New Zealand Army

[Rob c]

Also everytime we have operated a one off fleet of equipement it turns out expensive! just look at the Seasprites expensive to operate/repair should have purchased Seahawks.

First of all, Helicopter's are an totally different from land vehicle's, the comparison is not reliant. The second problem is the way the government does it accounting, which discriminates against capital expenditure with the capital charge. However operational costs do not incur this extra charge so are more acceptable. Seems crazy I know but anything in the ''bean counter'' world is not necessary logic to us mere mortals.

 

[recce.k1]

What I'm saying is we should buy the same support vehicles as the Australians not a completely different make/model that has to have a seperate logistics tail when there is an Aust/Pacific hub setup already operating now! setting up a new small support system will again cost more in the long run

What's the status of Hawkei production currently (i.e. mechanical issues recently alluded to by AusGov and production timelines)?

Might have to wait until the MoD or DefMin proactively releases the Cabinet Decision docs to get a clearer understanding of why Vamtac ST5 UV-Light was chosen.

Just guessing but for example perhaps the ST5's modularity was a feature the Army wanted? The ST5 is also lighter but so is its payload capacity.

Judging by the lack of extra information released on variants at this stage, again just guessing but going by numbers (40 ordered) suggest the CK3 UV-Medium may be the general service vehicle variant (e.g. geared towards domestic use or SW Pacific governmental/HADR support) or at least a proportion of them.

The tender documents as mentioned above talks about:
-48 two-door general service vehicles possessing a removable troop carrier module.
-24 command/command post vehicles of either two- or four-door configuration
-Approx 20 C2 forward information support team vehicles.
-16 four-door maintenance support vehicles
-Approx 12 two-door ambulances able to accommodate two stretchers.

This just announced procurement (tranche one) is earmarked to replace 25% of the current fleet, so there will be forthcoming opportunties to procure additonal vehicle/types that are fit for purpose for the above requirements and perhaps with additional scope to enhance direct interoperability with the ADF. If so, as an exercise, what could these potentially be?

 

[RegR]

Also the NH90's are now an orphan fleet in this part of the world and expensive to opperate! so will end up being an expensive option now the Australians have gone back to Blackhawks and Airbus are useless for supplying spares.
Also everytime we have operated a one off fleet of equipement it turns out expensive! just look at the Seasprites expensive to operate/repair should have purchased Seahawks.

So ironically both of those examples are exactly why/how we are in th position we find ourselves in today, we followed Australia's lead. We aqquired both seasprites and NH90 because essentially Australia did so where are these cost benefits you speak of? Some would say the complete opposite has happened and it's actually cost us more in the long term, not as much as our Australian brothers but for little old NZ it's very relative. We cannot afford Australia's luxury of swapping out fleets wholesale.

And most likely by the time our new fleet of vehicles will be fully operational Australia will no doubt be looking towards the g wagon replacement and we will again find ourselves literally chasing our own tail anyway. The problem we had with the pinzgauer is that we procured a new model, even our own model, at the end cycle of the vehicles lifespan then the company was sold and discontinued. Its not a case of being expensive to operate its become expensive to maintain as there are no more spare parts being made so just like the seasprite they eventually become hard to get as time goes by and supplies are exhausted.

This is why one of the stipulations were that the vehicle needed x amount of numbers in current service with x amount of operation and from what I have read the Aus g wagons are not as reliable as their govt makes out (shock!) so perhaps our govt has actually taken this onboard instead of blindly following down the rabbit hole? again.

 

[chis73]

I guess what surprises me the most about this vehicle tender is the apparent lack of UV-M artillery tractor variants for towing the L119 105mm light guns. Urovesa even make a special artillery tractor variant (see this video - link) with a double cab (large enough to take the 6 crew) and enough space to carry a limited amount of ready use ammunition in the back. Perhaps the UV-L ST5 variants are supposed to be used for this role (like the Americans use M1152 & M1097 Humvees)?

I don't see any up-armoured weapons carrier variants requested either (the ones that look most like the HMMWV). I still think there is a necessity for a lighter 4x4 IED/mine-protected patrol vehicle (something like the Hawkei or the British Foxhound/Ocelot) for overseas peacekeeping operations. Bushmaster would seem overly large.

Also, I'm wondering, given the low numbers (basically half the size of the existing fleet of Pinzgauers & Unimogs) - what are the reserve units supposed to be using? Their feet? Bicycles (ding, ding!)? These UV-L & UV-M vehicles would seem ideal for reserve units to have on hand for regional disaster relief efforts & weekend exercises.

 

[RegR]

I guess what surprises me the most about this vehicle tender is the apparent lack of UV-M artillery tractor variants for towing the L119 105mm light guns. Urovesa even make a special artillery tractor variant (see this video - link) with a double cab (large enough to take the 6 crew) and enough space to carry a limited amount of ready use ammunition in the back. Perhaps the UV-L ST5 variants are supposed to be used for this role (like the Americans use M1152 & M1097 Humvees)?

I don't see any up-armoured weapons carrier variants requested either (the ones that look most like the HMMWV). I still think there is a necessity for a lighter 4x4 IED/mine-protected patrol vehicle (something like the Hawkei or the British Foxhound/Ocelot) for overseas peacekeeping operations. Bushmaster would seem overly large.

Also, I'm wondering, given the low numbers (basically half the size of the existing fleet of Pinzgauers & Unimogs) - what are the reserve units supposed to be using? Their feet? Bicycles (ding, ding!)? These UV-L & UV-M vehicles would seem ideal for reserve units to have on hand for regional disaster relief efforts & weekend exercises.

Still early days yet WRT variants (these alone are not due until 2027) so plenty of time, scope and opportunity for tweaking to suit. I actually like the look of those armoured weapons carriers as for me using a bushmaster for that purpose is alittle overkill and somewhat waste of a vehicle ie too big. I have no doubt armoured variants and artillery tractors are in the mix (gunners are actually still using the mogs atm) for future tranches which at this rate could still be years away...cough cough hurry up govt!! I get the feeling those pics provided are stock images more for reference only as I remember when the pinz were first announced they actually showed 4x4 versions which obviously we didn't get anyway.

An even better upgrade would be a self propelled option ala archer...hint hint govt!!

 

[RegR]

Also, I'm wondering, given the low numbers (basically half the size of the existing fleet of Pinzgauers & Unimogs) - what are the reserve units supposed to be using? Their feet? Bicycles (ding, ding!)? These UV-L & UV-M vehicles would seem ideal for reserve units to have on hand for regional disaster relief efforts & weekend exercises.

Also tbf the reserves didnt actually have their own organic pinzgauer either other than the reserve tankie recon unit in Hamilton with their 4 armoured pinz. They generally just had 6 or so unimogs as well as a few 1300 ambos in each battallion alongside NMVs and the odd support vehicle (hilux, hiace etc). Under the new structure instead of working as an independant Bn group as such each locations individual trades more come under the umbrella of their regional parent corps and as such intergrate and train more with their RF counterparts using their equipment more, including fleet vehicles. In a way makes sense to train with those you will be rounding out and using their SME logistics much like on any deployment.

 

[kiwi in exile]

re talk of NZ peacekeepers in ukraine

"peacekeeping" is perhaps not the right term. Its is not peacekeeping as we have seen in the SW pacific 'benign strategic environment' of the past 3 decadses. It is more acting as a deterrent for the possible start of WW3, the European scenario that was planned for during the cold war.

While our hearts are always in the right place we lack the ppl, equipment and training for this mission.
As someone has commented, we risk being 'one hit wonders'

They might even have to ride with others, since the Bushmasters were not ready and the LAVs he witnessed used in Afghanistan were more than 20 years old.

The NZDF told RNZ the "urgent purchase" of "network-enabled" communications gear for the Bushmasters was approved in the 2023 Budget. But "Part 2 is yet to be approved" for the Network Enabled Army C4 Communications Integration project.

Strombom said New Zealand risked becoming a "liability" on peacekeeping partners.

"We'd have to be under some kind of coalition partner... I think we would looking to actually have vehicles from them. I can't see us logistically maintaining a fleet.

"The reality is we just don't have the capability."

Noted the bushmasters have been appreciated in Ukraine, links: 1. 2

Would like to see us gain some hard kill and soft kill CUAS capability.
On the NZDF forum there is some recent discussion re merits of artillery in Ukraine vs drones, which has some relevance to what we would deploy.

Thoughts on our options for deploying a 'peacekeeping' force and its makeup/relevance...

 

[ngatimozart]

\

re talk of NZ peacekeepers in ukraine

"peacekeeping" is perhaps not the right term. Its is not peacekeeping as we have seen in the SW pacific 'benign strategic environment' of the past 3 decadses. It is more acting as a deterrent for the possible start of WW3, the European scenario that was planned for during the cold war.

While our hearts are always in the right place we lack the ppl, equipment and training for this mission.
As someone has commented, we risk being 'one hit wonders'



Noted the bushmasters have been appreciated in Ukraine, links: 1. 2

Would like to see us gain some hard kill and soft kill CUAS capability.
On the NZDF forum there is some recent discussion re merits of artillery in Ukraine vs drones, which has some relevance to what we would deploy.

Thoughts on our options for deploying a 'peacekeeping' force and its makeup/relevance...

Definitely. We would have to have a modern up-to-date fully combat capable force with its own air defence capabilities to send there. Something that we don't have.

 

[kiwi in exile]

Judith Collins TVNZ Q & A 13/4/25

Somewhere in this interview JC states that NZ SF comprises 1/10th of the worlds Tier 1 spec ops.
I was surprised by this statement. Can anyone verify its accuracy?
If true, we are 'punching above our weight'

Otherwise not much else in the vid.

 

[Todjaeger]

Judith Collins TVNZ Q & A 13/4/25

Somewhere in this interview JC states that NZ SF comprises 1/10th of the worlds Tier 1 spec ops.
I was surprised by this statement. Can anyone verify its accuracy?
If true, we are 'punching above our weight'

Otherwise not much else in the vid.

Once of my first thoughts is who is defining what are Tier 1 spec ops, and how are they defining them?

A quick google search suggests that the NZSAS has ~600 operators organized into six squadrons. If this is a roughly accurate figure, then worldwide there would be about 6,000 Tier 1 spec ops personnel, which sounds much too low IMO.

Looking at just US Army, USMC and USN personnel, there are ~5,000 US Army Special Forces 'Green Berets' in the Regular Army, ~1,000 USMC Raiders in MARSOC, and ~2,900 active duty USN SEALS, plus of course the various supporting special forces personnel, as well as special forces units in the USAF and other special/covert units in US service like Delta Force, etc. All told, it appears that the US likely has in excess of 9,000 personnel that would probably be categorized as Tier 1, keeping in mind that this figure is not including the US Army's 75th Ranger Regiment's ~3,500 troops either.

Then there would be however many Tier 1 spec ops personnel that are in service with the UK, likely comprising members of the SAS and SBS, but possibly excluding Royal Marine Commando units. Then there would be Australia's SASR and again, possibly excluding the 2nd Commando Regiment.

I tend to believe that most most advanced nations of reasonable size have some sort of special operations force or command formed either because of a need, or the potential need for such capabilities. I therefore tend to think the claim is somewhat... suspect.

 

[Challenger]

Once of my first thoughts is who is defining what are Tier 1 spec ops, and how are they defining them?

A quick google search suggests that the NZSAS has ~600 operators organized into six squadrons. If this is a roughly accurate figure, then worldwide there would be about 6,000 Tier 1 spec ops personnel, which sounds much too low IMO.

Looking at just US Army, USMC and USN personnel, there are ~5,000 US Army Special Forces 'Green Berets' in the Regular Army, ~1,000 USMC Raiders in MARSOC, and ~2,900 active duty USN SEALS, plus of course the various supporting special forces personnel, as well as special forces units in the USAF and other special/covert units in US service like Delta Force, etc. All told, it appears that the US likely has in excess of 9,000 personnel that would probably be categorized as Tier 1, keeping in mind that this figure is not including the US Army's 75th Ranger Regiment's ~3,500 troops either.

Then there would be however many Tier 1 spec ops personnel that are in service with the UK, likely comprising members of the SAS and SBS, but possibly excluding Royal Marine Commando units. Then there would be Australia's SASR and again, possibly excluding the 2nd Commando Regiment.

I tend to believe that most most advanced nations of reasonable size have some sort of special operations force or command formed either because of a need, or the potential need for such capabilities. I therefore tend to think the claim is somewhat... suspect.

From a google search the following units are considered Tier 1. The vast majority of US SF are considered Tier 2 (including 8 of the 9 Seal teams) The following are the Tier 1 teams.

1. Seal Team 6 (DEVGRU)
2. Delta Force
3. 24th Special Tactics Squadron (US Air Force)
4. ISA

This force totals 2.5-3k.

Alongside the SAS, SBS, SASR, SRR and JTF2 as Tier One forces could range from anywhere from 2.5 - 3k for the UK, Australia and Canada.

Therefore perhaps the 600 / 6000 or 10% number was 5VEY only, and some beneficial rounding to prove a point?

But on the face of it - not wildly wrong (if google searches are too be trusted).

 

[Todjaeger]

From a google search the following units are considered Tier 1. The vast majority of US SF are considered Tier 2 (including 8 of the 9 Seal teams) The following are the Tier 1 teams.

1. Seal Team 6 (DEVGRU)
2. Delta Force
3. 24th Special Tactics Squadron (US Air Force)
4. ISA

This force totals 2.5-3k.

Alongside the SAS, SBS, SASR, SRR and JTF2 as Tier One forces could range from anywhere from 2.5 - 3k for the UK, Australia and Canada.

Therefore perhaps the 600 / 6000 or 10% number was 5VEY only, and some beneficial rounding to prove a point?

But on the face of it - not wildly wrong (if google searches are too be trusted).

Again, it really depends on who is defining what is considered Tier 1 and how they are defining it. I agree that most US SOCOM personnel are unlikely to be Tier 1, but one also needs to understand that there are something like 84,000 personnel in USSOCOM, which would mean only ~3.5% of US special ops is considered Tier 1. Just by looking at the numbers and percentages, the idea that nearly twice the percentage of NZDF personnel are 'Tier 1' when compared with the number of US special operations personnel looks a bit suspect.

By the numbers, it also seems to discount other nations like Russia, China (PRC) or India and their respective special forces units which would likely be comparable to whatever is getting described as 'Tier 1'. Effectively the same could also be applied to NATO members outside of 5 Eyes.

Without listening to the entire YouTube clip in detail to find the exact comment, it is hard to state for certain what was meant, but there is a literal world of difference between the entire world and just 5 Eyes partner-nations.

 

[old faithful]

Thought our Kiwi brothers SAS had 2 x sabre sons, 1 x cdo sqn, 1 engineer sqn, 1 x sig sqn, 1 x admin/support sqn.
That's 2 x tier 1 sqns, probably in total 2-300 badged operators.

 

[Gibbo]

re talk of NZ peacekeepers in ukraine

"peacekeeping" is perhaps not the right term. Its is not peacekeeping as we have seen in the SW pacific 'benign strategic environment' of the past 3 decadses. It is more acting as a deterrent for the possible start of WW3, the European scenario that was planned for during the cold war.

While our hearts are always in the right place we lack the ppl, equipment and training for this mission.
As someone has commented, we risk being 'one hit wonders'



Noted the bushmasters have been appreciated in Ukraine, links: 1. 2

Would like to see us gain some hard kill and soft kill CUAS capability.
On the NZDF forum there is some recent discussion re merits of artillery in Ukraine vs drones, which has some relevance to what we would deploy.

Thoughts on our options for deploying a 'peacekeeping' force and its makeup/relevance...

Totally agree with Stormbom.... for now we need to keep away from the sharper of a Ukraine peacekeeping force... it's absolutely nothing like any peacekeeping job we've been involved in before...and for boots on ground we are simply not up to the task unless perhaps we offer a rotating platoons of grunts fully ingregrated with a major player who will need to supply all counter-air, counter-drone, maybe some comms & all significant firepower ...is that what a host service would want tho?

The journo has done their best to provide a counter-view but trotting Mapp out every now & then to provide 'expert' opinion is probaby more counter-productive than anything. Sorry but he's an ex-politician for a start but hearing how wev'e done peacekeeping before blah blah' tells you eveything we need to know... to compare this to what we have done before shows he's really doesn't understand the state the NZDF is in and just how much a bucket of puss Ukraine is & will be if we dip out toes in (incl. what it will mean wrt trade, cyber-warfare, underwater cables!). Thiis is a war, not a peacekeeping job and peacekeepers will be targeted directly or otherwise.

We could provide back-office (dirty word to GOTD) support in intell, training etc.... specialist non-combat skills is what we could offer as those are generally fielded in smaller numbers ...I'm not sure NZSAS is as well-manned as it should be, but who knows...secret squirrel etc.

 

[recce.k1]

Totally agree with Stormbom.... for now we need to keep away from the sharper of a Ukraine peacekeeping force... it's absolutely nothing like any peacekeeping job we've been involved in before...and for boots on ground we are simply not up to the task unless perhaps we offer a rotating platoons of grunts fully ingregrated with a major player who will need to supply all counter-air, counter-drone, maybe some comms & all significant firepower ...is that what a host service would want tho?

The journo has done their best to provide a counter-view but trotting Mapp out every now & then to provide 'expert' opinion is probaby more counter-productive than anything. Sorry but he's an ex-politician for a start but hearing how wev'e done peacekeeping before blah blah' tells you eveything we need to know... to compare this to what we have done before shows he's really doesn't understand the state the NZDF is in and just how much a bucket of puss Ukraine is & will be if we dip out toes in (incl. what it will mean wrt trade, cyber-warfare, underwater cables!). Thiis is a war, not a peacekeeping job and peacekeepers will be targeted directly or otherwise.

We could provide back-office (dirty word to GOTD) support in intell, training etc.... specialist non-combat skills is what we could offer as those are generally fielded in smaller numbers ...I'm not sure NZSAS is as well-manned as it should be, but who knows...secret squirrel etc.

A couple of things, firstly, whilst it is refreshing to hear the unvarnished views of former Territorial Army Major Strombom, let's not forget the article predates the DCP release, in which most (if not perhaps all) of the article's concerns are being addressed as part of the "Near Term Indicative Investments 2025-2028".

Eg upgrades to LAV's turret (whilst the detail isn't published, judging by the Canadian LAV turret upgrades this may include upgrading the likes of the fire control, thermal, day and low-light sights and data displays); networked communications for the Bushmaster and other vehicles; counter UAS systems and ramping up recruiting.

By the way the Russian administration is stalling peace talks it's unlikely we would be deploying any time soon and former DefMin Mapp IMO gives a more measured response i.e. measures will be put in place to sort these issues out and that's what we did for East Timor in 1999 i.e. the Govt rushed procurement to upgrade the likes of the M1113's in the months leading up to the UN authorised intervention. Dr Mapp did serve as a Major with the Territorial Army (3rd Auckland (Countess of Ranfurly's Own) and Northland Regiment) and as DefMin (2008-2011) oversaw the Afghanistan deployment in which Major Strombom served in 2008 as our NATO/Afghan Govt Liasion Officer, my point being they both have credible perspectives from their own experiences.

Secondly, the assumption from commentators in the media is that a NZ deployment would be infantry. But why do they say that, when NZ's contribution could be something else, such as tactical (C-130J) or battlefield airlift support (NH90's) for NATO joint support, or perhaps Poseidon's, who-knows perhaps the Gunners? We won't know until an agreement is reached and the major powers firm things up. If at all!

In the meantime the Army is preparing to deploy for Exercise Talisman Sabre (and has been conducting Exercise Sangro in the lead up) so let's not let the article's "moments of negativity" denigrate the efforts of current servicemen and servicewomen to be ready to deploy for whatever tasking the Govt asks of it.

So thirdly, when I use the term "moments of negativity" that is a little bit of pushback on the article author who whilst he usually writes informative pieces I notice he tends to frame things "negatively" at times, for example his recent total crap misleading article on Poseidon aircraft servicing (which has caused unnecessary reputational damage to the NZDF, as other media outlets picked up on it, and without any efforts to correct the record) and current fixation on using Official Information Act reports to "expose" NZ-US security relations, which may have been "ok" a decade or so ago but considering we are in a phase of global hybrid warfare surely the best thing to be doing is to not be giving away too much information to nations that are actively undermining us (and our Pacific Island nation neighbours) via the likes of cyber (and information) warfare?

 

[MARKMILES77]

Excercise Sangro 2025.
Exciting way for Pinzgauers to die!

 

[kiwi in exile]

Excercise Sangro 2025.
Exciting way for Pinzgauers to die!

Must be great for the troops to train for combat.
But it looks like this was training for 20th century warfare. No UAS/CUAS. No counter battery fire. Hopefully TS25 will be a bit more challenging and we can use our new drones.
Crawl/walk/run etc.

Re dcp any turret mods for the LAVs should integrate ATGMs.remember raising this here in the past and was told that no need- soldiers can dismount to launch. Many new IFVs have turret with integrated ATGMs. And RWS with IR for the bushmasters. If our friends are doing it must be sensible right.