NZLAV and ASLAV are like chalk and cheese plus we already have a large source of spare parts, 20+ of them currently.
New Zealand Army
- Thread starter Whiskyjack
- Start date
-
- Tags
- army artilery gunner new zealand sas
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Unlikely, the ASLAV and NZLAV are different vehicles. The ASLAV is based off the LAV-25, has a 205 kW diesel engine and weights ~13.2 tonnes, while the LAVIII has a 260 kW diesel and weights ~4 tonnes more.
Only the electric drive turrets on your AusLav's are compatible with our NZLAV's everything else is diffrent ie power train, engine body etc.
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
If a MLU of the current NZLAV fleet is approved and the Canadian LAV 6 upgrade path is chosen that would be a fantastic opportunity for the NZ Army.
Starting with those stored 20 hulls they could be sent via container ship to Halifax, from where they departed originally, and then railed to London Ontario. These initial hulls could be transformed into the desired specialist units such as four ambulance, four mortar carrier, and IMHO twelve turretless units that would fit the C130 as infantry section carriers. These would then return to NZ while the next tranche are shipped north.
This is an opportunity to right size the fleet and improve the survivability and lethality of the overall NZDF. AS Ngati has suggested a portion of the upgrade should receive the 105mm turret to allow direct fire support.
Since these units are paid for maybe a number could be de-turreted for internal use by police across the country. Could there be an advantage to using these surplus turrets in fixed mounts for training on the ranges at Wairou?
Starting with those stored 20 hulls they could be sent via container ship to Halifax, from where they departed originally, and then railed to London Ontario. These initial hulls could be transformed into the desired specialist units such as four ambulance, four mortar carrier, and IMHO twelve turretless units that would fit the C130 as infantry section carriers. These would then return to NZ while the next tranche are shipped north.
This is an opportunity to right size the fleet and improve the survivability and lethality of the overall NZDF. AS Ngati has suggested a portion of the upgrade should receive the 105mm turret to allow direct fire support.
Since these units are paid for maybe a number could be de-turreted for internal use by police across the country. Could there be an advantage to using these surplus turrets in fixed mounts for training on the ranges at Wairou?
The problem with the LAVs and hercules is more to do with weight and usable flying distance then fitting it inside, a downside of being downside is everywhere else is far away.
I would like to see some of the removed turrets mounted onto adapted armoured 20ft ISO containers C/W their own power system, ammo storage etc for ground mount roles such as long term security ie Bamiyan, Timor outposts, VCPs etc. Along with the optics and firepower you'll have yourself one badass sentry post at the main gate, perimeter and similar and alot easier, quicker, mobile and protected etc than building a sanger or digging in a gunpit.
Can be driven to the range and set up as I highly doubt they would fix them out there for security reasons when not in use. Benefits of mounting them on ISOs is that they are then intermodal and can be easily transported on truck, train, ship etc alongside other standard containers in the system for ease of deployability and recovery and at a stretch could even be utilised as is off the MAN EPLS trucks or similar with little preparation
A few of the turrets could go to the sim centres to be mounted for realistic training aids and a couple to TTS for tech/maint training as the turret itself arguably holds a good majority of the systems.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Makes work for the designs of the ISO containerized weapons system, and then the metal workers responsible for fabricating it? Then by extension, it would also provide work to the suppliers of the metal used to fabricate the container and then armour it.
The possible advantage is actually using the turrets that will become even more surplus than the surplus NZLAV we have now if and when they decide to re-role into variants that do not require the turrets such as mortars, HQ etc and ones that actually cannot have them such as ambos.
We only sent 9 NZLAV to Afghan so abit in short supply for just a gate sentry plus an ISO is universal and therefore actually easier to send to place via either ours or our allies means, seal it up and send on its way, no driver required.
Also going off history we don't actually send NZLAV to all missions, which is an understatement, but we always have a main base at least and base security is important, no reason to send an expensive LAV just to park up static for 6 months.
There are already a few systems that are designed for this type of work mainly in anti-mortar/rocket defence that are static and do not require a host vehicle, this would just be an added layer and for us an actual improvment in most instances, for example we were in Bamiyan for a decade with NZLAV only showing up with its firepower in the last year or so.
Just rather see the excess turrets put to use rather than mothball as if we can't even seem to move complete excess vehicles we are definately going to struggle with excees turrets.
So you are going to design and build a tiny number of bespoke armoured containers with some form of pop-up turret mechanis, and you see this as more useful and economical than simply using the vehicles that already exist?
I’m not sure you’ve thought this one through.
I’m not sure you’ve thought this one through.
Don't need to there are already companies that build armoured containers based on ISO specs already as personnel transport, cargo transport and accomodation that are already wired for power and have storage pre built in to any number of specifications you want. ISOs come in varying sizes including height, I've never suggested a pop up turret, that would be like having a pop up NZLAV turret, why when you can merely mount it on top like normal? How expensive do you think a turret, a complete NZLAV and a container are individually or are you suggesting an armoured container would cost as much as even a turretless LAV?
Yes, actually I have thought about this, hence the suggestion.
Last edited:
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
I have to agree with Raven on this.
Reg - kudos for thinking outside of the square (to employ potentially redundant turrets), but surely that "containerisation" concept could be developed a lot simpler with a standard heavy caliber weapon (12mm or .5" etc) and with additional standard sighting/thermal/EO "add-ons" etc?
As I thought one of the turrets advantages is that it provides a stabalised firing platform for a LAV on the move - which surely is overkill for a static container setup (i.e. it could be done cheaply, if at all, with something less complex as a turret)? And perhaps smaller for ease of transportation by airlift or heavy helo lift etc.
Personally I'd rather the money (if the money tree could be shaken loose) is spent for the NZ Army to purchase counter-mortar systems (eg land based CIWS or whatever the current US Army thinking is at) to defend forward operating bases, which is kind of what you are suggesting in terms of a high-tech weapon system, but optimised for an area that we are vulnerable.
Reg - kudos for thinking outside of the square (to employ potentially redundant turrets), but surely that "containerisation" concept could be developed a lot simpler with a standard heavy caliber weapon (12mm or .5" etc) and with additional standard sighting/thermal/EO "add-ons" etc?
As I thought one of the turrets advantages is that it provides a stabalised firing platform for a LAV on the move - which surely is overkill for a static container setup (i.e. it could be done cheaply, if at all, with something less complex as a turret)? And perhaps smaller for ease of transportation by airlift or heavy helo lift etc.
Personally I'd rather the money (if the money tree could be shaken loose) is spent for the NZ Army to purchase counter-mortar systems (eg land based CIWS or whatever the current US Army thinking is at) to defend forward operating bases, which is kind of what you are suggesting in terms of a high-tech weapon system, but optimised for an area that we are vulnerable.
The turret would have to be pop up, otherwise it would not be an ISO container - it would be too tall. Stick the turret on top, and you won’t be able to transport it like an ISO container, in which case there is no point putting it into an ISO at all. If you look at all the containerised weapon systems you will notice that everything is internal/pop-up, otherwise it entirely defeats the purpose.
And yes, engineering a container to take a DELCO turret would be very difficult and expensive, particularly if you were only doing it for a couple of systems. For example, how do you engineer the rigidity in the turret ring to maintain reliability in the traverse and withstand the shock of firing over a wide arc? How then do you make this all pop-up (or the rest pop-down?). The certification alone would be a nightmare.
And of course, this is all hedged on the assumption that such a system would be useful for expeditionary base defence. Personally I can’t think of too many places where having a static 25mm would have been too useful. Overkill for the vast majority of cases and irrelevant for the rest - as the enemy will simply attack somewhere it is not, knowing it can’t move.
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
Getting back to the 105 mm turret upgrade, given the fact Usa have had major issues with the stryker mgs , basically a lav 3 turreted 105mm, having real issues with the damage done to it from recoil and accuracy,what has been done since to improve this?
The cost of upgrading several of those lav 3 to that 105 mm version, as opposed to buying a dedicated ,proven SPG or even buying several main battle tanks like the Abrams our aussie neighbours use? Though the rest of the Lav 6.0 upgrade i agree with.
Cockerill have a 105mm turret specifically designed for wheeled vehicles such as the LAV. IIRC it comes with a low pressure variant. It is being fitted to new build Saudi LAV at the moment by GDLS Canada. A major problem the US have with their 105mm Stryker is the automatic loader. Also the Stryker is an earlier model of the LAV.
ISO containers already come in different heights, half and 3 quarter heights, the ISO more applies to the footprint and connectability but even then I've seen comms modules with frames built around the sensitive equipment on top that allow them to still be stackable albeit with weight restrictions, not that its a requirement as something always needs to go on top anyway so why not this particular container. Fuel pods also come in half and 3 quarter heights to keep COG low and again inside an ISO frame to stack if required. None of our assets double stack containers anyway barr maybe the new tanker ship. For NZDF the main standardisation for containers is being able to lock them onto truck decks, racks and inside/on naval vessels, again at the base. I've never even seen an instance in my career where we have stacked containers anyway other than empty ones for storage and you can't move them around on trucks stacked so not exactly a general requirement.
If they can engineer a revolving radar into a container then why not a revolving turret and if they can engineer it to pop up as you say then surely for it to just sit there is an even easier mod as half the job (and arguably the more technical) of "popping up" is negated. Stanflex and patria nemo amongst others use standerdised containers as modes of transport so the concept is not actually new or as mind boggling as you think and if it can handle a 120mm mortar turret then I'm pretty sure a 25mm bushmaster is still doable on the old engineerring scale.
Any weapon system can be overkill in any situation until you need to use it but luckily it also has a co-axial 7.62 if you a feeling frugal and want to keep detterrance to a minimum, and therein is the point, convincing the enemy not to attack somewhere it is, ie your base, which as you say also cannot move.
Cost effectiveness is relevant as in we will already own these turrets, like we already own 20 "surplus" vehicles due to lack of use but unlike their vehicle mounted versions they are actually not much use without a base of some description, vehicle or other, so any removed turrets from any re-roled vehicles are literally wasted money. 20 surplus NZLAVs + 10-15 surplus turrets is an even bigger waste of resources than just 20 surplus NZLAVs so why not at least use them for area defence, training, naval mounting etc and unless someone would like to just buy some turrets by themselves and not a vehicle then perhaps a mounted version is more sellable as in it's current form does not seem to be selling like hotcakes anyway.
Last edited:
Hey Reg you forgot something.
Last edited by a moderator:
As what I know about Military Tatics and hardware can be written on the edge of a postage stamp .I suggest that some of the surplus LAV 's be stored in the Northern part of Australia.
My reasoning is that that :A: they can be used for training in a different environment.
B: if Australia for one reason or another has a low level conflict in that area (climate change, poaching etc),and requests assistance,the crews can be transported across be air to ready positioned equipment .
C: it may stop some politicians bleating on about NZ not doing anything .
Feel free to shoot me down .As I mentioned I have no expertise.
Ah sorry, fat fingers on phone, was just gonna like the anti-mortar system as I agree for similar reasoning.
Actually when I was in that was an idea floating around to save lugging them backwards and forwards on seemingly regular occasions nowadays, wether or not it was an idea that came from on high or amongst the tussock is another story.
Seems to have merit though as sitting here or sitting there at least they get used and frees up alot of space on CY for other trades. Could also be a great posting for at least a few maintainers or perhaps longterm QAMR Aus exchangers.
It makes even more sense when you account for a reduced load on airlift as well as Canterbury to move more important things. One of the reasons the Skyhawks did not participate in East Timor was the lack of airlift even with 5 Hercules and a 727 operational at the time - they were busy moving a couple of M113's and Iroquois from NZ and couldn't be spared to make it over to Malaysia (?) where they were exercising at the time.
With the US moving marines to Australia, perhaps a small base would be appropriate to enable participation and training in a variety of things in the long term.