New Zealand Army

[kiwi in exile]

Could be an option to exchange for a few of those 'surplus' NZLAVs along with some MGS to give army some organic teeth and cover whilst keeping within the same family of vehicles. Could do a swap with the yanks for some as they don't have 25mm cannon variant(could be seen as niche) and the US probably has some (TUA, MGS) in storage anyway they won't miss.

I also wonder what else they have in 'storage' these days that could/would benefit us and to a degree them.....

There are different model LAVs so might not be as simple as you think to swap out some of LAVs/LAV turtrets with 'the yanks'
The USMC has LAVs with 25mm turrets AFAIK
The army has tracked bradleys with 25mm turrets and also TOWs
Plus they have the ability to throw tanks and airsupport into the mix if needed.
I agree about wanting to incorporate a missile/indirect fire capability though. A LAV patroll lacks the ability to shoot over hilltops/cover accurately if ambushed. You could argue yes but there will always be coalition artillery/airsupport in the mix, but is this always going to be the case. Or you could say that mobile LAVs could drive around any obstacles/cover to engage the enemy directly, but a smart enemy would pick a better ambush spot.
At the moment we have mortars, 105mm arty for indirect fire. Although the 105s are being updated and their capabilities enhanced, neither can really be called precision weapons.

 

[Cadredave]

What else (hypothetically) would the infantry and QAMR require to better carry out their tasks (apart from what is already in the DCP)?

Recce:
Nothing hypothetical about the roles of the two light infantry battalions it main purpose is to reorientate to the core role of operating in restrictive terrain in the Pacific/ Asian AO, QAMR role is again to rebuild capability as the mounted unit of the NZ Army .

Granted DCP & Force 35 covers it in a general sense as we know it now. But thinking forward, say leading up to ten years from now when by then the Army is (inter) operating a lot more seamlessly with its bigger counterparts and lessons learnt etc.

10 years from now Army will be operating as part of a JF gone are the days where the three services exercised by themselves yes we will do independent exercises or ops but they will not be the norm jointness is everything now.

(Eg to apply the reverse and looking backwards could we have accurately predicted in 2004 what was needed in 2014? For one we weren't exercising with the US as such and look now and at the advancements for the Army in so many ways and also the catching up occurring, which then has budgetary impacts).

Well we can thank 10 years of continuous operations that is the reason the doors have opened but those ten years came at a price our core war fighting skills in conventional ops took a back seat this will take time to rebuild same for our tier 1 unit too.

Mind you it seems people here want to also know about target acquisition and combat systems . If the NZ Army has the ability to further enhance its niche role (in partnership with other bigger nations that undertake the "heavy stuff") do we need other new assets or simply more of what we have now to better sustain our efforts (front line and logistical etc)?

Well Reece we have target acquisition in NZLAV and with the dismounted infantry adding a missile to the turret is not going to enhance that our enhancement is working with the USMC/USN and utilising the assets that they can bring to the tool box that's where the real capability is. We currently have enough purchasing a couple CLU & other bits and bobs wont hurt.

 

[Volkodav]

I am not sure I have this right, please correct me if I am wrong.

NZ has two regular Light Infantry Battalions that concentrate of those core skills as well as a Cavalry Regiment with two CAV and one Mounted Rifle Squadron covering Recce and Mech Infantry roles?

Previously the establishment was 1 Mech Infantry Btn, 1 Light Infantry Btn (with Para Company) and 1 CAV Regt?

Been reading back and just trying to get context to make sure I understand the points of discussion.

 

[Cadredave]

I am not sure I have this right, please correct me if I am wrong.

NZ has two regular Light Infantry Battalions that concentrate of those core skills as well as a Cavalry Regiment with two CAV and one Mounted Rifle Squadron covering Recce and Mech Infantry roles?

Previously the establishment was 1 Mech Infantry Btn, 1 Light Infantry Btn (with Para Company) and 1 CAV Regt?

Been reading back and just trying to get context to make sure I understand the points of discussion.

Almost Volk,

We have two Light Infantry Battalions:

2/1 RNZIR at full strength, 1 RNZIR rebuilding for the last 18 months to full strength, both Rifle Bn to focus on Restricted terrain skills for the Pacific & Asia AoR.

1 Armoured Regt QAMR;

QAMR with two Sqn's A Sqn at full mounted & dismounted strength, with B Sqn at half strength with mounted soldiers only, priority to raise to full strength after 1RNZIR is completed.

Para role was lost during the 1990 budget cuts 1 Cav rerolled 18 months ago to become QAMR, taking a Rifle Company worth of dismounts from 1RNZIR, So this is where we are at the moment.

All three Units have a reserve component attached for training and exercises.

3/6 RNZIR attached to QAMR to provide dismounts and recon elements.

5/7 attached to 1RNZIR to provide riflemen either as individuals or as sections.

2/4 RNZIR attached to 2/1 to provide the same as 5/7

CD

 

[recce.k1]

. We currently have enough purchasing a couple CLU & other bits and bobs wont hurt.

Cheers CD, so building up the Javelin system wouldn't go amiss.

The Army website makes mention of the Javelin being vehicle mounted. Does that mean some vehicles have a physical mounting arrangement or soldiers holding the launcher themselves?

Does the Army practice using the Javelin against airborne (low flying helicopter) threats?

 

[Volkodav]

Thanks for that CD.

Will QAMR also provide APC support for the battalions or will it primarily provide organic mechanised Infantry and Recce?

 

[RegR]

There are different model LAVs so might not be as simple as you think to swap out some of LAVs/LAV turtrets with 'the yanks'
The USMC has LAVs with 25mm turrets AFAIK
The army has tracked bradleys with 25mm turrets and also TOWs
Plus they have the ability to throw tanks and airsupport into the mix if needed.
I agree about wanting to incorporate a missile/indirect fire capability though. A LAV patroll lacks the ability to shoot over hilltops/cover accurately if ambushed. You could argue yes but there will always be coalition artillery/airsupport in the mix, but is this always going to be the case. Or you could say that mobile LAVs could drive around any obstacles/cover to engage the enemy directly, but a smart enemy would pick a better ambush spot.
At the moment we have mortars, 105mm arty for indirect fire. Although the 105s are being updated and their capabilities enhanced, neither can really be called precision weapons.

Yes understand "the yanks" haha have different vehicle types already within their org (luxuries of a huge war machine) that have 25mm but these are usually with other units within different corps/divisions and for different purposes/roles ie the marines ASLAV types are amphib, bradleys are tracked, strykers are independantly mobile. Within a stryker (US LAVIII) brigade they do not currently have 25mm cannon therefore can only add to the mix of that brigade so could be seen as an attractive option. They also have other purpose built variants that could suit us such as mortars, ambos, engineers etc that we should at least consider converting ours into if trading was not an option.

Agreed Lucas MGS has limitations and some bugs but it's more the concept of a LAV heavy gun that I see merit in and just keeping it within the NZLAV family as there is no way we would aqquire a completely different (proven) version bar a major conflict actually needing/requiring/justifying it. A mobile 105 could be handy for bunker busting, targeting walls used for hiding, vehicles etc and even just the intimidation factor by mere sight is useful in its own right (also saves rounds).

I just think if we are going dispose of some anyway we may as well get something back in return and any new capability can only add to our abilities not diminish them. For something like MGS or TUA they do not even need to be numerous as they would be a niche use option themselves but an option nonetheless, say 5 MGS and 3 TUA.

I don't think we should 'plan' on relying on others for certain things especially comparatively basic things as that will not and should not be the case when push comes to shove especially now that even the big boys are downsizing. If the ship hit the fan on ops and we were next priority in line for some reason I would not hold that against any coalition partner as we all have a responsibility therefore should do what we can to better prepare/equip/look after ourselves as best we can for any or at least most likely situations. We do not know what path future conflicts will take, we have an idea but the enemy no doubt knows this as well so will not make it easy or predictable and I think Afghan proved this to the NZDF as we were still sending, aqquireing and adapting equipment and procedures right up to the very end and even now after the fact.

 

[ngatimozart]

Yes understand "the yanks" haha have different vehicle types already within their org (luxuries of a huge war machine) that have 25mm but these are usually with other units within different corps/divisions and for different purposes/roles ie the marines ASLAV types are amphib, bradleys are tracked, strykers are independantly mobile. Within a stryker (US LAVIII) brigade they do not currently have 25mm cannon therefore can only add to the mix of that brigade so could be seen as an attractive option. They also have other purpose built variants that could suit us such as mortars, ambos, engineers etc that we should at least consider converting ours into if trading was not an option.

Agreed Lucas MGS has limitations and some bugs but it's more the concept of a LAV heavy gun that I see merit in and just keeping it within the NZLAV family as there is no way we would aqquire a completely different (proven) version bar a major conflict actually needing/requiring/justifying it. A mobile 105 could be handy for bunker busting, targeting walls used for hiding, vehicles etc and even just the intimidation factor by mere sight is useful in its own right (also saves rounds).

I just think if we are going dispose of some anyway we may as well get something back in return and any new capability can only add to our abilities not diminish them. For something like MGS or TUA they do not even need to be numerous as they would be a niche use option themselves but an option nonetheless, say 5 MGS and 3 TUA.

I don't think we should 'plan' on relying on others for certain things especially comparatively basic things as that will not and should not be the case when push comes to shove especially now that even the big boys are downsizing. If the ship hit the fan on ops and we were next priority in line for some reason I would not hold that against any coalition partner as we all have a responsibility therefore should do what we can to better prepare/equip/look after ourselves as best we can for any or at least most likely situations. We do not know what path future conflicts will take, we have an idea but the enemy no doubt knows this as well so will not make it easy or predictable and I think Afghan proved this to the NZDF as we were still sending, aqquireing and adapting equipment and procedures right up to the very end and even now after the fact.

Reg I came across this when I was replying to a question earlier on the NZDF page. Theoretically it could fit on the NZLAV. Army Guide - TML 105, Antitank turret I thought of the turret with a 105mm howitzer instead of the gun as a SPG for the Army. I note now that a few armies overseas are looking at them as tank destroyers. The JGSDF have a new one in development using a wheeled vehicle and the 105mm main gun with the idea of being able to quickly transport them to their islands instead of MBTs to counter enemy armour.

 

[Cadredave]

Cheers CD, so building up the Javelin system wouldn't go amiss.

The Army website makes mention of the Javelin being vehicle mounted. Does that mean some vehicles have a physical mounting arrangement or soldiers holding the launcher themselves?

Does the Army practice using the Javelin against airborne (low flying helicopter) threats?

UK developed a mount to fire JAV from there Def 110 WMIK & Jackal 2 WMIK we haven't got them (mounts) yet but im sure Army will purchase them in the future, currently they are part of AArmd Pl in Pinz.

Never trained to use JAV as a MPADs turret of the NZLAV would be far superior in that role IMO.

 

[Cadredave]

Thanks for that CD.

Will QAMR also provide APC support for the battalions or will it primarily provide organic mechanised Infantry and Recce?

Yes Volk they will be tasked if they are free & 1 & 2/1 require a lift to another tasking but main mode will be Helo or feet in true Light Infantry fashion

 

[Cadredave]

A LAV patroll lacks the ability to shoot over hilltops/cover accurately if ambushed.

That's why JAV & M3 MRAAW are carried these systems are mission dependant in other words Commanders have the flexibility to pick & choose what systems they require for a patrol all part of the Military Appreciation Process.

You could argue yes but there will always be coalition artillery/airsupport in the mix, but is this always going to be the case. Or you could say that mobile LAVs could drive around any obstacles/cover to engage the enemy directly, but a smart enemy would pick a better ambush spot.

And a smarter Commander will factor those CoA into his plan no plan ever survives HHr or contact that's why its called soldiering and not paint ball?

At the moment we have mortars, 105mm arty for indirect fire. Although the 105s are being updated and their capabilities enhanced, neither can really be called precision weapons.

Again that's why you have JTACs to call in Rotary or Fast Air, all support asserts are task orientated who ever has priority in the Brigade gets the Lion share of support the other have to make do nothing has really changed since WW2, Korea, Vietnam or Afghanistan its the nature of beast.

 

[Volkodav]

Yes Volk they will be tasked if they are free & 1 & 2/1 require a lift to another tasking but main mode will be Helo or feet in true Light Infantry fashion

Thanks CD, think I have a handle on it now. Seems like a pretty sensible and balanced establishment with room to expand as required, i.e. if there was ever a need for DFS or MBTs I imagine it would be a Squadron added to QAMR.

 

[RegR]

Reg I came across this when I was replying to a question earlier on the NZDF page. Theoretically it could fit on the NZLAV. Army Guide - TML 105, Antitank turret I thought of the turret with a 105mm howitzer instead of the gun as a SPG for the Army. I note now that a few armies overseas are looking at them as tank destroyers. The JGSDF have a new one in development using a wheeled vehicle and the 105mm main gun with the idea of being able to quickly transport them to their islands instead of MBTs to counter enemy armour.

I was not suggesting a retro-fit of our LAVs Ngati as this would no doubt prove costly and problematic but an actual 1 for 1 swap for US stryker MGS which is already built and based on a LAVIII chassis (therefore negating new vehicle type issues).

I would rather see the surplus NZLAV swapped/traded for like vehicles with other uses on a 1 for 1 basis (obviously based on tech) and used for the benefit of NZDF as opposed to just being sold to make/save money.

The stryker family of vehicles have a few other variants that could potentially find a home in the NZ army in a few guises including logistics. I do concede MGS does have some shortfalls NG however considering the firepower it could afford us above and beyond 25mm they could be worked through and its baseline commonality with NZLAV taken into account.

 

[kiwi in exile]

That's why JAV & M3 MRAAW are carried these systems are mission dependant in other words Commanders have the flexibility to pick & choose what systems they require for a patrol all part of the Military Appreciation Process.

And a smarter Commander will factor those CoA into his plan no plan ever survives HHr or contact that's why its called soldiering and not paint ball?

Again that's why you have JTACs to call in Rotary or Fast Air, all support asserts are task orientated who ever has priority in the Brigade gets the Lion share of support the other have to make do nothing has really changed since WW2, Korea, Vietnam or Afghanistan its the nature of beast.

Thanks for the comments. AFAIK Jav and MRAAW are line of site and therefore cannot shoot over hills, cover. If I was going to invest in NZLAV offensive capability, I would go for non-line-of-sight precision capability. NLOS Spike variants are available. I realise that practically we are not going to acquire a new missile type, but on a theoretical level this would be the kind of capability I would want. Just speculating...

I realize that when TSHTH, plans change. I was just proposing more tools for the toolbox. Tools that would be immediately available (what's the average wait for air support?). I would rather invest in organic NZDF capability, where affordable and practical, rather than relying on friends and allies.
Cheers

 

[Volkodav]

What chance NZ up grading from 105mm to 155m with a M-777 buy in the future? It would seem to make sense but I suppose it would come down to money, as would a 120mm mortar acquisition.

Just looking at it from the premise that when you have limited numbers you back it up with increased individual capability and force multipliers to make the most of what you do have. The M-777 offers considerable advantages over the L119 while retaining many of the advantages of low weight and mobility.

 

[Cadredave]

Thanks for the comments. AFAIK Jav and MRAAW are line of site and therefore cannot shoot over hills, cover. If I was going to invest in NZLAV offensive capability, I would go for non-line-of-sight precision capability. NLOS Spike variants are available. I realise that practically we are not going to acquire a new missile type, but on a theoretical level this would be the kind of capability I would want. Just speculating

1. A couple of things wrong first off Jav is not Line of site since its a cold launch fire & forget MRAAW that’s has both top attack & direct mode of attack. Second the M3 MRAAW is used to provide a variety of battlefield support to the Infantry Company either with Illum, smoke, HEDP, HE or HEAT & HEAT RAP rounds.

2. NLOS Spike is the Israeli version of JAV so why would the NZ Army buy another system that provides the same capability as Jav, yes Spike can be used on other platforms as a trained support weapons operator/ Commander I still cannot see the benefit of what you propose.

I realize that when TSHTH, plans change. I was just proposing more tools for the toolbox. Tools that would be immediately available (what's the average wait for air support?). I would rather invest in organic NZDF capability, where affordable and practical, rather than relying on friends and allies.
Cheers

Average wait for air support in Afghanistan was 20 minutes rotary was 2 hours and we were the lowest priority in our Brigade AO in Bamiyan. If we use your term organic support then one might have to ask if the USMC has to rely on outside assistance then why can’t we as they truly have organic support don’t you agree.

 

[Volkodav]

1. A couple of things wrong first off Jav is not Line of site since its a cold launch fire & forget MRAAW that’s has both top attack & direct mode of attack. Second the M3 MRAAW is used to provide a variety of battlefield support to the Infantry Company either with Illum, smoke, HEDP, HE or HEAT & HEAT RAP rounds.

2. NLOS Spike is the Israeli version of JAV so why would the NZ Army buy another system that provides the same capability as Jav, yes Spike can be used on other platforms as a trained support weapons operator/ Commander I still cannot see the benefit of what you propose.



Average wait for air support in Afghanistan was 20 minutes rotary was 2 hours and we were the lowest priority in our Brigade AO in Bamiyan. If we use your term organic support then one might have to ask if the USMC has to rely on outside assistance then why can’t we as they truly have organic support don’t you agree.

Ready close support is the advantage of artillery embedded in the Battle Group and infantry mortars where possible down to platoon level or in the not too distant future counter defilade weapons i.e. the XM-25 trialled by the US in Afghanistan and the current generation of programmable 40mm grenades. For armoured units DFS and mortars, either mortar carriers or turreted breach loading mortars with 120mm delivering similar terminal performance to 105mm artillery over similar ranges and are even capable of six multiple round simultaneous impact missions and would be ideal for a retrofit to surplus LAV hulls. There was also a M-777 LAV mount by BAE several years back that was proposed for Canada, the tube was pivoted off the back for the vehicle with a large automatically deployed spade.

Still attack helos would be nice if you could afford them. If you ever do Apache and leave Australia for dead like ever other regional nation that has bought attack helos in h last decade or so.

 

[ngatimozart]

Still attack helos would be nice if you could afford them. If you ever do Apache and leave Australia for dead like ever other regional nation that has bought attack helos in h last decade or so.

Well if by some very fortuitous reason that NZ ever acquired the Apache, it'd have to be the WAH64 (AH1) variant as used by the British AAC or similar since NZDF is focussing on the amphibious role. The WAH64 is partially navalised having folding rotors etc., plus more powerful engines than the US AH64Ds & Es. The poms improved its secure comms and data sharing ability. Unfortunately for us the WAH60 is no longer in production. Ah well dreams are free.

 

[t68]

Ready close support is the advantage of artillery embedded in the Battle Group and infantry mortars where possible down to platoon level or in the not too distant future counter defilade weapons i.e. the XM-25 trialled by the US in Afghanistan and the current generation of programmable 40mm grenades. For armoured units DFS and mortars, either mortar carriers or turreted breach loading mortars with 120mm delivering similar terminal performance to 105mm artillery over similar ranges and are even capable of six multiple round simultaneous impact missions and would be ideal for a retrofit to surplus LAV hulls. There was also a M-777 LAV mount by BAE several years back that was proposed for Canada, the tube was pivoted off the back for the vehicle with a large automatically deployed spade.

Still attack helos would be nice if you could afford them. If you ever do Apache and leave Australia for dead like ever other regional nation that has bought attack helos in h last decade or so.

People have to remember its role and why we bought Tiger it’s a forward deployed Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter to replace the Kiowa, whilst Apache was part of the evaluation aircraft it was designed to go after heavy armored columns in the Fulda Gap. Army were after a medium weight machine and the Apache is a heavy weight, whilst I don’t totally agree with Tiger ARH and the excess money put into the program to integrate Hellfire we could have gotten that capability straight out of the box with Apache price was also a deciding factor in its purchase. Now that capability has also morphed into our CAS aircraft on the LHD going for something a little bit heavier may have been prudent.

 

[Volkodav]

People have to remember its role and why we bought Tiger it’s a forward deployed Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter to replace the Kiowa, whilst Apache was part of the evaluation aircraft it was designed to go after heavy armored columns in the Fulda Gap. Army were after a medium weight machine and the Apache is a heavy weight, whilst I don’t totally agree with Tiger ARH and the excess money put into the program to integrate Hellfire we could have gotten that capability straight out of the box with Apache price was also a deciding factor in its purchase. Now that capability has also morphed into our CAS aircraft on the LHD going for something a little bit heavier may have been prudent.

I read some where years ago that the ideal platform for the Australian spec was actually the Comanche but that it did not fit the required time scales and was too expensive. Ironically it was cancelled but had the project proceeded, it would have been in service soon, been better supported, more capable and cheaper than the Tiger. Boy Rumsfeld has a lot to answer for.