New Zealand Army

[ngatimozart]

That essay is a good read and I do agree with its reasoning. I don't agree with the CA's action in censoring it. Yes the NZDF is not a democracy where everyone has equal rights. Some of your rights have been curtailed, but you accept that when you sign up. However your right to a fair hearing and fair treatment, is not curtailed and the CA has treated the essay's author unfairly and unjustly. What makes it even worse is the probability of the decision being politically motivated.

There is nothing wrong in the reasoning and conclusion of the essay apart from the fact that it does not fit in with the political construct that the current government is pushing upon government departments and the country. Whilst that may or may not be a valid or worthy social policy, in the case of the NZDF because of the unique service that its required to perform for the nation, the recruits should be the best regardless of ethnicity, sex, colour, creed, or whatever. They have to be because NZDF is a combat force not a team playing tiddly winks. Every individual who wears the uniform and swears the oath is dependent upon others within their units, services and NZDF for their safety and survival, more often than not in situations where pollies don't have the guts to be anywhere near.

 

[John Fedup]

This is what the essay writer was thinking about (in relation to "wokeness" and defence).

The primary threat of any effort to be more ‘Diverse’ and ‘inclusive’ is opportunity cost. Put simply, every resource that we divert toward programmes aimed at improving Diversity and Inclusion is a resource that is not available to be used for the Army’s only responsibility: to protect New Zealand. Whether that is in preparing for wars or fighting them (or civil defence). Every man-hour that is spent on ‘cultural awareness training’ or similar programmes is a man-hour that is not spent training for combat or monitoring our enemies. How are they spending their man-hours?

The second key area where Diversity and Inclusion could harm our effectiveness is in recruitment. Recruiting based on a concerted effort to increase Diversity necessarily comes at the expense of recruiting the best candidates. If the current policy of (presumably) recruiting the best candidates for their roles does not produce the desired Diversity outcomes, then the conflict is self-evident.

For those outside of NZ, the NZ Public Service (civil servants) and Ministries such as Education and Health ... all the way to the Treasury are undertaking diversity (and cultural) awareness training. Most of this stuff is of course imported, from the likes of the USA (and the radicals that promote it, whom are now part of the establishment) ...

Rest assured NZ isn’t the only country where this “stuff” is being shovelled. It has been going on in Canada for decades.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

Rest assured NZ isn’t the only country where this “stuff” is being shovelled. It has been going on in Canada for decades.

One of the best reads I've had in a while, frankly I think the guy who wrote it deserves to be promoted.

 

[Gibbo]

I had never seen the KEA website. Interesting content.

New Zealand Chief of Army Writing Competition Winner of the Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO) Category: Diversity and Inclusion Threats to the NZ Army's Warrior Ethos and War-Fighting Culture - KEA - Knowledge Enabled Army

New Zealand Chief of Army Writing Competition Winner of the New Zealand Defence Force Civilian Writing Category: Slaughtering Sacred Cows - The NZ Army needs to get real about what it can and cannot do out to 2040 - KEA - Knowledge Enabled Army

Slaughtering Sacred Cows... hmm, 'The NZ Army should do this... the NZ Army should do that, the NZ Army should...." fairly certain that's not how it works! Surely it is the NZ Govt who dictates policy and therefore what roles they want the Army to fulfil!?! The Army can't just decide a strategic direction then expect the Govt to happily stump up the $$$ to make it happen! With both major political parties showing little interest in truly stepping up to the mark on Defence the Army has stuff all sway on how it develops and is effectively stuck where it is due to political indifference.

Totally agree with the points about Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS), Ground Based Air Defence (GBAD), precision loitering munitions and Counter UAS (C-UAS) capabilities as mentioned... the NZDF is still making baby-steps on UAS but is a long way off getting the other 3 key capabilities into play... even the last DCP hasn't really pushed those capabilities other then trying to mature UAS (which most other defence forces seem to have happily done to date, except for NZ).

Maybe the Army itself is part of the problem, I can't speak to that... but to write an article saying the Army stuck in the past and yet is supposedly master of it's own destiny seems to me to me way off the mark! If Army top-brass went to Govt & said they'd like to get rid of Artillery, LAV etc & refocus on COIN / ISTAR... they'd lose those current capabilities in a flash, then face an almost certain drawn-out, long and winding road to procure and bed-in the new capabilities, during which they'd have to navigate changing political landscapes.

 

[Gracie1234]

That was a good read and for me raises a couple of questions:
- What skill set does the NZ Defense need for the future
- What level of resources are required to deliver the outcomes desired
We require a far more diverse skillset for the future and the reality is that these skill sets will require higher pay. Cyber expertise are very well pay jobs and the marketplace is competitive.

 

[OPSSG]

That was a good read and for me raises a couple of questions:

Really, there is much to disagree with in the sense that NZ army, as a brigade minus force, is not properly resourced to fight a war against even a third world army. It is however resourced as a skilled peacekeeping force. The RNZAF was defanged by Aunt Helen, years ago.

- What skill set does the NZ Defense need for the future

If you don’t have the basics in equipment or logistics, your so called war fighting skillset will be and is imaginary. The NZDF is fantastic for a under resourced and skilled force that learns to make do with the limited resources given over the last 20 years.

- What level of resources are required to deliver the outcomes desired

For the army, at the minimum a battalion of modern IFVs or 8x8s and their recovery vehicles (as a tier 3 force); if NZ politicians don’t want to invest in main battle tanks for direct support (as it makes the NZDF too war like). We assume that Australian main battle tanks will be available when you need it.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1410508291281612803

For indirect support, NZDF will also need self-propelled 155mm artillery guns (18 guns), wheeled 120mm mortars (for the mortar platoon in an infantry battalion support company to replace 81mm mortars) and artillery hunting radars along with the corresponding artillery ammo resupply vehicles, if the politicians want a real war fighting capability before talking about logistics. The rate of fire of these guns and mortars are so high that it imposes a tremendous burden on combat logistics that need to be addressed systematically.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1410447817236107266

We require a far more diverse skillset for the future and the reality is that these skill sets will require higher pay. Cyber expertise are very well pay jobs and the marketplace is competitive.

I see cyber is a new funding stream that needs 5 to 6 years of additional funding and not part of existing capability that needs long term investments. Singapore’s 6th Division’s new sense and shoot software is funded differently from cyber (which aims to raise, train and sustain NCOs, for cyberwar and embedded as a force multiplier and are skilled in virtual sandbox defences).

 

[ngatimozart]

Really, there is much to disagree with in the sense that NZ army, as a brigade minus force, is not properly resourced to fight a war against even a third world army. It is however resourced as a skilled peacekeeping force.

And I would argue that focusing upon that skill set is a major mistake. Whilst peacekeeping is an admirable capability, it is not the core tasking of an army. The core tasking of an army is armed combat against an enemy in defence of your country. Anything else is a secondary activity.

If you don’t have the basics in equipment or logistics, your so called war fighting skillset will be and is imaginary. The NZDF is fantastic for a under resourced force that learns to make do.

For the army, at the minimum a battalion of modern IFVs or 8x8s and their recovery vehicles (as a tier 3 force); if NZ politicians don’t want to invest in main battle tanks for direct support (as it makes the NZDF too war like).

The army is structured around light infantry and I have no problem with that. However it has some anachronistic capabilities such as the M119 105mm towed howitzer that don't fit the light forces role. So there are significant changes that have to be made.

For indirect support, NZDF will also need self-propelled 155mm artillery guns (18 guns), wheeled 120mm mortars (for the mortar platoon in an infantry battalion support company to replace 81mm mortars) and artillery hunting radars along with the corresponding artillery ammo resupply vehicles, if the politicians want a real war fighting capability before talking about logistics.

Definitely SP artillery but being a light forces army wanting to move quickly, the SP artillery has to be on 8 x 8 protected vehicles. It also requires SP VSHORAD again on the same vehicles. There are turret mounted capabilities available. For SHORAD CAMM(L) a.k.a., Land Ceptor can be mounted on Rheinmettall 8 x 8 HGV trucks which the army already use. A mobile AESA radar capability would have to be acquired.

I see cyber is a new funding stream that needs 5 to 6 years of additional funding and not part of existing capability that needs long term investments.

Agree about cyber and it needs to happen across NZDF not just within the army.

The army also needs to forget its continental focus - yes it has one, and start focusing on being a maritime army with an amphibious capability with the ability to operate in the maritime environment. It's not chasing the Afrika Korp across the desert or the Wehrmact up the Italian peninsular. It will be fighting on islands and in archipelagoes, some small, some large. Some of its enemies will be peer level and some not, but you always prepare for the next war, not the last.

 

[OPSSG]

@ngatimozart, you may want to look at the Japanese Type 19 Wheeled Self-Propelled 155 mm/52-calibre howitzer, or the French CAESAR 155 mm/52-calibre howitzer — as possible replacements for the dated M119 105mm towed howitzers.

 

[ngatimozart]

@ngatimozart, you may want to look at the Japanese Type 19 Wheeled Self-Propelled 155 mm/52-calibre howitzer, or the French CAESAR 155 mm/52-calibre howitzer — as possible replacements for the dated M119 105mm towed howitzers.

My preference is for the 8 x 8 vehicles such as the GDLS LAV 6 or the Rheinmettall Boxer where a turret gun can be integrated. Most that I have looked at are 105mm or 120mm such as the Italian Centauro BI and BII. By all accounts that is an excellent vehicle. However Rheinmettall have a 155mm option for the Boxer and I remember seeing a couple of other 155mm turrets for these vehicles. I don't think truck based systems are the way to go because there are to many vulnerabilities.

The other point that would have to be discussed is whether the army stays with the 105mm round or moves to the 155mm round. Both have their advantages and disadvantages and my own view is that a light army doesn’t require a heavy round, so maybe 105mm maybe the way to go because it's easier to transport. Light forces by definition move quickly and don't have the large logistical trains of heavy forces.

So in my view we would be looking at a 105mm turret that can be integrated onto maybe the ACV that would be the ideal replacement for the NZ LAV. Since the USMC are now entering the full production cycle of the ACV it is a vehicle that we should very seriously consider.

 

[KiwiRob]

My preference is for the 8 x 8 vehicles such as the GDLS LAV 6 or the Rheinmettall Boxer where a turret gun can be integrated. Most that I have looked at are 105mm or 120mm such as the Italian Centauro BI and BII. By all accounts that is an excellent vehicle. However Rheinmettall have a 155mm option for the Boxer and I remember seeing a couple of other 155mm turrets for these vehicles. I don't think truck based systems are the way to go because there are to many vulnerabilities.

The other point that would have to be discussed is whether the army stays with the 105mm round or moves to the 155mm round. Both have their advantages and disadvantages and my own view is that a light army doesn’t require a heavy round, so maybe 105mm maybe the way to go because it's easier to transport. Light forces by definition move quickly and don't have the large logistical trains of heavy forces.

So in my view we would be looking at a 105mm turret that can be integrated onto maybe the ACV that would be the ideal replacement for the NZ LAV. Since the USMC are now entering the full production cycle of the ACV it is a vehicle that we should very seriously consider.

Couldn't we rebuild some of the LAV's to M1128 Mobile Gun System Spec? We have surplus vehicle, I don't know whjy the govt won't make use of them.

 

[old faithful]

Couldn't we rebuild some of the LAV's to M1128 Mobile Gun System Spec? We have surplus vehicle, I don't know whjy the govt won't make use of them.

View attachment 48331

Rob, the gun that the M1128 uses, is not an artillery piece like the Hammel. It's not designed to be used as SPG. It fires 4 types of ammo, a kinetic anti tank round, a HEAT round, a canister round (think 105mm shotgun) and a bunker busting round. It's more of a direct fire gun, not a SP Arty gun.

 

[Shanesworld]

Rob, the gun that the M1128 uses, is not an artillery piece like the Hammel. It's not designed to be used as SPG. It fires 4 types of ammo, a kinetic anti tank round, a HEAT round, a canister round (think 105mm shotgun) and a bunker busting round. It's more of a direct fire gun, not a SP Arty gun.

M1128 had a number of reliability issues and is scheduled for retirement 2022.
We will likely be selling a number of nzlavs and several systems on the remaining fleet will be needing replacement soon as they have not had some components made for some time.

 

[ngatimozart]

M1128 had a number of reliability issues and is scheduled for retirement 2022.
We will likely be selling a number of nzlavs and several systems on the remaining fleet will be needing replacement soon as they have not had some components made for some time.

The other thing that we need to think about is what to do about the NZ LAV? If it has a MU then the 25mm gun in the turret should be upgraded to 30mm or if the NZ LAV is replaced then the gun in the turret should be 30mm.

With the 30mm gun we should go with the Rheinmettall 30mm gun because it's the same one that the Aussie Army’s using in its Boxer CRV and probably in its upcoming IFV competition. The Aussies have a licence from Rheinmettall to manufacture the ammo for the guns in Australia. They have also negotiated a licence with the Israelis to manufacture the Spike LR missile in Australia. Therefore it would make sense for us to use both the Rheinmettall 30mm cannon and the Spike LR ATGM because we our resupply source is just across the ditch, instead of across the Pacific.

 

[OldTex]

So in my view we would be looking at a 105mm turret that can be integrated onto maybe the ACV that would be the ideal replacement for the NZ LAV. Since the USMC are now entering the full production cycle of the ACV it is a vehicle that we should very seriously consider.

At this stage the USMC is only contracting BAE to develop 4 versions of the ACV 1.1, being the ACV-P (personnel carrier), ACV-C (command), ACV-30 (medium calibre weapon) and ACV-R (maintenance & recovery). While that does not preclude the development of a large calibre weapon variant, in all likelihood it would be a direct fire support equivalent to the Stryker MGS (M1128), which the US Army has started to remove from the SBCTs. The only vehicle being produced and developed with the possibility of a SPG version would be the Boxer AFAIK. I am not sure of the amphibious capability of the Boxer , as opposed to its swim capability (the difference being open water vs river crossing) so I am not sure if Boxer would be suited to your preferred focus for NZ Army to be "on being a maritime army with an amphibious capability with the ability to operate in the maritime environment."
But if the political will and the financial capacity are not there then it will all come to naught. The redraft of the DCP, which DEFMIN has told the parliamentary committee on foreign affairs, defence and trade will happen, might change the goalposts completely.

 

[KiwiRob]

M1128 had a number of reliability issues and is scheduled for retirement 2022.
We will likely be selling a number of nzlavs and several systems on the remaining fleet will be needing replacement soon as they have not had some components made for some time.

We've had a bunch of LAV's for sale for quite some time, nobody wants them, so we should find other uses fore them, motor carrier is another version of the Stryker.

 

[t68]

The other thing that we need to think about is what to do about the NZ LAV? If it has a MU then the 25mm gun in the turret should be upgraded to 30mm or if the NZ LAV is replaced then the gun in the turret should be 30mm.

With the 30mm gun we should go with the Rheinmettall 30mm gun because it's the same one that the Aussie Army’s using in its Boxer CRV and probably in its upcoming IFV competition. The Aussies have a licence from Rheinmettall to manufacture the ammo for the guns in Australia. They have also negotiated a licence with the Israelis to manufacture the Spike LR missile in Australia. Therefore it would make sense for us to use both the Rheinmettall 30mm cannon and the Spike LR ATGM because we our resupply source is just across the ditch, instead of across the Pacific.

Yep I agree with all that, but I would hope you will have enough in storage that we could both leverage of each other if the brown stuff hit the fan

It’s a commodity that should be used and training with intensively to keep stock up and fresh at all times

Nothing as demoralising as not have enough to train with for live fire, been there done that.

 

[Shanesworld]

We've had a bunch of LAV's for sale for quite some time, nobody wants them, so we should find other uses fore them, motor carrier is another version of the Stryker.

Hmmmmm....... Personally I am against it. End of the year I would guess.

 

[ngatimozart]

At this stage the USMC is only contracting BAE to develop 4 versions of the ACV 1.1, being the ACV-P (personnel carrier), ACV-C (command), ACV-30 (medium calibre weapon) and ACV-R (maintenance & recovery). While that does not preclude the development of a large calibre weapon variant, in all likelihood it would be a direct fire support equivalent to the Stryker MGS (M1128), which the US Army has started to remove from the SBCTs. The only vehicle being produced and developed with the possibility of a SPG version would be the Boxer AFAIK. I am not sure of the amphibious capability of the Boxer , as opposed to its swim capability (the difference being open water vs river crossing) so I am not sure if Boxer would be suited to your preferred focus for NZ Army to be "on being a maritime army with an amphibious capability with the ability to operate in the maritime environment."
But if the political will and the financial capacity are not there then it will all come to naught. The redraft of the DCP, which DEFMIN has told the parliamentary committee on foreign affairs, defence and trade will happen, might change the goalposts completely.

Ok, thanks I had thought that they'd gone into LRIP. It doesn't matter so much what turrets the USMC have because we can stipulate our own turrets or we could go to the original manufacturer which is Ivenco in Italy. Nowadays the turret rings are generally standardised and you're quite able to mix and match. The Ivenco ACV is in service with the Italian Marines. WRT a large gun turret, a Cockerell turret could be one solution. Yes it does cost extra for integration, but its worth it for the capability.

 

[ngatimozart]

I have posted this in ADF thread but it is equally applicable to NZ

This is an article by Jim Molan that is really worth the read and he discusses the threat facing Australia and what is required to be done to prepare to meet those threats. It's more than just ships, planes, and tanks. He discusses how ill prepared Australia was in 1939, as was NZ, betting the farm on Fortress Singapore and British promises.

Shaping a Response to Australia's Threat Landscape | Defense.info

I am immensely proud that the Morrison government has done more for defence and security than any other government since the end of the Vietnam War, much of that is due to the PM himself. The last years of the Howard government were meaningful for defence but Labor blew that away before it could...

defense.info

 

[ngatimozart]

At this stage the USMC is only contracting BAE to develop 4 versions of the ACV 1.1, being the ACV-P (personnel carrier), ACV-C (command), ACV-30 (medium calibre weapon) and ACV-R (maintenance & recovery). While that does not preclude the development of a large calibre weapon variant, in all likelihood it would be a direct fire support equivalent to the Stryker MGS (M1128), which the US Army has started to remove from the SBCTs. The only vehicle being produced and developed with the possibility of a SPG version would be the Boxer AFAIK. I am not sure of the amphibious capability of the Boxer , as opposed to its swim capability (the difference being open water vs river crossing) so I am not sure if Boxer would be suited to your preferred focus for NZ Army to be "on being a maritime army with an amphibious capability with the ability to operate in the maritime environment."
But if the political will and the financial capacity are not there then it will all come to naught. The redraft of the DCP, which DEFMIN has told the parliamentary committee on foreign affairs, defence and trade will happen, might change the goalposts completely.

I just happen to be doing some research and came this. The ACV is in full rate of production and has been since last December. They still appeared to have some problems with it though.

US Marine Corps’ amphibious combat vehicle reaches full-rate production

The Marine Corps is moving its new amphibious combat vehicle into full-rate production.

www.defensenews.com