, very nice cam by the way.

Modern AFV Discussion Group: the Walker Bulldog is a very frustrating tank

Interesting though, Valentine, to Centurion, to M-41, to Scorpion, finally LAV. While the LAV is more than adequate as a replacement for the M-113 and Scorpion you have to wonder if NZ would have been better off maintaining a Sqn of tanks rather than going for the Scorpion. Something like the Danish upgrade for the M-41 or a joint Leo I and then Abrams buy with Australia.

The combat power even a deployed force as small as a troop of tanks would provide is well worth the cost IMO. Maybe a heavy armour Company with three platoons or troops of 6 plus an HQ with another 2 tanks and a couple of ARVs, not a big forces, not a big initial outlay or through life cost, a massive increase in capability.

 

[40 deg south]

beehive.govt.nz - New Defence trucks delivered to units

Interesting that the Minister is talking up the benefits of piggy-backing on the (larger) defence purchases of other nations.

New Defence trucks delivered to units

Defence Minister Jonathan Coleman says the first batch of new Medium-Heavy Operational Vehicles have been delivered to NZDF units.

“It is great to see these vehicles being used by the NZDF just 12 months on from when they were purchased,” says Dr Coleman.

“The Government achieved a fast delivery and ensured value for money by purchasing these trucks off the same production line as the UK. This project is a great example of smart and efficient procurement, and we are keen to identify future procurement opportunities which could achieve similar results.

“The new Rheinmetall-MAN military medium and heavy vehicles are a significant step up in capability for the NZDF, replacing the old Unimog and Mercedes trucks. They are designed for modern military operations and offer better mobility, better protection, enhanced technology, and greater capacity.

“The new trucks are part of a wider programme of equipment upgrades and investment into Navy, Army and Air Force frontline capabilities.”

2 Combat Service Support Battalion in Linton and 3 Combat Service Support Battalion in Burnham have both recently received seven trucks. A total of 93 new trucks have been delivered to the NZDF, and they will be rolled out to units later this year once personnel complete driver and maintenance training.

A total of 194 trucks are being delivered at a cost of $113 million. This includes armour protection kits, weapons mounts, a range of specialist equipment, spare parts, logistic support arrangements, and training packages.

 

[kiwi in exile]

steyer upgrades

Is anyone able to provide information on the current status of this:
Steyr Rifles: Ministry Of Defence Wants To Upgrade... | Stuff.co.nz
NZ MoD assessing responses to Steyr replacement RfI - IHS Jane's 360

Here's a link to a 2011 report regarding the in service weapons replacement program
http://www.defence.govt.nz/pdfs/rep...ort-4-2011-in-service-weapons-replacement.pdf

Interesting to see 300x new grenade launchers, 20 anti material rifles, and 50 sniper rifles (.338?)

Cheers

 

[ngatimozart]

Is anyone able to provide information on the current status of this:
Steyr Rifles: Ministry Of Defence Wants To Upgrade... | Stuff.co.nz
NZ MoD assessing responses to Steyr replacement RfI - IHS Jane's 360

Here's a link to a 2011 report regarding the in service weapons replacement program
http://www.defence.govt.nz/pdfs/rep...ort-4-2011-in-service-weapons-replacement.pdf

Interesting to see 300x new grenade launchers, 20 anti material rifles, and 50 sniper rifles (.338?)

Cheers

As the stuff story said, the replies to the RFI are being assessed. Anyone connected with the process will not leak any information, therefore we wait. This has been a long ongoing process and not the first time a RFI has been issued. I think it got to an RFP being issued last time before it suddenly was cancelled in December 2012.

 

[kiwi in exile]

NZDF facebook photos alam halfa 2014

I'm just looking to confirm something from some NZDF facebook photos.

https://www.facebook.com/OfficialNZArmy/photos_stream
Is the site used on the GMG a ACOG 6x site? The Aussies use them on their H&K DMR's.

And the photo pf the Pinz LOV crossing the bridge- from this angle, the gun mount almost looks like a remote weapons station. At least looks like there is a very large ammo box.

Cheers

 

[Cadredave]

I'm just looking to confirm something from some NZDF facebook photos.

https://www.facebook.com/OfficialNZArmy/photos_stream
Is the site used on the GMG a ACOG 6x site? The Aussies use them on their H&K DMR's.

And the photo pf the Pinz LOV crossing the bridge- from this angle, the gun mount almost looks like a remote weapons station. At least looks like there is a very large ammo box.

Cheers

Have a look at this it will explain the FCS on the H&K GMG:

http://www.rheinmetall-defence.de/e...komponenten/D419e0512_Vingmate_AdSiFiCoSy.pdf

as for the Pinz that a no just a new gun mount you would of heard big time if a RWS had of been purchased.

CD