New Zealand Army

[40 deg south]

Hello all.

According to a Shepherd media article covering Southern Katipo (As I cannot post links or photos, the title of the article is 'NZDF hones skills with overseas mates in Southern Katipo', should you wish to read it), the army is likely to purchase new helmets and additional body armour in late 2018 (I suspect that these will likely be of the FAST variety, a speculation that is supported by a photo posted on the New Zealand Sergeant major of the Army's Twitter account in late May earlier this year, detailing the events of a briefing of senior staff by capability branch. If you manage to find the image look at the background of the shot, and you should see some helmets of FAST design, aswell as new backpacks and plate carriers. Apologies, but I cannot post images so this will have to suffice)....

As an aside, it is worth noting that the army is, in addition to the projects that both you and I have mentioned, also considering it's future force structure (under the ) and a number of very interesting possibilities have been put forth (Army news 485), but I shall not list them here.

Excellent find, TRD.

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/defence-notes/nzdf-hones-skills-overseas-mates-southern-katipo/

The link is here. Info on the two drones mentioned is below.

https://www.theverge.com/2016/11/4/13508560/dji-mavic-pro-drone-review-price

https://www.aeryon.com/aeryon-skyranger

Is the intent to replace the entire Pinzgauer fleet, or just the armoured variant? There certainly seems to be wide dissatisfaction with the latter.

 

[TheRedDwarf]

Excellent find, TRD.

The link is here. Info on the two drones mentioned is below.

Is the intent to replace the entire Pinzgauer fleet, or just the armoured variant? There certainly seems to be wide dissatisfaction with the latter.

From what is possible to discern from what little official and (seemingly) informed unofficial documentation (and a combination of some background knowledge on the properties of the Pinzgauer itself and the patterns in New Zealand defence procurement) the most likely scenario will be that all variants of the Pinzgauer 6x6 (including all crew-served weapon, troop carrier, ambulance, and command variants of both armoured and unarmoured varieties) fleet will be replaced (hopefully) by a heterogeneous fleet of vehicles, in regards to not only fleet composition but also both the passive and offensive capabilities (for example, armour and handling versus offensive capability) that the vehicles in question may possess.

This is as a result of the high maintenance cost associated with both the Pinzgauer as a vehicle (i.e. the fact that the current Pinzgauer fleet is exceptionally maintenance heavy) and the wider challenge of maintaining a mixed fleet of vehicles, all of which are likely to experience massive workloads of excessive duration, and that in all likelihood would share no real commonality in base parts (although this is the same issue that the army would have to come to terms with should the replacement fleet itself comprise of multiple distinct vehicle types, although that factor in itself depends heavily upon the nature of the replacement vehicles themselves).

However, this is all purely speculation on my part.

 

[RegR]

Excellent find, TRD.

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/defence-notes/nzdf-hones-skills-overseas-mates-southern-katipo/

The link is here. Info on the two drones mentioned is below.

https://www.theverge.com/2016/11/4/13508560/dji-mavic-pro-drone-review-price

https://www.aeryon.com/aeryon-skyranger

Is the intent to replace the entire Pinzgauer fleet, or just the armoured variant? There certainly seems to be wide dissatisfaction with the latter.

Whilst the armoured versions need replacing ASAP imo due to not being fit for purpose and seriously limited in operational terms the GS versions still perform well but I guess if you are replacing a large chunk of the fleet anyway then you may as well explore your options while you have the chequebook out.

In NZDF terms the pinz fleet is still relatively young but maybe (hopefully) the days of running fleets well past their LOT, for decades extra and essentially running into the ground until they become museum peices is itself a thing of the past. These projects sometimes go through a notoriously long aqquisition and implementation phase anyway so could still be a way off despite recent success stories like the MANs straight from UK stocks.

Bushmasters would be relatively straightforward via Aus, perhaps hawkei as well or iveco lmts from UK lines again. The g wagons would be another obvious favourite for commonality and logistical benefits regionally.

I can see it going the way of the unimogs ie armoured portion soon with spec and GS fleets at later dates in tranches so we could still be waiting awhile depending on certain factors. Either way a good time for a fleet shake up and some more suited and practical platform soloutions.

 

[t68]

Whilst the armoured versions need replacing ASAP imo due to not being fit for purpose and seriously limited in operational terms the GS versions still perform well but I guess if you are replacing a large chunk of the fleet anyway then you may as well explore your options while you have the chequebook out.

In NZDF terms the pinz fleet is still relatively young but maybe (hopefully) the days of running fleets well past their LOT, for decades extra and essentially running into the ground until they become museum peices is itself a thing of the past. These projects sometimes go through a notoriously long aqquisition and implementation phase anyway so could still be a way off despite recent success stories like the MANs straight from UK stocks.

Bushmasters would be relatively straightforward via Aus, perhaps hawkei as well or iveco lmts from UK lines again. The g wagons would be another obvious favourite for commonality and logistical benefits regionally.

I can see it going the way of the unimogs ie armoured portion soon with spec and GS fleets at later dates in tranches so we could still be waiting awhile depending on certain factors. Either way a good time for a fleet shake up and some more suited and practical platform soloutions.

Never been in one but I hear they are quite noisy to ride in, the GS fleet is still quite young as you mentioned they would still commanded a good resale value in private hands.

 

[RegR]

Never been in one but I hear they are quite noisy to ride in, the GS fleet is still quite young as you mentioned they would still commanded a good resale value in private hands.

Yes, you're supposed to wear earmuffs in them. I agree, they would get alot of interest in civilian circles, even around the world, if sold due to their "renowned" capabilities.

Be interesting to see what becomes of the armoured variants as well, could suit a smaller nation or constabulary role such as in Timor Leste where they served.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

With the expressed desire for a more agile army would a self propelled artillery capability be more effective than the existing hamels?

155 mm units such as Caesar from Nexter is highly mobile and C130 transportable but is there a need to move to 155mm in NZ Army service?

Maybe the Samsung EVO 105 truck mounted howitzer would be more appropriate for NZ service. Instead of a dedicated truck and howitzer combination maybe a palletized system could be constructed that would be secured to a MAN chassis when required. Easily deployable. Easily supported. When not mounted the system would still be functional as a fire base for both direct and indirect fire support.

If not a 105 mm system maybe the AMOS 120 mm container mounted system could offer fire support and mobile flexibility to NZ Army operations.

 

[Todjaeger]

With the expressed desire for a more agile army would a self propelled artillery capability be more effective than the existing hamels?

155 mm units such as Caesar from Nexter is highly mobile and C130 transportable but is there a need to move to 155mm in NZ Army service?

Maybe the Samsung EVO 105 truck mounted howitzer would be more appropriate for NZ service. Instead of a dedicated truck and howitzer combination maybe a palletized system could be constructed that would be secured to a MAN chassis when required. Easily deployable. Easily supported. When not mounted the system would still be functional as a fire base for both direct and indirect fire support.

If not a 105 mm system maybe the AMOS 120 mm container mounted system could offer fire support and mobile flexibility to NZ Army operations.

Given the sharply limited funding available to the NZDF, and the need for purchase and/or replacement of some big ticket items (air lift, MPA, 3rd OPV, etc.) what would be the rationale for replacing the Hamels? At present, the guns AFAIK are able to be lifted as an underslung load by RNZAF NH90's, as well as being able to be towed by trucks, carried aboard RNZAF C-130H's, and so on.

Switching to a self-propelled gun system would likely permit Kiwi artillery to more rapidly setup, conduct a fire mission, and then break down to relocate, but it woulds also most likely become more difficult to establish fire support positions in some remote and/or difficult to access areas. Also, it is my understanding that the NZ Army is not really kitted out or configured for the type of maneuver warfare where self-propelled artillery is really important. NZ does not really have armoured forces which the artillery would have to be able to keep up with, nor is it likely that NZ will be engaging an enemy where artillery needs to be able to 'shoot and scoot' before counter-battery fire could rain down...

If NZ's 105 mm towed artillery were to be replaced, there would need to be a decent justification for the effort and expense. IMO there could be justification for switching to 155 mm artillery pieces due to that now being the common artillery shell in use by Kiwi allies and the greater capabilities available with a larger shell and gun system. Such a change would be a trade-off though, since the NZDF does not have any heavylift helicopters so guns could no longer be lifted and relocated like the Hamels.

One has to look at the impact making such a change would have upon not just the Army, but the entirety of the NZDF, as well as how well the current and proposed replacement capabilities slot into both the current and planned future force structures.

 

[steve33]

How does it show exactly an organisational failing? It has the same fail rate as the SAS selection course so by your measure SAS must be a poor organisation with poor selection of instructor's and failing to prepare students for the rigors of selection & cycle both course's have the same fail rate.

Skill sets for being a sniper are learnt on basic training if you haven't grasped and developed your soldier and fieldcraft skills which are basic fundamentals of soldiering no amount of extra training will get you ready so no it has nothing to do with poor instructors or an organisation failing either you have it or you dont.

Last those who do well but fail the course return to the Battalion & become Designated marksmen for there Rifle Companies.

Totally agree with what you said the 90% fail rate shows that standards are high and only the best are getting through the course and that is what you want.

In specialist units like that you should never compromise on standards so you get a higher pass rate in the long run you will not be producing better snipers.

Off topic what happened about the company the NZ army was going to put together i think it was like a rapid reaction company that could operate in support of NZSAS and conduct it's own operations.?

 

[ngatimozart]

With the expressed desire for a more agile army would a self propelled artillery capability be more effective than the existing hamels?

155 mm units such as Caesar from Nexter is highly mobile and C130 transportable but is there a need to move to 155mm in NZ Army service?

Maybe the Samsung EVO 105 truck mounted howitzer would be more appropriate for NZ service. Instead of a dedicated truck and howitzer combination maybe a palletized system could be constructed that would be secured to a MAN chassis when required. Easily deployable. Easily supported. When not mounted the system would still be functional as a fire base for both direct and indirect fire support.

If not a 105 mm system maybe the AMOS 120 mm container mounted system could offer fire support and mobile flexibility to NZ Army operations.

Whilst I see a need for a SPG in the NZ Army, I don't support it replacing towed artillery. Both kinds have their strengths and weaknesses. Towed guns have a higher rate of sustained fire than SPGs do. SPGs are capable of shoot and scoot so not as prone to counter battery fire as towed guns are. I see SPGs in the NZ Army ORBAT as mobile fire support for the infantry with the ability to keep pace with the infantry. However for sustained bombardment, towed guns are far better. Hence my choice would be an armoured vehicle such as the LAV being fitted with Cockerill 105mm gun turrets or similar. I would also stay with the 105mm howitzers because that particular calibre allows for a higher rate of fire than 155mm. Whilst the 105mm shell is smaller than the 155mm, more 105mm can go down range per minute than 155mm. Again each calibre has its advantages and disadvantages. In the NZ context we can lift a 105mm howitzer by air using the NH90 without the requirement to partially disassemble the weapon. If we moved to 155mm we'd have to lift the weapon in pieces which then has to be reassembled at the gun pit before it can undertake a fire mission. That takes time. Also resupply by helo of ammo is easier with 105mm. You don't have to breakdown all of the packaging as much as you have to with 155mm.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

Ngati the range of the single barrel NEMO 120 mm mortar turret has a rate of fire of 10 rounds per minute with a similar range of 10 km compared to the 105 mm howitzers. Its high angle of fire also allows for a close indirect fire over obstacles that the Cockerill 105 would not have. Since this turret was designed for 8x8 chassis could this not be a solution at low cost given the available LAV chassis that are currently stored? A modest fleet of 6 to 8 would be sufficient to support training and limited deployments.

I wasn't advocating the replacement of all of the towed Hamels but as an addition to allow for operations in conjunction with the LAVs as you noted.

The reference to Operation Serval in the 2035 Army document noted in the Strategic NZDF thread is an excellent rationale for highly mobile protected armour in irregular warfare operations. The ability of NZ forces participating in such a coalition operation is very real. At this time there is no wheeled fire support vehicle in the region with allies. This could be a good niche capability for the NZ Army while providing an integral combined arms capability.

On another note Think Defence has two articles on the use of quads and motorcycles. These articles reminded me that there was a process to review these types of vehicles for the NZDF. IIRC there was a picture of Prince Harry in a Polaris side by side taken in NZ a couple of years ago. Are you aware if any purchase has been made of these vehicles for SF or regular force use?

 

[John Fedup]

I recall a story about the Canadian army taking delivery of Polaris 4x4 light utility vehicles, Ottawa Citizen I think. The unit cost seemed brutal compared to civilian units.

 

[ngatimozart]

Ngati the range of the single barrel NEMO 120 mm mortar turret has a rate of fire of 10 rounds per minute with a similar range of 10 km compared to the 105 mm howitzers. Its high angle of fire also allows for a close indirect fire over obstacles that the Cockerill 105 would not have. Since this turret was designed for 8x8 chassis could this not be a solution at low cost given the available LAV chassis that are currently stored? A modest fleet of 6 to 8 would be sufficient to support training and limited deployments. I wasn't advocating the replacement of all of the towed Hamels but as an addition to allow for operations in conjunction with the LAVs as you noted.

The Cockerill turret 105 is either the gun or the howitzer and if I was doing it I would go with the howitzer. Whilst a 120mm mortar maybe ideal, it's another ammo logistics stream that is required, where as with the 105mm it's a single stream. A fleet of 16 minimum would be required in order to have one operational battery and the second battery being training etc.

The reference to Operation Serval in the 2035 Army document noted in the Strategic NZDF thread is an excellent rationale for highly mobile protected armour in irregular warfare operations. The ability of NZ forces participating in such a coalition operation is very real. At this time there is no wheeled fire support vehicle in the region with allies. This could be a good niche capability for the NZ Army while providing an integral combined arms capability.

On another note Think Defence has two articles on the use of quads and motorcycles. These articles reminded me that there was a process to review these types of vehicles for the NZDF. IIRC there was a picture of Prince Harry in a Polaris side by side taken in NZ a couple of years ago. Are you aware if any purchase has been made of these vehicles for SF or regular force use?

I don't know what the situation is with the Polaris vehicles. The only recent vehicle acquisition that has been publicly noted is the Bushmasters for the SF brigade.

 

[RegR]

Off topic what happened about the company the NZ army was going to put together i think it was like a rapid reaction company that could operate in support of NZSAS and conduct it's own operations.?

It is rotated through the regular companies of the battallions. They take turns and are designated the high readiness company and conduct extra training and upskilling to fullfill the role. Seems like a good idea as it will eventually make for a better trained/equipped RNZIR in general over time as they rotate through the process.

 

[steve33]

It is rotated through the regular companies of the battallions. They take turns and are designated the high readiness company and conduct extra training and upskilling to fullfill the role. Seems like a good idea as it will eventually make for a better trained/equipped RNZIR in general over time as they rotate through the process.

I was reading the NZ army times and they had an article about the company i didn't realize it was the same one i was thinking about.

The NZ army is doing some good things to enhance themselves and the equipment they have been purchasing is really good as well.

Good to see.

 

[Gibbo]

The Cockerill turret 105 is either the gun or the howitzer and if I was doing it I would go with the howitzer. Whilst a 120mm mortar maybe ideal, it's another ammo logistics stream that is required, where as with the 105mm it's a single stream. A fleet of 16 minimum would be required in order to have one operational battery and the second battery being training etc.

I don't know what the situation is with the Polaris vehicles. The only recent vehicle acquisition that has been publicly noted is the Bushmasters for the SF brigade.

Supacat for SAS have been publicly noted, AIUI there has been chatter about 2nd hand BushMasters from ADF but nothing public that I recall.

 

[ngatimozart]

Supacat for SAS have been publicly noted, AIUI there has been chatter about 2nd hand BushMasters from ADF but nothing public that I recall.

Whoops my bad. Mea culpa.

 

[Todjaeger]

The Cockerill turret 105 is either the gun or the howitzer and if I was doing it I would go with the howitzer. Whilst a 120mm mortar maybe ideal, it's another ammo logistics stream that is required, where as with the 105mm it's a single stream. A fleet of 16 minimum would be required in order to have one operational battery and the second battery being training etc.

I will do some digging about the 105 mm gun the XC-8 105 turret can mount.

I think there is a place (and potentially glaring need) for a direct fire support weapon/vehicle which can keep up with the NZLAV's. Yes, the NZLAV's are kitted with a 25 mm Bushmaster gun which should be sufficient vs. light or unarmoured vehicles and regular structures, if Kiwi forces were to become engaged with even a basic IFV or encounter a hardpoint there would be problems. AFAIK there are ~20 Javelin launchers in Kiwi service so the ability to deal with anything hardened or armoured is rather limited.

If looking to introduce (okay, reintroduce) a capability for the Army, I would go with direct fire support before expanding or changing indirect fire support.

 

[t68]

Its an interesting concept using the cockerill xc-8 which comes in either the 105mm or 120mm variants, from a pure NZ logistical point of view the 105mm seems like the correct choice, but when deployed will most likely be able to tap into a coalition supply chain especially if working with an ADF MRCB and new ACR formations which would have access to the 120mm rounds available to Abrams simplifying logistics overall. yes it introduces a new round into NZ logistical train, I believe the additional burden in a new round will outweigh the benefits when used in a coalition deployment or an all ANZAC armoured unit.

Cockerill® XC-8 105-120HP : Greater Capability Through Innovation | CMI Group

 

[MrConservative]

http://www.army.mil.nz/downloads/pd...170626-future-land-operating-concept-2035.pdf

Discussion of any future NZ Army kit has to be filtered through the lens of the above FLOC document.

FLOC recognises that the NZ Army will be operating increasingly urbanised environments and amongst the littorals and needs to be shaped accordingly. It reinforces the Light multi-role forces concept.

What is very apparent is that the brains trust within the NZ Army is dramatically much more muscular and innovative that 20 years ago.

 

[t68]

http://www.army.mil.nz/downloads/pd...170626-future-land-operating-concept-2035.pdf

Discussion of any future NZ Army kit has to be filtered through the lens of the above FLOC document.

FLOC recognises that the NZ Army will be operating increasingly urbanised environments and amongst the littorals and needs to be shaped accordingly. It reinforces the Light multi-role forces concept.

What is very apparent is that the brains trust within the NZ Army is dramatically much more muscular and innovative that 20 years ago.

Agree, the 2016 DCP states " how to replace or modernise the Pinzgauer and NZLAV fleets" the being light is part of that kit is NZLAV which entered service in 2003 and which most likely still be in service to around 2040 using the M113 as a guide.

The above future land concepts show that NZ Army is to be light as well as employ "combined Arms capabilities and tactics" and aspires to be as agile to "integrate with partners for expeditionary operations" (5 eyes JATF).

The way I see it warfare in the future is becoming more complex and in a mixture of open and built up areas which will dictate that troops will have to operate under armour more often NZ can enhance the interoperability between NZDF & allies using existing kit for which appears to be a surplus of NZLAV hulls which will increase the combat weight and protection, whilst also at the same time decreasing its burden on more larger and heavier allies with respects to using existing logistical trains.

I also think its inevitable that NZ as part of the JATF will have to look at more heavier rotary airlift options(CH-47) vehicle and equipment are getting heavier not lighter, and to move a company size lift will drain the little resources of RNZAF moving to upgrade or supplement existing kit will have an impact on the lethality and reach of the NZDF, as a modernisation of existing kit I agree with NG about fitting a heavier in-direct fire capability in the short term to existing surplus hulls.