New Zealand Army

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Nothing of the sort we had a budget and had to remain within it, didnt matter if it was MAN or new Unimogs or any other brand Army would not of got a one for one replacement without tagging onto another Countries purchase.

CD
I'm quite sure Australia would be happy for NZ to tag onto our purchase if they needed more
 

RegR

Well-Known Member
I've always thought the MAN fleet was a little on the small side, 194 vehicles to replace a fleet which once had 622 MOG's and 228 2228/41's.

Was this another case of quality over quantity? Like the 8 NH90 replacing 13 Huey's?
The MANs are not replacing the entire fleet, they are the operational portion, a lesser specced (and ultimately more cost effective) fleet will cover the remainder as milspec is not always required for our day to day tasks and in some cases actually impractical as for many tasks the "civilian" equivalent is in fact more usable at half the cost and training and cheaper to maintain and repair.

The garrison fleet will address this requirement over time and in phases much like the NMV fleet (currently mitsi tritons) augmented/replaced the landrovers/pinzgauers in non operational roles. Defence uses models such as leasing and renting on set contracts alot more now to avoid the capital outlay and shift some of the burden of ownership and inevitably as modern tech, capabilty and reliability improve the numbers required adjust accordingly.

Much like the NH90s (we were never going to replace 1 for 1) they can take twice the payload further, quicker, more easily and can re-role more readily so obviously we will not need as many also the army, along with navy and air force is not the same beast as it was in the 80s and many capabilities have either downsized, re-orged or disappeared alltogether, vehicle fleet requirements are no different.
 

KiwiRob

Well-Known Member
Much like the NH90s (we were never going to replace 1 for 1) they can take twice the payload further, quicker, more easily and can re-role more readily so obviously we will not need as many also the army, along with navy and air force is not the same beast as it was in the 80s and many capabilities have either downsized, re-orged or disappeared alltogether, vehicle fleet requirements are no different.
8 HN90's can't be in all the same places at the same time as 13 Hueys, nor can 2 frigates do the same job as the 4 previous frigates.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
You are right there Rob and there is a point where quantity does have a quality of it's own. My own POV is that the NH-90s are definitely 2 light and the frigates 1 light, with those numbers being minimum numbers. However until the pollies get a dose of the screaming diarrhoea caused by fear, significant increased funding for NZDF isn't going to happen.
 

kiwipatriot69

Active Member
Are you saying under the 20 Billion capital spend up were supposed to be doing, there's not enough to fund for an extra frigate and a couple of NH90 along with crewing them? It seems they are skimping on the deal already, buying second hand dive support vessels for starters, and dragging their feet over the C130 replacement, which should have been well and truly sorted by now.
 

TheRedDwarf

New Member
- an upgrade to a portion of the LAVIII fleet

Has anyone else heard of any progress in the past year?
Hello.

In relation to the element quoted above, the first set of business cases for the 'Protected Mobility' project are in the process of being constructed and/or being presented by defence procurement. As is noted on the 'Protected Mobility' case page on the Ministry of Defence website, the project roadmap is as follows;

"
The project’s three phases allow for new capabilities to be introduced at a rate the New Zealand Army can assimilate.

  • Phase 1: 2018/2019 to 2020/2021: equip at least a Light Task Group
  • Phase 2: 2021/2022 to 2023/2024: equip a Combined-Arms Task Group
  • Phase 3: 2026/2027 to 2028/2029: upgrade or potentially replace a number of Light Armored Vehicles.
The project is currently in the Capability Definition phase for phase one. A detailed business case for the initial phase of the project – to equip at least a Light Task Group – may be able to be considered by Cabinet in early 2019. In conjunction, planning for acquisition and introduction into service is underway.
"


Note that the project is termed 'Protected Mobility', indicating that the project is not LAV-centric in nature, but rather aims to examine the replacement/upgrade options for the Army's combat vehicle fleet as a holistic whole. Moreover, both the Defence Force and Army have made it abundantly clear that the ostensible (read:ideal) outcome of the project is the introduction of a varied fleet of vehicles, so superseding the current binary doctrine in favour of flexibility, likely at the cost of frames.

From my viewpoint, it is highly likely that the present operational LAV III fleet will be entirely upgraded to the 6.0 standard, with the Pinzgauer fleet being gradually supplanted by a mixed selection of Hawkei and Bushmaster, or perhaps some variation of Iveco IMV. But that is by nature speculative.

Ideally, we would like to see the LAV fleet be reorganised as follows; upgrade seventy-five percent of the present operational fleet to LAV 6.0 standard, with roughly a quarter of that fleet being converted to the new CSV standard. The remaining twenty-five percent of the 'vanilla' LAV III fleet would either be sold, or as is more likely stored as frames for spare parts. We would then attempt to create a "heavy" mechanised element, comprised of Boxer CRVs in a quantity roughly equal to the proportion of LAV III's in storage, with our order 'piggy-backing' off that for the ADF. Configuration of the Boxer Fleet would likely remain altogether similar to that so far chosen by the Australians in relation to armament, with the Australian-centric features largely being removed. Additionally, as part of the order, a number of modular pods for ambulance, C2, and generic troop carrying would be procured as required.

How the would integrate in regards to FLOC, and operational frameworks is best left to the imagination, as we do not believe that such a project would be "publicly" tenable, shall we say. The proper application of Occam's Razor acts as another check on my idea, unfortunately.

Cheers,

TRD.
 
Last edited:

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
@TheRedDwarf whilst I agree with you, unfortunately the denizens who occupy the 9th floor of the Beehive, aka Cabinet, and other assorted pollies will find a way to stuff things up. Until Kiwi pollies accept that NZDF is chronically under resourced, hollowed out by 30 years of under funding, requires a capital injection of ~NZ$25 - 30 billion to update it and stand up lost capabilities, and requires minimum annual net funding of 2% GDP, NZDF is always going to remain hollowed out and continually struggling on life support.
 

old faithful

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Has New Zealand ever sent a team to the annual warrior competition in Jordon held every year for special forces.?
I don't know. But I would doubt it very much.
There dosnt seem anything to really gain from it.
Nobody is going to show their tactics properly on a stage like that, so not much to be learned from anyone.
And SF is not an Olympic sport.....so, I can't see Aust or NZ , or the Brits or Delta attending....
 

steve33

Member
I don't know. But I would doubt it very much.
There dosnt seem anything to really gain from it.
Nobody is going to show their tactics properly on a stage like that, so not much to be learned from anyone.
And SF is not an Olympic sport.....so, I can't see Aust or NZ , or the Brits or Delta attending....
Yes thats what i thought i went through the teams that had been listed on the website and there was no SAS from any of the 3 nations or SBS and no SEALS,Delta force or 75th ranger regiment.

The Canadians special ops enter a lot and got 3rd i think last year and the Australians on one occasion sent a Commando regiment team but that is all.

Marine Force recon won it in approx 2010.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
I don't know. But I would doubt it very much.
There dosnt seem anything to really gain from it.
Nobody is going to show their tactics properly on a stage like that, so not much to be learned from anyone.
And SF is not an Olympic sport.....so, I can't see Aust or NZ , or the Brits or Delta attending....
Sounds like something Hollywood would invent as their take on how SF works.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
150 NZ troops have just completed a two week exercise at the US Army Joint Readiness Training Centre (JRTC) in Fort Polk with 4,400 US Troops.
"Operating as part of a US Army battalion, the NZDF troops were supported by a range of aircraft including B-52 bombers, F-22 stealth tactical fighter aircraft, unmanned aerial surveillance vehicles, AH-64 Apache attack helicopters and CH-47 Chinook transport helicopters."

NZDF and US troops train in land combat – New Zealand Defence Force – Medium
 

steve33

Member
150 NZ troops have just completed a two week exercise at the US Army Joint Readiness Training Centre (JRTC) in Fort Polk with 4,400 US Troops.
"Operating as part of a US Army battalion, the NZDF troops were supported by a range of aircraft including B-52 bombers, F-22 stealth tactical fighter aircraft, unmanned aerial surveillance vehicles, AH-64 Apache attack helicopters and CH-47 Chinook transport helicopters."

NZDF and US troops train in land combat – New Zealand Defence Force – Medium
Great to see our people getting those opportunities will do so much for our army.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
A really interesting article that explains the culture of and within the NZ Army, why it is the Ngāti Tumatauenga "Tribe of the God of War" and is an explanation of the wider culture of NZDF. The other two services are respectively RNZAF: Te Tauaarangi o Aotearoa "New Zealand Warriors of the Sky" and the RNZN: Te Taua Moana o Aotearoa, "Warriors of the Sea of New Zealand" although both do have marae (an open sacred place in the front of a meeting house, but also used colloquially to mean the whole area including the meeting house, kitchens, dining ares etc). Although personally my view is that the RNZAF should be Ngāti Ranginui, and the RNZN Ngāti Tangaroa, with Ranginui being the Sky Father and Tangaroa the God of the Sea. May happen one day, but then again my opinion is biased.

When the NZ Army became an iwi
 

steve33

Member
The MARS-L Rifle is rubbish - Cracked uppers, Broken Firing Pins, and at 5.7kg it weighs 700 grams more that the 7.62 mm L1AI SLR - LMC saw the NZDF coming and made a real killing

Someone made this comment on you tube is this an accurate assessment of the Mars rifle purchased by the NZDF it really surprised me to hear this from my understanding the NZDF took a lot of time trying different systems before they purchased the MARS.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The MARS-L Rifle is rubbish - Cracked uppers, Broken Firing Pins, and at 5.7kg it weighs 700 grams more that the 7.62 mm L1AI SLR - LMC saw the NZDF coming and made a real killing

Someone made this comment on you tube is this an accurate assessment of the Mars rifle purchased by the NZDF it really surprised me to hear this from my understanding the NZDF took a lot of time trying different systems before they purchased the MARS.
Trouble with social media is there is no way of verifying the validity of claims made. Is the person who made the claim a serving member of NZDF? Personally I wouldn't give the claim any credence until the person who made the claim provides independent verifiable evidence.
 

RegR

Well-Known Member
Trouble with social media is there is no way of verifying the validity of claims made. Is the person who made the claim a serving member of NZDF? Personally I wouldn't give the claim any credence until the person who made the claim provides independent verifiable evidence.
You'll tend to find though even some serving pers will make some rubbish claims off even a single experience purely for the sake of complaining, hard to please everyone. The fact this guy is comparing it to an SLR is also alittle strange considering we have not used that rifle for essentially a generation which either makes him a pretty old serving per, used it a handful of times in the navy or is just going off the brochure but either way comparing red apples to green apples, a NZLAV is also heavier than an M113 but would'nt exactly consider that a valid complaint in the scheme of things either.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
You'll tend to find though even some serving pers will make some rubbish claims off even a single experience purely for the sake of complaining, hard to please everyone. The fact this guy is comparing it to an SLR is also alittle strange considering we have not used that rifle for essentially a generation which either makes him a pretty old serving per, used it a handful of times in the navy or is just going off the brochure but either way comparing red apples to green apples, a NZLAV is also heavier than an M113 but would'nt exactly consider that a valid complaint in the scheme of things either.

well I used both the SLR and F88 in RACT I actually preferred to use the SLR it seemed more comfortable to me, but was a pita when it came to doing my job in transport were the size, but the size of F88 made it less cumbersome in vehicle, and in general use and most appreciated when doing convoy ambush drill
 
Top