New Zealand Army

[recce.k1]

Re: NZDF In-Service Weapons Replacement/Upgrade Programme

The report covers the situation and reason for the delays eg changes in scope, of having insufficient project management staff for various reasons (eg resignations, operational demands, no or not many dedicated project staff so staff were drawn in from the regular forces when operational demands allowed etc).

Although I'm not clear as to whether this is being addressed - the report authors appear to instead suggest NZDF not be too ambitious when resourcing is an issue ... (ooookaay then .. why not just fund a proper project office? Especially in light of constant conflict and ever changing requirements into the foreseeable future)?

Also change in Govt in 2008 and thus reassessments and some scope creep etc.

Although this is nothing new, media reports, Army News and even CD here I recall discussed aspects of this over the years & delays. Interesting the move to up calibre the light support weapon to 7.62mm from 5.56mm (and thus an extra cost - alas meaning further Govt Cabinet discussion & delays). Lessons learnt from AStan I suppose (and note how the report into Lt O'Donnell's death in Astan mentioned the ranges the insurgents were firing from v the effective range of the Styer, thank goodness for the 50 cals & MAG58's there at the time (despite there not being many on hand) ... me reading between the lines of course).

But another thing I'm wondering is if NZDF is short of project management staff, why not then (assuming they aren't) work in with the Australians, no doubt they too are re-assessing their small arms in light of current operational deployments and lessons learned? Especially as in some cases NZDF is only requiring small quantities (for the amount of effort to assess with limited resourcing etc)?

Nonetheless it will be great for the NZDF as they get there and hopefully CD can add some insight (& progress updates) over my amateur analysis

 

[Kirkzzy]

Hey everyone. Just wondering, if Australia is known for the Light horse for example. (as a particular unit) Are there any units NZ prides itself on or is well known for?

 

[MrConservative]

Hey everyone. Just wondering, if Australia is known for the Light horse for example. (as a particular unit) Are there any units NZ prides itself on or is well known for?

28th Maori Battalion are a very special part of NZ military history.

 

[ngatimozart]

Hey everyone. Just wondering, if Australia is known for the Light horse for example. (as a particular unit) Are there any units NZ prides itself on or is well known for?

2nd NZ Division (WWII) 28th (Maori) Battalion also WWII. Field Marshal Erwin Rommel said that if he had the NZ Division he would have won the African Campaign. The NZ Divison was also known as Tiny Freyberg and his 40,000 thieves because they had the traditional kiwi habit of acquiring stores without submitting the appropriate paperwork. NZSAS. Also the LRDG (Long Range Desert Group)which was the forerunner of the SAS was highly populated with Kiwis and Aussies. Mr C has mentioned the Maori Battalion who are as he says very special.

 

[Kirkzzy]

Thanks a bunch!

 

[Volkodav]

Hey everyone. Just wondering, if Australia is known for the Light horse for example. (as a particular unit) Are there any units NZ prides itself on or is well known for?

Well the NZMR brigade were part of the ANZAC Mounted Division and therefore also part of the Light Horse legend. Infact the Commander of the NZMR, Edward Chaytor, was promoted to command the ANZAC Mounted Division after Chauvel took command of the Desert Column.

 

[Cadredave]

Well the NZMR brigade were part of the ANZAC Mounted Division and therefore also part of the Light Horse legend. Infact the Commander of the NZMR, Edward Chaytor, was promoted to command the ANZAC Mounted Division after Chauvel took command of the Desert Column.

NZCAV (1RNZIR) is based on the NZMR concept of mounted riflemen thats why the current LAV hangars are named Chaytor Lines, which will do a full 360 degree when they are handed back to QAMR starting in Dec. Nice to see the link from the past being carried proudly by the current.

CD

 

[Gibbo]

RFI released - Medium and Heavy Operational Vehicle Fleet

RFI - Medium and Heavy Operational Vehicle Fleet [Ministry of Defence NZ]

 

[RegR]

RFI - Medium and Heavy Operational Vehicle Fleet [Ministry of Defence NZ]

Good to see this ball is actually rolling, getting abit overdue(like most of our projects) and cannot just 'give it a new paint job' for a few more years of the same declineing capability.

I remember reading on one of the Govt Defence sites that the unimogs for example(410 1700s, 13 1300 ambos as of recent) will be replaced by @237 new vehs to represent the needs of the new structure(compared to 80s era force size). Thats about half of what we currently have(not including attrition to date) so there will be alot less mog types around and presumably a similar situation for the 2228 fleet. It was also mentioned training could be done cheaper with COTS vehs so maybe a few more hino/mitsi/isuzu etc types could be added to the pool.

I still like the MB brand and could see NZDF in zetros(mog) and actros(2228) with minimal fuss and both offer armoured versions which is a must these days. Army already has a few new actros HETs but also have new MAN bridgeing vehs so these two brands could be on the cards as they have already technically been evaluated although anything thats takes us into the future without breaking down or minimal protection will be an improvement. Hopefully quality over quantity(or price) will win out on the day especially if they are expected to last 20(therefore NZ 40) years.

 

[Gibbo]

...also have new MAN bridgeing vehs ....

Anyone know if these have landed yet - or if there's an e.t.a.!?!

 

[Lucasnz]

Anyone know if these have landed yet - or if there's an e.t.a.!?!

The last I heard via the MOD website about the bridging units was that we were working with the UK on joint solution. The Defence Capability Plan one line suggests its still a work in progress.

The army did pick up a some MAN Vehicle Recovery vehicles. Hope this helps.

 

[Cadredave]

Anyone know if these have landed yet - or if there's an e.t.a.!?!

No not yet, they are a bit off the priority list at the moment. They were high on the list due to NZLAV but now Army has reorganised back to light Infantry these can wait until the next funding round for capabilities around 2013.

CD

 

[RegR]

The army did pick up a some MAN Vehicle Recovery vehicles. Hope this helps.

MAN recovery vehicles?? I know they have american S and S variants, have not heard of new recovery trucks yet let alone MAN, although some are mooted to support LAV (in saying that we have survived this long without so reality?). Maybe you mean the army fire trucks at Linton? CD would be in the know.

 

[Todjaeger]

MAN recovery vehicles?? I know they have american S and S variants, have not heard of new recovery trucks yet let alone MAN, although some are mooted to support LAV (in saying that we have survived this long without so reality?). Maybe you mean the army fire trucks at Linton? CD would be in the know.

The NZDF may have gotten by without any recovery vehicles for the NZLAV's, but hopefully Gov't and the public do not adopt a similar attitude of, "we have not needed so far, so why do we need them now?" The whole point of the recovery vehicle is to have it if/when a NZLAV gets disabled, whether that is from damaged, bogged down in terrain, etc.

Realistically, I suspect that the NZLAV's have not required a recovery vehicle yet because they have not been deployed or used off road in any significant numbers or for a significant period of time. If the NZLAV's have not been exposed to hazards which can disable them, then a recovery vehicle is of course not needed. What I also suspect is that when the NZLAV's have deployed, either operationally or on ex's, the deployments were alongside allies who already had a recovery vehicle which might not be specifically for the NZLAV, but close enough to do the job.

Where this can result in a problem for the NZDF though is if/when NZ is the prime on an operation or ex, then whoever is comes along would most likely not also bringing a recovery vehicle if they even have one...

-Cheers

 

[recce.k1]

From the sources I've read NZ Army has 3 LAV's fitted out as recovery vehicles with the TR200 winch (and apparently a number of LAV's have the TR80 self-recovery winch).

But as Reg notes, the NZ Army uses the M1089 Medium Recovery Vehicle for recovery purposes (and Army News articles tend to refer to these vehicles accompanying LAV's on exercises etc).

 

[Cadredave]

Just to clear up a couple of points

The NZDF may have gotten by without any recovery vehicles for the NZLAV's, but hopefully Gov't and the public do not adopt a similar attitude of, "we have not needed so far, so why do we need them now?" The whole point of the recovery vehicle is to have it if/when a NZLAV gets disabled, whether that is from damaged, bogged down in terrain, etc.

NZ Army has recovery vehicles for both A & B class vehicles LAV(R) naturally deals with LAV & recovery for all B class vehicles is provided by the M1089 FMTV.

Realistically, I suspect that the NZLAV's have not required a recovery vehicle yet because they have not been deployed or used off road in any significant numbers or for a significant period of time.

NZLAV has now been based in Afghanistan for some time now as stated above it has is own LAV(R) there is one in theatre with the other two based back here in NZ.

What I also suspect is that when the NZLAV's have deployed, either operationally or on ex's, the deployments were alongside allies who already had a recovery vehicle which might not be specifically for the NZLAV, but close enough to do the job.

There are no allies close enough in Afghanistan for the NZDF to call on we had to deploy with the means to self extract our LAVs by ourselves fortunately the last IED strike on one of our LAV was still able to self recover itself back to base.

NZ Army has purchased some heavy lift vehicles but they are not Recovery they are HET four Mercedes Benz heavy equipment carriers that are currently being used only in NZ.

The future B class replacement vehicles should also provide a HET & Recovery that is armoured wheather its a MAN, Mercedes, or Oskosh only time will tell.

CD

 

[recce.k1]

NZ Army has purchased some heavy lift vehicles but they are not Recovery they are HET four Mercedes Benz heavy equipment carriers that are currently being used only in NZ.

The future B class replacement vehicles should also provide a HET & Recovery that is armoured wheather its a MAN, Mercedes, or Oskosh only time will tell.

CD

CD, are you able to say (or not) whether the M1089 tends to get deployed on Operations in places like Afghanistan - or ET with the M113's etc (I'm thinking of the other advantages it would bring eg limited on-board repair facilities etc)?

If they don't tend to go to places like Afghanistan (for whatever reason eg limited protection?), at least from what you're indicating future options will include armoured - we can take that is a given the next generation could be deployed as such etc.

I also think, Todjaeger's perspective is interesting because I'm wondering what would be the minimum numbers for a specialist recovery vehicle deployment, I would have thought minimum 2 or perhaps 3 etc (well obviously for bigger LAV deployments than the current one of 8 or so etc)? Esp. where NZ provides protection for other nations on the same deployment (eg I'm thinking NZPRT and Singapore in recent times although that was pre-LAV anyway).

 

[Cadredave]

are you able to say (or not) whether the M1089 tends to get deployed on Operations in places like Afghanistan

Well Recce,
All our vehicles had to be armoured thats the reason the LAV(R) deployed and not the M1089 there were also some techincal considerations for example the current M1089 cant lift or tow a fully uparmoured NZLAV with a full combat load. Same reason for east timor it could not support the M113.

If they don't tend to go to places like Afghanistan (for whatever reason eg limited protection?), at least from what you're indicating future options will include armoured - we can take that is a given the next generation could be deployed as such etc.

Latest Army news had an article in it about the types of vehicles that we will procure basically two types one will be uparmoured for Afghan type missions & one for Peace keeping type operations both will have the ability to mount crew served Mag 58/MMG etc, there will also be an off the shelf type for training in NZ.

I also think, Todjaeger's perspective is interesting because I'm wondering what would be the minimum numbers for a specialist recovery vehicle deployment, I would have thought minimum 2 or perhaps 3 etc (well obviously for bigger LAV deployments than the current one of 8 or so etc)? Esp. where NZ provides protection for other nations on the same deployment (eg I'm thinking NZPRT and Singapore in recent times although that was pre-LAV anyway).

We are in a reletive quiet sector in Afghan hence the reason to deploy only 1 x LAV(R), IMO if we had gone south then we would of been part of the CAN Batt for obvious logistical reasons as they or the Strykers are close enough to our vehicles but in saying that the logistics train would be huge with NZ either purchasing or renting vehicles (Medium Log trucks) to support the LAV company.

 

[RegR]

The NZDF may have gotten by without any recovery vehicles for the NZLAV's, but hopefully Gov't and the public do not adopt a similar attitude of, "we have not needed so far, so why do we need them now?" The whole point of the recovery vehicle is to have it if/when a NZLAV gets disabled, whether that is from damaged, bogged down in terrain, etc.

Realistically, I suspect that the NZLAV's have not required a recovery vehicle yet because they have not been deployed or used off road in any significant numbers or for a significant period of time. If the NZLAV's have not been exposed to hazards which can disable them, then a recovery vehicle is of course not needed. What I also suspect is that when the NZLAV's have deployed, either operationally or on ex's, the deployments were alongside allies who already had a recovery vehicle which might not be specifically for the NZLAV, but close enough to do the job.

Where this can result in a problem for the NZDF though is if/when NZ is the prime on an operation or ex, then whoever is comes along would most likely not also bringing a recovery vehicle if they even have one...

-Cheers

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for NZ having a LAV capable recovery vehicle just pointing out that we hav'nt had them for this long so obviously govt is in no rush(hopefully soon to be rectified) and should have been procured alot sooner. As CD and reece have pointed out our LAV have a recovery variant, as in a model to recover if stuck and with limited towing capability, and new actros HETs have been purchased however these are non-armoured therefore no use for the likes of Afghan. I see them as primarily for movement of NZLAV around NZ as if you need to send a LAV to an op then its obviously alittle dodge and in need of armour. The M1089s were not designed for towing dead LAV weights so something abit more tailored is required. The M1089s can be fitted with armoured cabs(which we did not get) but if it cannot fully recover a LAV then we may as well get something that can and that covers everything in our inventory.

The armoured recovery and HETs are probably in the mail with the touted armoured LAV CSS trucks(currently soft skin unimogs) and should be here just in time for NZ to pull the LAVs out of Afghan @ 2014, nice work govt buy the water before the bucket.

The canadians got AHSVS variants (also recovery, HET and CSS funnily enough) into theatre quickly to support their LAV ops and are doing the job so no excuses govt. The next NZLAV strike may not be fortunate enough to still be mobile so could be an expensive lesson if it means destroying in loc rather than recovery due to inadequate resources.

 

[MrConservative]

A quote from the Jono Coleman's cheat sheet released today. Y'know the Janet and John version for new Ministers.

2011 Defence Brief Contents [Ministry of Defence NZ]

"The NZDF will merge six existing battalion groups into three and impose a floor of
1.200 funded Army Territorial Force positions."

Are they only going to fund Reserve "Battalions" of 400? Sorry to say but it is too lean. We have around 1800 Reserves at present that would have been an acceptable ceiling to impose. I think they may struggle to form a LTF or CATG pool from just 1200 if they had to other than the odd warm bod from here and there. Skinny is not strong!!

In the past I stated my support for the rationalisation of the Army Reserve into three Battalion Groups because I have felt the current 6 Batt structure was not working.
However I advocated 2400 funded Reserve positions. With the LTF's and the CATG's as part of the new restructuring I felt that around 2000 funded Reserve personnel was probably a real positive sign.