Haven't heard a thing.
New Zealand Army
- Thread starter Whiskyjack
- Start date
-
- Tags
- army artilery gunner new zealand sas
The NZ Army is to acquire new battle management software to the value of $11 million from the Danish firm Systemic.
Seems to have gone into hibernation at the moment I can only guess that they will tie it in with the NZLAV upgrade some how.
kiwi in exile
Active Member
(hope the link works)
https://www.facebook.com/OfficialNZ...31788986925/10153394832581926/?type=3&theater
https://scontent.fwlg1-1.fna.fbcdn....=2bf4346a6e2e04a7a58cd847c666758c&oe=588C9A48
NZ army facebook pic from 09/06/15 showing barrett rifle at Linton. Kids and guns pics
https://www.facebook.com/OfficialNZ...31788986925/10153394832581926/?type=3&theater
https://scontent.fwlg1-1.fna.fbcdn....=2bf4346a6e2e04a7a58cd847c666758c&oe=588C9A48
NZ army facebook pic from 09/06/15 showing barrett rifle at Linton. Kids and guns pics
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
New Zealand awards Systematic NEA tranche 1 capability contract | IHS Jane's 360
Jane's take on the contract award mentioned above by Ngati.
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
With Defence Watch reporting a purchase of Polaris Dagor all terrain vehicles for Canada's SF and information noting that Australia also uses the type is this a likely contender for acquisition for NZSAS and possibly the regular battalions? A common type amongst Allied forces makes sense.
Canadian special forces get new ultra light vehicles | Ottawa Citizen
Canadian special forces get new ultra light vehicles | Ottawa Citizen
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
Seeing our special forces already got something similar ordered from Australia, i doubt it. Asia Pacific Defence review covered it recently. We havent had the Lav3 that long for that matter, replacing them i think would be an incredible waste of an already tight budget. Hoping for a Lav 6.0 upgrade like you Canadians did. Converting the ones we hope to sell into other support variants too would be a better idea
Last edited by a moderator:
I've taken to drafting a running DWP submission document and this is what I have at moment.
The cost works out to be around $400 - 600 million depending upon how expensive it is to upgrade the current power packs, drive trains, electronics etc. Cheaper than buying new vehicles because we would be looking at around $8 million a vehicle for new ones.
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
Agreed. Given the extra weight the Lav upgrade would go up a few ton from what we currently have, which would mean a C130 J wouldnt be able to lift or fit one wouldnt it? Of course that wouldnt be the only consideration for the outsized loads any future airlifter will need to carry.
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
Ngati
I agree wholeheartedly with your suggestion regarding improvements to the Army systems. An up gunning to 35 mm with a high elevation literally kills two birds with one stone. As I have suggested before I think it would be a good decision to upgrade the navy CIWS as well with Millenium in place of Phalanx.
The support conversions are IMHO needed especially the 120 mm mortars carried by converted LAVs.
From a supply chain perspective is having the 105 mm Hamels a liability in a combined allied operation? Choosing to go 155 mm eliminates a separate ammo requirement. Maintain the 105's for training and territorial use but acquire a battery or two of M777 for deployments.
Is there that much of a threat in the AO for NZ forces to need so much SAM capability as you suggest? With high elevation dual feed 35 mm turrets on upgraded LAVs surely that would protect from armed helicopters. Fast jets are not typical in the AO.
The one gap I do see is the need for another layer of armour for off road operations. Namely the Warthog or similar articulated tracked amphibious protected vehicle. These along with some Hawkei and Bushmasters to round out the fleet.
I agree wholeheartedly with your suggestion regarding improvements to the Army systems. An up gunning to 35 mm with a high elevation literally kills two birds with one stone. As I have suggested before I think it would be a good decision to upgrade the navy CIWS as well with Millenium in place of Phalanx.
The support conversions are IMHO needed especially the 120 mm mortars carried by converted LAVs.
From a supply chain perspective is having the 105 mm Hamels a liability in a combined allied operation? Choosing to go 155 mm eliminates a separate ammo requirement. Maintain the 105's for training and territorial use but acquire a battery or two of M777 for deployments.
Is there that much of a threat in the AO for NZ forces to need so much SAM capability as you suggest? With high elevation dual feed 35 mm turrets on upgraded LAVs surely that would protect from armed helicopters. Fast jets are not typical in the AO.
The one gap I do see is the need for another layer of armour for off road operations. Namely the Warthog or similar articulated tracked amphibious protected vehicle. These along with some Hawkei and Bushmasters to round out the fleet.
The idea is to provide mobile fire support for the army. We already have towed 105mm artillery. 105mm is still used by the US.
Our AO includes the sand pit, Asia and anywhere else our govt decide so we face potentially all levels of warfare. It's not about fighting the war we have now or the last one we fought, but also any future potential war and that includes an enemy with capable air power. You cannot blindly rely on friendly air power to keep the enemy out; to do so is the height of folly.
Yes, the gap is intentionally left because there is a RFI out at the moment about that. Also I haven't thought that through yet either. I'm avoiding tracked at the moment because of its expense and the fact that if a track gets knocked out its a major job to replace, where as a wheel can be replaced quickly and easily. With modern 8x8 and 10x10 wheeled vehicles, there are not many places these vehicles can't access that a tracked vehicle can.
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
Ngati
If mobile fire support is required for the Army and 105 is the preferred caliber to stay consistent with the towed pieces what about the truck mounted howitzers like this;
Sherpa Hawkeye 105 | Mack Defense
Or this
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hRaMiC6AjXo
Mobility plus direct and indirect fire.
Canada looked at the MGS and realized thankfully that it was junk. Still doesn't work right. Watched a pair of LAV's go by last week on a flat bed headed for export equipped with turreted large calibre guns. I have to assume they were for Saudi. According to the net these are equipped with a Cockerill CT-CV105 mm.
New Saudi LAVs to come with Cockerill turrets | IHS Jane's 360
A retro fit of these turrets to existing hulls would do the trick.
If mobile fire support is required for the Army and 105 is the preferred caliber to stay consistent with the towed pieces what about the truck mounted howitzers like this;
Sherpa Hawkeye 105 | Mack Defense
Or this
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hRaMiC6AjXo
Mobility plus direct and indirect fire.
Canada looked at the MGS and realized thankfully that it was junk. Still doesn't work right. Watched a pair of LAV's go by last week on a flat bed headed for export equipped with turreted large calibre guns. I have to assume they were for Saudi. According to the net these are equipped with a Cockerill CT-CV105 mm.
New Saudi LAVs to come with Cockerill turrets | IHS Jane's 360
A retro fit of these turrets to existing hulls would do the trick.
I looked at truck mounted guns but they defeat the intended purpose. The idea is to protect the gun crews from gunfire and shell splinters and increase mobility. You can get 8x8s into places that you can't get trucks. Also you are not introducing another vehicle type into the mix.
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
In the case of the EVO 105 I am sure the system could be mounted on a MAN type with no problem.
The Cockerel turret is far superior to the US MGS remote system. 105 mm definitely provides direct fire capability to support ground forces and bunker busting. Did New Zealand retain their old M40 107 mm recoiless guns or were they disposed of when retired?
Low tech systems such as the RR have their place even today.
The Cockerel turret is far superior to the US MGS remote system. 105 mm definitely provides direct fire capability to support ground forces and bunker busting. Did New Zealand retain their old M40 107 mm recoiless guns or were they disposed of when retired?
Low tech systems such as the RR have their place even today.
Most likely, but that is not the point. The point is a protected operating environment
Yes the Cockerill system looks good and the reason why I prefer a turreted system because it keeps everyone inside the vehicle and just as importantly the important and sensitive working parts of the gun inside the vehicle. I don't know if they still have the Recoilless Rifle.
Nova
M40 are long gone full of concrete & now gate guards all ammo was disposed of in the early 90's unfortunately Nova they do not have a place in modern warfare for the following reasons:
1. The back blast signature cannot be hidden and with todays modern day/night sites/systems that is a major flaw with the M40 106mm.
2. It is not man portable being heavy & unwieldy to manoeuvre and requires a 3 man crew plus a Landover type vehicle to transport.
3. The FGM-148 Javelin is far more effective in the M40 main role ie medium anti tank & if a anti personal role is required then the HK GMG & M2QCB are far superior in that role than the M40.
Being the last of my generation to train & fire the M40 Im am glad that the M40 has been relegated to history & gate guards as a Battalion Support weapon its day in the NZ Army has been and gone.
CD
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
Cadredave
My reason for bringing up the M40 was the accounts of its use by Australian forces in the ME. Had they still been in war reserve they could be utilized. I agree with your statements but is it not overkill to use a Javelin for bunker busting?
The realities of fighting irregular forces in remote locations shows the need for cheaper alternatives. The 84 mm Carl Gustav is an example of a useful tool on todays battlefield. In service with NZ and its allies. Does this not also pose a backblast issue as stated?
My reason for bringing up the M40 was the accounts of its use by Australian forces in the ME. Had they still been in war reserve they could be utilized. I agree with your statements but is it not overkill to use a Javelin for bunker busting?
The realities of fighting irregular forces in remote locations shows the need for cheaper alternatives. The 84 mm Carl Gustav is an example of a useful tool on todays battlefield. In service with NZ and its allies. Does this not also pose a backblast issue as stated?
It actually is not overkill to use Jav to destroy a bunker if that's all you have at that point of time then you use it a Platoon Commander will use all tools at his/her disposal that's how we fight.
The cheaper alternative Nova is the M3 CG that's why we use the M3 CG it is man portable lightweight & more importantly out ranges the RPG7, we also used Jav in the mountains as well as the sighting system is second to none, don't fall into the trap just because there are cheaper alternatives at face value they should be used. We give our soldiers the best tools & training to achieve the mission.
The M3CG BBDA signature is no where near or as big as the M40, to get the M40 into service requires the users [Corps of Infantry] to identify a need or gap in the current capability ie you are pitting the M40 directly against the FGM-148 now which system do you think RNZIR is going to side with its a no brainer, with todays ROE in force CLU for Jav gives dismounted Infantry a capability that the M40 does not and soon a new sight for the M3 will give us the ability to utilize that system even more.
As someone who is Infantry Support Weapons qualified & trained I fail to see any benefit the M40 would provide the Battalions or NZDF in a complex war fighting environment I actually see it as a liability.
Combat history - Wiki (not the best source to use but gets the point across)
During the War in Afghanistan, the Javelin was used effectively in counter-insurgency (COIN) operations. Initially, soldiers perceived the weapon as unsuitable for COIN operations due to its destructive power, but trained gunners were able to make precision shots against enemy positions with little collateral damage. The Javelin filled a niche in U.S. weapons systems against DShK heavy machine guns and B-10 recoilless rifles—weapons like the AT4 and M203 were powerful enough, but had insufficient range; conversely, while medium and heavy machine guns and automatic grenade launchers had the range, they lacked the power; and heavy mortars, which had both a good range and more than enough power, lacked precision. The Javelin, as well as the TOW, had enough range, power, and accuracy to counter standoff engagement tactics employed by enemy weapons. With good locks, the missile is most effective against vehicles, caves, fortified positions, and individual personnel; if enemies were inside a cave, a Javelin fired into the mouth of the cave would destroy it from the inside, which was not possible from the outside using heavy mortars. The psychological effect of the sound of a Javelin firing sometimes caused insurgents to disengage and flee their position. Even when not firing, the Javelin's CLU was commonly used as a man-portable surveillance system.
CD
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
As a counter point to the discussion please see the attached. The arguments and solutions presented lend much credibility to the need for a return of less sophisticated weapons on today's battlefield. I thought it a worthy point of discussion.
No Male Tanks: U.S. OUT-GUNNED ON THE NON-LINEAR BATTLEFIELD?
No Male Tanks: U.S. OUT-GUNNED ON THE NON-LINEAR BATTLEFIELD?
OMG, Gavin alert ....