New Zealand Army

[Cadredave]

CD, your comment that only the SAS know what they are getting is not correct. The SOV replacement is currently one of the individual projects contained within the Land Transport Capability Program (LTCP) that CAP Br are running (MHOV being another). As with all NZDF/MoD projects the customers (i.e. SAS & COMLOG for the SOV) will have a set of requirements that the Project team will develop into a RFT then downselected via a BC then a finally a Acquisition Contract to purchase a capability that will be Intoduced into Service.

Correct but what doctrine will we use for Bushmaster mounted? CAV? a mixture of both or try a mash together of everything to come up with our own version again. TRADOC has not been tasked to develop a future concept of ops for Bushmaster type replacement & the two battle lab with both 1R & 2/1 are solely involved in light Ops testing & validating equipment currently for that role only I just don't see a Pinz replacement on the horizon in the short or medium term. Im not saying its not going to happen it will but not in the next 10 to 15 years.

Unless there is a Urgent Operational Requirement all Projects follow this process, even for the "specials"

I have yet to see the specials not get what they want hence the 11m RHIBs to replace there well used but tired 6m RHIBs, everything they do is & as it should be Operational 24/7.

I can assure you that there is plenty of money in the LTCP funding line of the Defence Capital Plan to allow for the purchase of a LOV replacement, but it is way to early in the process to be talking about what specific makes/models (Bushmaster or something else) will meet the LOV user requirement.

I know there is but my point goes back to the user requirement has Army even begun the process of an replacement? IMO the MLU for NZLAV is the next big ticket item on the horizon & I know that's being worked on now. 10 - 15 years is my best bet before we even start to look at developing the Doctrine, UR etc for the replacement LOV & that will be another big job for Cap Branch, TRADOC, Battle Labs, Units & the other two services you name it.

Last but not least the days of Army purchasing equipment for its sole use are long gone buying equipment for Army is no longer a single service decision anymore it will affect all three services some way or another ie the JATF.

CD

 

[RegR]

CD, your comment that only the SAS know what they are getting is not correct. The SOV replacement is currently one of the individual projects contained within the Land Transport Capability Program (LTCP) that CAP Br are running (MHOV being another). As with all NZDF/MoD projects the customers (i.e. SAS & COMLOG for the SOV) will have a set of requirements that the Project team will develop into a RFT then downselected via a BC then a finally a Acquisition Contract to purchase a capability that will be Intoduced into Service.

Unless there is a Urgent Operational Requirement all Projects follow this process, even for the "specials"

I can assure you that there is plenty of money in the LTCP funding line of the Defence Capital Plan to allow for the purchase of a LOV replacement, but it is way to early in the process to be talking about what specific makes/models (Bushmaster or something else) will meet the LOV user requirement.

Have to agree with CD here, when they say they need something they generally get it as they would not request it without cause, regular army is not so fortunate and is a lot more scrutinised with more hoops and constraints which is why there is 'their' issue kit and regular issue kit. There is a process but it is nowhere as hard as general defence. UOR goes for everyone if the justification and requirement is there.

I still think soft skin Pinz will definitely be with us for awhile yet, nothing wrong with them (now) and NZDF has a habit of milking equipment last well past their LOT and then some to bleed that VFM fully, sometimes detrimentally. It's the armoured variant of LOV that has the main flaws that need addressing. Also not sure bushmaster is in the LOV category in armoured terms, something more like the aussie Hawkei, british panther even US up-armoured humvee is nearer the same league with bushmaster coming midway between LOV and LAV, again something we are lacking IMO.

I guess we just have to look at what Aus uses their bushies for alongside their ASLAV for a possible inclusion within our own orbat (obviously on a smaller adjusted to suit scale) and also not as 'warlike' looking for infantry movement/patrols on those peace keeping rather than peace enforcing missions whilst at the same time not compromising on protection.

The role(s) I see them coming into their own for us is more logistics as apart from some retro-fitted armoured trucks (cab only) and smaller armoured LOV we have no dedicated armour in this area of decent cabin size ie Ambos, IED, comms, control etc. We could convert some of those excess LAV but are they really ideal and suited in all cases? probably even overkill and wasted in some and surely there is an operating/maintanence cost difference between the two types (three incl A LOV).

 

[Reaver]

has Army even begun the process of an replacement?

CD

CD, LOV replacement is a sub project within the approved LTCP programme and hence there are LTCP staff working on defining CONOPS, URs etc which will then be approved by all the stakeholders (LCC, CA, COMLOG etc). So the process (long it will be) has started.

The LAV MLU is a seperate project with a seperate Project team and a seperate funding line within the DCP.

 

[kiwi in exile]

The role(s) I see them coming into their own for us is more logistics as apart from some retro-fitted armoured trucks (cab only) and smaller armoured LOV we have no dedicated armour in this area of decent cabin size ie Ambos, IED, comms, control etc. We could convert some of those excess LAV but are they really ideal and suited in all cases? probably even overkill and wasted in some and surely there is an operating/maintanence cost difference between the two types (three incl A LOV).

.

This is the direction I was thinking in. Something like a Bushmaster, or other mine/ied/ballistic protected vehicle would be useful, actually necessary, for our deployed combat support teams. Recently we have invested in armoured HMEEs and armour able trucks. And our LAVS are fine for infantry. But how would we deploy our combat support teams (comms, medics, enjoiner teams). The only options are poor performance Pinzgauers or LAVs. I wouldn't want to deploy a Pinz to anything beyond basic peacekeeping ops, and not sure a LAV would be appropriate either. In terms of using a Bushmaster type as a operational, protected Pinz replacement for combat support arms, would we even need to develop a whole new set of CONOPS. Couldn't we just operate them in the same way we operate the Pinz?

Regarding the concerns re developing CONOPs etc, what kind of process did we go through when we started riding around afghanistan, known for its IEDs with flat bottomed Humvees while our allies were investing in MRAPs.

 

[RegR]

.

This is the direction I was thinking in. Something like a Bushmaster, or other mine/ied/ballistic protected vehicle would be useful, actually necessary, for our deployed combat support teams. Recently we have invested in armoured HMEEs and armour able trucks. And our LAVS are fine for infantry. But how would we deploy our combat support teams (comms, medics, enjoiner teams). The only options are poor performance Pinzgauers or LAVs. I wouldn't want to deploy a Pinz to anything beyond basic peacekeeping ops, and not sure a LAV would be appropriate either. In terms of using a Bushmaster type as a operational, protected Pinz replacement for combat support arms, would we even need to develop a whole new set of CONOPS. Couldn't we just operate them in the same way we operate the Pinz?

Regarding the concerns re developing CONOPs etc, what kind of process did we go through when we started riding around afghanistan, known for its IEDs with flat bottomed Humvees while our allies were investing in MRAPs.

Exactly, our support trades are just as close and even embedded in the patrols so do not see the reasoning in inadequate vehicles or even worse soft skin alternatives. If we could cover every trade/task with current NZLAV we would not have the 'excess' 35 but unfourtunately they are either ill suited or plain overkill ie medics using a LAV with a 25mm cannon on the roof as a battlefield ambo is alittle inappropriate and I actually think there is something reference the red cross(or version of) that states they should not be targetted by both sides, a heavy weapon system obviously null and voids this.

Agree, use same SOPs as current armoured pinz as essentially the same type of vehicle with similar outputs, obviously different actual piece of kit but overall concept the same. Bushmaster would even have a broader range of uses that could be built upon in the long term (compared to A pinz anyway).

Whilst the armoured MANs will cover alot of the logistics side (unsure if we are getting armoured containers for pax/shelters?) it's the niche roles that will be left wanting and vulnerable.

 

[ngatimozart]

Exactly, our support trades are just as close and even embedded in the patrols so do not see the reasoning in inadequate vehicles or even worse soft skin alternatives. If we could cover every trade/task with current NZLAV we would not have the 'excess' 35 but unfourtunately they are either ill suited or plain overkill ie medics using a LAV with a 25mm cannon on the roof as a battlefield ambo is alittle inappropriate and I actually think there is something reference the red cross(or version of) that states they should not be targetted by both sides, a heavy weapon system obviously null and voids this.

Agree, use same SOPs as current armoured pinz as essentially the same type of vehicle with similar outputs, obviously different actual piece of kit but overall concept the same. Bushmaster would even have a broader range of uses that could be built upon in the long term (compared to A pinz anyway).

Whilst the armoured MANs will cover alot of the logistics side (unsure if we are getting armoured containers for pax/shelters?) it's the niche roles that will be left wanting and vulnerable.

There are two options with regard to using the NZLAV as an ambulance vehicle. Remember not all combatants are parties to the Geneva convention or adhere to it. The first is to remove the weaponry from some NZLAVs and use them for ambos. Second, is to have NZLAVs outfitted as ambos that do retain the weaponry or where weapons can be fitted quickly. Since it has been mentioned here that NZG may have not sold "surplus" NZLAVs then modifying some or all of the vehicles for support roles could be a logical choice. For example, as already suggested ambo vehicles, C2 vehicles etc. If we went this way would it affect our CONOPS?

Other capabilities that the vehicles could be utilised for, if funding was ever found, could be maybe to mount a twin 25mm AAA system on some with Mistral or similar SAM to give anti air capability especially against helos, UAV and light fixed wing air. Another option would be to use the vehicles as a base for an 8 x 8 wheeled 105mm SPG / SPH system.

Finally can the NZLAV be used for reconnaissance? Doesn't the US Army use Bradleys for that?

 

[Cadredave]

.

This is the direction I was thinking in. Something like a Bushmaster, or other mine/ied/ballistic protected vehicle would be useful, actually necessary, for our deployed combat support teams. Recently we have invested in armoured HMEEs and armour able trucks. And our LAVS are fine for infantry. But how would we deploy our combat support teams (comms, medics, enjoiner teams). The only options are poor performance Pinzgauer or LAVs. I wouldn't want to deploy a Pinz to anything beyond basic peacekeeping ops, and not sure a LAV would be appropriate either. In terms of using a Bushmaster type as a operational, protected Pinz replacement for combat support arms, would we even need to develop a whole new set of CONOPS. Couldn't we just operate them in the same way we operate the Pinz?

1. We have two Light Infantry & 1 Mounted Unit for our combat trades that is the start point for our CONOPS & Doctrine [Light Infantry centric] they will move in one or more ways

a. By foot or MAN B vehicles,
b. NH90, or
c. NZLAV

Cbt Spt ie 2 Engineer Regt (attached to the Lead Cbt Unit)
a. by foot or MAN B vehicles
b. NH90, or
c. NZLAV, &

16 Fd Regt MAN B vehicles,

Cbt Services Spt, MAN B vehicles

B vehicles have the ability to mount weapon systems & under body armour to provide own protection from direct attack & IED threat.

Regarding the concerns re developing CONOPs etc, what kind of process did we go through when we started riding around Afghanistan, known for its IEDs with flat bottomed Humvees while our allies were investing in MRAPs.

Short answer none HQ NZDF & HQJFNZ took a calculated risk based on a number of factors the crucial one being the location of our PRT from 2001 - 2009 IED's were still not a threat in our AO 2010 - until withdraw only then did the IED threat become the most dangerous CoA for our patrols.

Last but not least look at where we are reorienting to SE Pacific & Asia we will either be in Jungles or Urban areas very different terrain to Afghan with very specific needs most common threat will be close quarter battle. So IMO the LOV is still a perfect fit for HQ 1 Bge & all the specialist units (1 NZSigs) that will remain either in the SPOD or APOD.

CD

 

[RegR]

There are two options with regard to using the NZLAV as an ambulance vehicle. Remember not all combatants are parties to the Geneva convention or adhere to it. The first is to remove the weaponry from some NZLAVs and use them for ambos. Second, is to have NZLAVs outfitted as ambos that do retain the weaponry or where weapons can be fitted quickly. Since it has been mentioned here that NZG may have not sold "surplus" NZLAVs then modifying some or all of the vehicles for support roles could be a logical choice. For example, as already suggested ambo vehicles, C2 vehicles etc. If we went this way would it affect our CONOPS?

Other capabilities that the vehicles could be utilised for, if funding was ever found, could be maybe to mount a twin 25mm AAA system on some with Mistral or similar SAM to give anti air capability especially against helos, UAV and light fixed wing air. Another option would be to use the vehicles as a base for an 8 x 8 wheeled 105mm SPG / SPH system.

Finally can the NZLAV be used for reconnaissance? Doesn't the US Army use Bradleys for that?

I think most western/NATO countries follow the policy regardless but still have some form of self defence just like our M113 ambos had in Timor, just not a main cannon per se. Unsure why we have not retrofitted already as it just seems weird to me to have LAV escorting soft skin vehicles in convoy as if it requires LAV then obviously armour is required overall and LAV does not make the pinz/unimog next to it IED/bulletproof.

Yes hopefully they do some conversions or better yet trade complete for some purpose built strykers from our american friends as there are different hulls available dependant on spec and 25mm cannon is not something they currently have themselves on stryker although they do on tracked bradley and marine LAV25.

I'm pretty sure QA has a few dedicated to the recon role within the squadron and also the gunners have a few in the FO role as well.

I would also rather see them re-roled rather than lost but sadly I think they will keep things simple and safe in terms of any options aqquired.

 

[Cadredave]

I think most western/NATO countries follow the policy regardless but still have some form of self defence just like our M113 ambos had in Timor, just not a main cannon per se. Unsure why we have not retrofitted already as it just seems weird to me to have LAV escorting soft skin vehicles in convoy as if it requires LAV then obviously armour is required overall and LAV does not make the pinz/unimog next to it IED/bulletproof.

We were no different with our M113A1 we had dedicated ambo they did not have the T50 turret on top but a single M2 HB turret cant think of its name but real minimum defence compared to the normal tracks.

Yes hopefully they do some conversions or better yet trade complete for some purpose built strykers from our american friends as there are different hulls available dependant on spec and 25mm cannon is not something they currently have themselves on stryker although they do on tracked bradley and marine LAV25.

My best bet is Reg Army is going to wait for the MLU to bring or hopefully trade variants with General Dynamics for purpose built LAV ie C3, Logistics & ambo.

 

[kiwi in exile]

Last but not least look at where we are reorienting to SE Pacific & Asia we will either be in Jungles or Urban areas very different terrain to Afghan with very specific needs most common threat will be close quarter battle. So IMO the LOV is still a perfect fit for HQ 1 Bge & all the specialist units (1 NZSigs) that will remain either in the SPOD or APOD.

CD

Thanks for the info CD. Jungle and urban does suggest CQB, but roads, be they urban or rural, will always carry the risk of IED, not to mention RPGs etc. IMO this is why I'm not a LOV fan. I would like to see the NZDF capability planning to have a broader horizon than matching the current threat level in the SE pac/asia. I know we are relatively small in size, and are always going to be limited by budget, and it wise to pick our fights based on what we could meaningfully contribute. If we had slightly more tools in the box we could do more ourselves. Be interesting to see what the LTCP comes up with.

 

[Cadredave]

Thanks for the info CD. Jungle and urban does suggest CQB, but roads, be they urban or rural, will always carry the risk of IED, not to mention RPGs etc. IMO this is why I'm not a LOV fan. I would like to see the NZDF capability planning to have a broader horizon than matching the current threat level in the SE pac/asia. I know we are relatively small in size, and are always going to be limited by budget, and it wise to pick our fights based on what we could meaningfully contribute. If we had slightly more tools in the box we could do more ourselves. Be interesting to see what the LTCP comes up with.

I know where your coming from and it is a worry to a point, the aspect I like about the new MAN buy is that those trucks have been well and truly tested in Helmand Province by the RLC of the UK Army they are proven unlike the Unimog which the NZ Army brought (Civilian version painted green).

Desert convoy put in logistical reverse 19.03.13 - YouTube

Don't get fixated on the LOV check out the Vid you will see just how things have changed each CLP (Combat Logistics Patrol) packs some firepower not to mention they will have an escort of LAV or LOV Gun carriers notice the Defender WMIK which got replaced by the Jackal WMIKs they operate to the front, rear & flanks looking for possible IED placement & flank security.

MRAPs are unfortunately out of our price range @ $100,000 + per vehicle before fit out with all the bells & whistles you cant plan for every situation out there risks are a part of the job it does not matter if you are in a LOV, MRAP or NAMER APC there will always be an IED that will destroy it & you.

 

[kiwi in exile]

I know where your coming from and it is a worry to a point, the aspect I like about the new MAN buy is that those trucks have been well and truly tested in Helmand Province by the RLC of the UK Army they are proven unlike the Unimog which the NZ Army brought (Civilian version painted green).

Desert convoy put in logistical reverse 19.03.13 - YouTube

Don't get fixated on the LOV check out the Vid you will see just how things have changed each CLP (Combat Logistics Patrol) packs some firepower not to mention they will have an escort of LAV or LOV Gun carriers notice the Defender WMIK which got replaced by the Jackal WMIKs they operate to the front, rear & flanks looking for possible IED placement & flank security.

MRAPs are unfortunately out of our price range @ $100,000 + per vehicle before fit out with all the bells & whistles you cant plan for every situation out there risks are a part of the job it does not matter if you are in a LOV, MRAP or NAMER APC there will always be an IED that will destroy it & you.

Thanks for the vid. Have already seen similar ones. (Started doing research when I heard we were getting the trucks). I am a big fan of the MAN trucks and think that this was a great buy for the NZDF and they went about it in a clever way. Can't wait to see pics of an NZ MAN armoured up with weapons kit installed. This and other recent acquisition projects lead me to thing that NZDF is in many ways heading in the right direction (HMEEs, DMRs, sprites were value for money, etc). But I do think think there are still a few problems I'd like to see solved. I realise no vehicle is indestructible, but some have better a better record than others (Bushmasters over Pinz/Humvees). Obviously this comes a price, but I think that it is maybe a price worth paying when you consider the alternative. If our part of the world remains peaceful I'd be happy to put this off, but if in the near future, we had to deploy somewhere hot, I'd hope NZDF/NZG would come up with the cash, especially given our experiences in afghanistan. I'd hate to have to limit what we were able to deploy because we didn't have suitable vehicles.

Re the WMIKs: wasn't the Defender/land drover models replaced by the Supacat Jackal because of vulnerability to IEDs.

 

[kiwi in exile]

Other capabilities that the vehicles could be utilised for, if funding was ever found, could be maybe to mount a twin 25mm AAA system on some with Mistral or similar SAM to give anti air capability especially against helos, UAV and light fixed wing air.

Ngati, there is already and air defence LAV variant, based on the USMC LAV 25.
The turret is based on a air defence hummer turret and has up to 8 podded stingers (which can apparently be interchanged with Mistrals) and depending on where you read a 20mm Vulcan (same as ANZAC CIWS) or a 5 barrel 25mm cannon (25 x 137mm- same as bushmaster). The 25mm gun is the same as used on USMC harriers and Spooky gunships, and a new 4 barrel version will arm the F35. 4 SAMs can also be swapped out for a helicopter type rocket pod.

The advantages of this system for us would be we already operate Mistrals, and we have both the 20mm and 25mm ammo in stock, plus we all read have the 20mm guns. The gun can also be used against ground targets. Target acquisition is via Thales TRS 2630P with a 17km range that cues a FLIR. Fire control is fully automated.

One idea I like about this is that it could be used as CRAM (Counter Rocket, Artillery, Mortar) system (potentially). The US and apparently the Aussies have used land mounted 20mm CIWS systems successfully to protect bases from rocket/RPG/mortar attacks.

Another future air defence option for NZDF would be the UKs FLAADS system, which is basically truck mounted CAMM missiles (like we are getting for the ANZACs). 25km range and networked. Missiles come in a podded system so integration is quick and easy. Would just need the right ground based radar system.

This is all wishful thinking and at this stage anything beyond the few mistrals we have is unlikely and unnecessary.

 

[Volkodav]

MRAPs are unfortunately out of our price range @ $100,000 + per vehicle before fit out with all the bells & whistles you cant plan for every situation out there risks are a part of the job it does not matter if you are in a LOV, MRAP or NAMER APC there will always be an IED that will destroy it & you.

I wonder if Australia could be encouraged to part with some of our excess Bushmasters as I believe we have a substantial number, bought at some point for pork, that went straight into storage as they were in excess of requirements. I could be wrong on that but if it is the case surely they are better going to a close ally than sitting in a facility somewhere costing us to maintain.

 

[bdique]

I wonder if Australia could be encouraged to part with some of our excess Bushmasters as I believe we have a substantial number, bought at some point for pork, that went straight into storage as they were in excess of requirements. I could be wrong on that but if it is the case surely they are better going to a close ally than sitting in a facility somewhere costing us to maintain.

If NZDF already has an operational Bushmaster fleet maintained by well trained staff, with supplies and spare parts well stocked, then the vehicle transfer would be a great thing with minimal hassle. Otherwise, mechanics would need to be retrained, spares will need to be stocked - basically a big logistical headache.

I mean, it can be done, but this will be a time consuming process, so I can see why the ADF would rather keep the vehicles as backup or for cannibalising than gifting it to a friendly nation.

 

[RegR]

If NZDF already has an operational Bushmaster fleet maintained by well trained staff, with supplies and spare parts well stocked, then the vehicle transfer would be a great thing with minimal hassle. Otherwise, mechanics would need to be retrained, spares will need to be stocked - basically a big logistical headache.

I mean, it can be done, but this will be a time consuming process, so I can see why the ADF would rather keep the vehicles as backup or for cannibalising than gifting it to a friendly nation.

Actually Bushmaster has the same powerpack as LAV and is basically just an armoured truck so would actually be easier to introduce than the recent MAN fleet was/is. Complex and unique bits of kit such as aircraft, weapon systems and ships usually have these issues and requirements however basic vehicle systems are usually abit easier as they are just that, basic vehicle systems. Everything military needs a level of IIS but these would require minimal intro compared to most. Soldiers five, good old tutu, write up some SOPs and build on it from there

Aus has 'excess' bushies just like NZ has 'excess' NZLAV' just depends on if they see the benefit in keeping a large pool for attrition, back up etc as to if they would/could part with or not. I'm all for it as we are obviously deficient in this area and would have been extremely useful in Afghan as was combat proven by AUS and others.

Now there are also a few other 'excess' pieces of kit parked up in allies warehouses, hangers and piers at the moment as well........

 

[bdique]

Actually Bushmaster has the same powerpack as LAV and is basically just an armoured truck so would actually be easier to introduce than the recent MAN fleet was/is. Complex and unique bits of kit such as aircraft, weapon systems and ships usually have these issues and requirements however basic vehicle systems are usually abit easier as they are just that, basic vehicle systems. Everything military needs a level of IIS but these would require minimal intro compared to most. Soldiers five, good old tutu, write up some SOPs and build on it from there

Aus has 'excess' bushies just like NZ has 'excess' NZLAV' just depends on if they see the benefit in keeping a large pool for attrition, back up etc as to if they would/could part with or not. I'm all for it as we are obviously deficient in this area and would have been extremely useful in Afghan as was combat proven by AUS and others.

Now there are also a few other 'excess' pieces of kit parked up in allies warehouses, hangers and piers at the moment as well........

Sorry, didn't have time over the past few days to give a response.

Yes, will agree that the Bushmaster is not as complex as some other weapon systems, i.e. IFVs, MBTs. I will admit that my experience is with tracked fighting vehicles, so I made the assumption that the Bushmaster will require more time to operationalise.

Will agree that having a common powerpack amongst the vehicle fleet helps a lot. The SAF's Bionix IFVs and Terrex ICVs share a common powerpack, so that should streamline logistics.

 

[kiwi in exile]

body armour

A lot of the photos on the web show NZDF personnel on training ops wearing (older) DPM covered plate carriers under their molle vests. Other photos show soldiers wearing RBAV vests, which I believe were acquired for deployed pers in for one of the later CRIB rotations.

I was just wondering if there was a plan to phase out the older style body armour and acquire more RBAVs, or wait until our next significant deployment to get more.
Also, is there much of a difference in weight, mobility, comfort, protection between the two set ups. I know the RBAVs we got were apparently SF style.

And, any news on the new new uniforms. I've read that we are getting a darker, less pale 2nd run of camp uniforms soon (end of year?).

 

[kiwi in exile]

Just read in the latest issue of Australian & NZ defender magazine that the new supacat Vehicles for the Aust Commandos will have a RWS capable of integrating javelin as well as the standard 12.7, 7.62 and 40mm.

If this goes according to plan this would be a good capability for Future NZ SOVs, LAV upgrades and and potential future LOV replacements.

Javelins have been successfully test fired from CROWS and Kongsberg RWS several times.

Raytheon Company : Investor Relations : News Release
Javelin Missile Proves New Capability during Vehicle-Launched Norwegian Tests · Lockheed Martin
Lockheed Martin Demonstrates Successful Javelin Firing From Turret in U.K. Test · Lockheed Martin

 

[RegR]

Just read in the latest issue of Australian & NZ defender magazine that the new supacat Vehicles for the Aust Commandos will have a RWS capable of integrating javelin as well as the standard 12.7, 7.62 and 40mm.

If this goes according to plan this would be a good capability for Future NZ SOVs, LAV upgrades and and potential future LOV replacements.

Javelins have been successfully test fired from CROWS and Kongsberg RWS several times.

Raytheon Company : Investor Relations : News Release
Javelin Missile Proves New Capability during Vehicle-Launched Norwegian Tests · Lockheed Martin
Lockheed Martin Demonstrates Successful Javelin Firing From Turret in U.K. Test · Lockheed Martin

It seems to be a no brainer that our SOF will go with supacats to replace the pinnys (although with our govts thinking still not a guarantee) so seems like it could be worth looking into especially since the mount has synergies with stryker (LAV) and therefore could have more of an NZDF customer base. Some on here however have already downplayed/dis-regarded the need/requirement for a turret mounted missile system however I'm all for it if the oppourtunity presents itself.

If it's good enough for SASR......