Pretty sure it was due to the armoured variants not being quite upto standard so the selection process was re-evaluated. Personally I think they got the better option in the end anyway.
New Zealand Army
- Thread starter Whiskyjack
- Start date
-
- Tags
- army artilery gunner new zealand sas
That rings a bell, they supplied standard trucks plus armour kits and when tested with the kits the trucks broke. Like you said, they appear to have got the better option in the end.
Bit off topic for Kiwis - though I am half Kiwi - BAE took over the Tenix contract for LHD's as contract was awarded. BAE worked well with Navantia as its main subcontractor and added the complex superstructure and integrated combat system less than a year behind schedule for Canberra and just about on time for Adelaide. Comare that with ASC and the AWDs!
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/training-simulation/itec-2016-saab-shows-new-capabilities/
Interesting Shepherd Media snippet from a report on SAAB at a training and simulation exhibition. I have no idea what the equipment involved is, or how NZ will use them. Perhaps related to the new Battle Training facility?
Ummm.... you do realise that BAE where the block subcontractor for the keel blocks on Ship 1 (Hobart) and that they not only stuffed them up, the stuffed the rework on them as well and eventually had to deliver them incomplete and uncertified to AWD for them to fix? This is because they sacked most of the experienced workforce they inherited from Tenix in between contracts, had to hire new people, train and certified them as they were working on the AWD blocks, they were literally miles behind the other block fabricators in every measurable way.
The AWD Alliance had to pull welders, weld supervisors, engineers, marine surveyors, piping experts as well as other trades and specialists out of Adelaide and Newcastle to send to BAE to get them back up to speed. Lloyds and other experts were also contracted and the former Chief Surveyor from ABS was also hired by Raytheon and sent there to fix things. Even with all this extra help BAE still was not able to fix the blocks themselves and had to send them to Adelaide to be reworked and completed. They were so far behind schedule that all bar two of the ship 2 blocks they had been allocated were reallocated to ASC, Forgacs and Navantia so not to delay the project even further.
It was this work force, trained and certified by some of the best shipbuilding people in the world, that were so poorly managed, that even after most AWD work (that they incidentally had been paid top dollar to do because they were "Australia's pre-eminent shipbuilder") still made many of the same mistakes on fabricating the LHD superstructures and delivered Canberra twelve months late with a litany of defects. So bad was the performance of BAEs management head office eventually had no choice but to go through the place with a machete and replace most of them with experts from OS and elsewhere in Australia.
BAE stuffing up the keel blocks of ship one screwed the AWD schedule more than all other factors combined. This is most clearly illustrated by the fact that schedule has been clawed back in the far more complex and risky, combat system integration, consolidation and outfit stages of ship 1, the stages BAE had no involvement with whatsoever. Tell yourself as many fairy tails as you like but back in 2011/12 the consensus was BAE management should go to gaol and many of their trades should be sent back to TAFE. And I am speaking as a bloke who had to deal with gloves and rags being welded inside pipe segments of those first keel blocks and buy in videoscopes etc. to conduct 100% inspections of the "certified complete and tested" excrement from Williamstown.
*Sorry for taking this even further off topic but I had only just read this comment and could not let it stand unchallenged. Far too many untruths are now treated as gospel because they are not challenged when and as they appear.
Last edited:
DWP - Army Protected Mobility
Noticed a significant difference between 2 supposedly similar docs... look at what the section on 'Protected Mobility' says in the fact sheet (link #1) compared to what the latest Army News states on 3rd page (link #2)
http://www.defence.govt.nz/pdfs/dwp2016-capability-factsheet.pdf
http://www.army.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/army-news/armynews473.pdf
One suggests enhanced LAV, the other clearly suggests a new vehicle type...
Noticed a significant difference between 2 supposedly similar docs... look at what the section on 'Protected Mobility' says in the fact sheet (link #1) compared to what the latest Army News states on 3rd page (link #2)
http://www.defence.govt.nz/pdfs/dwp2016-capability-factsheet.pdf
http://www.army.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/army-news/armynews473.pdf
One suggests enhanced LAV, the other clearly suggests a new vehicle type...
Yes, it appears confusing. I would hope that they go with a new type. They will be closely looking at the ADF Land 400 project that is underway at the moment. My own view is that the two front runners are the Patria AMV35 and the Boxer CRV. Whilst the AMV35 is the better vehicle of the two, the Boxer CRV is apparently cheaper and it has the advantage of the Rheinmetall Lance turret which allows for either a 30mm or 35mm gun. If a 30mm gun is chosen it can be upgraded later to the 35mm gun with little trouble, because of the modular design of the turret. Whilst the Aussies will be using them as CRVs, both of those vehicles are actually IFVs in their own right. Both can also be used as 105mm SPGs, Patria using the Cockerill CT-CV 105HP Weapon System (105 mm) and the Boxer whilst based on the KMW Donar 155mm AGM, it should then be no major issue to mount, say the Cockerill CT-CV 105HP turret instead.Noticed a significant difference between 2 supposedly similar docs... look at what the section on 'Protected Mobility' says in the fact sheet (link #1) compared to what the latest Army News states on 3rd page (link #2)
http://www.defence.govt.nz/pdfs/dwp2016-capability-factsheet.pdf
http://www.army.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/army-news/armynews473.pdf
One suggests enhanced LAV, the other clearly suggests a new vehicle type...
Last edited:
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
HDT confirms FCS developments, Kongsberg updates ODIN | IHS Jane's 360
Interesting snippet from Janes about a NZ company building sighting systems for the Hirtenberger 60mm mortar. Which is Austrian, rather than Swiss as the article claims.
Interesting snippet from Janes about a NZ company building sighting systems for the Hirtenberger 60mm mortar. Which is Austrian, rather than Swiss as the article claims.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/training-simulation/saab-wins-finland/
I don't remember seeing anything on this? Perhaps it is related to the new special forces facility?
A superb documentary on the NZDF in Afghanistan is available on Stuff.co.nz. Highly recommended. Eye-opening. Not a pleasant watch though (this was the rotation that suffered the highest casualties).
Watch: The Soldiers' Story - Documentary shows Kiwi troops in Afghanistan | Stuff.co.nz
Favourite moment so far: the air-drop from the Caribou (?) - some serious stunt flying there.
Watch: The Soldiers' Story - Documentary shows Kiwi troops in Afghanistan | Stuff.co.nz
Favourite moment so far: the air-drop from the Caribou (?) - some serious stunt flying there.
A close up and detailed look at the new rifles adopted by the NZDF is youtube here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iF23Y6Mj65A
A couple of interesting points:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iF23Y6Mj65A
A couple of interesting points:
- The ammunition is not going to be 'normal' NATO standard ball rounds, instead they will be using "Mk. 262 Mod1" SOCOM ammunition
- The bayonet is side mounted to enable the grenade launcher to still be able to fired with the bayonet fitted
kiwi in exile
Active Member
I liked the vids and was going to post them earlier but you bet me to it.
From the look of it, it looks as though the 14.5 inch barrel of the standard rifle (for navy/airforce/?vehicle crews) may not support the bayonet. IE too short in terms of barrels space beyond the rails. As far as I know we still use the M7 bayonet, designed in the 60s for the first gen M16's. Maybe time for an update.
Ditto the special forces version with the longer rails. Good to see a breakdown of both rifles and what the SAS will be getting. I'm guessing the guy got access/info direct from LMT. One rifle had a NZ serial #
I think that the plan is to replace the Mogs with a combination of the MAN and COTS vehicles. I would suggest that your cousin contact NZDF regarding his interest and query how to obtain one.
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
Well im in Christchurch, we have Burnham army base here and i see them getting serviced often in Hornby on Shands rd warrant of fitness centre when im about visiting freinds, so yes.
The MANs replaced the operational portion of the unimog (and heavy) fleet and there is still a number in service performing garrison roles throughout the NZDF which are to be replaced in time by a COTS version, essentially a civilian truck, in a similar vein as how the NMVs (currently mitsi tritons) complement the pinzgauers in a support function.
Milspec vehicles are inherently expensive and for a wide variety of tasks not required therefore a civspec option is the most cost effective soloution. The ADF have predominantly hino trucks performing this role for comparison.
Admittedly our military has downsized somewhat and vehicles are now more "effective" so numbers will adjust accordingly but to gauge we had around 450 unimogs and roughly 230 2228 variants so if you take away the 194 MANS we could potentially be looking at a further 200 civ unimog replacements and maybe 50 heavier/other types to fill the void (taking into consideration downsizing, pooling, outsourcing, leasing etc). Hino, fuso, isuzu etc all have capable 4wd options and support vehicles in this range with local support so should be a relatively straight forward project once given the green light and choice is made compared to say the introduction of the MAN fleet (which actually was good anyway). Some MAN COTS versions are also making an appearance in places ie RNZAF tankers so obviously role dependant and leveraging commonality but my gut feeling is possibly too expensive an option even for their civ versions to replace the entire garrison fleet considering some cheaper but just as capable options out there, could still be a possibilty though.
Thought some unimogs would have started popping up on the market by now as units take delivery of their MANs but as per the rovers/rodeos/navaras the first ones to reach the auctions are usually the highest K, oldest or hardest life members of the fleet so sometimes pays to be patient and wait for the later tranches dependant on deals to be had.
I personally would'nt mind a 1700 unimog in the driveway, years of fun in those things and hard to beat offroad despite their age.
Thanks for the info.
Since the MAN HX's are militarised versions of the MAN TG range of commercial trucks and share engines, chassis and various other bits and bobs, it would make more sense for the military to purchase MAN TG trucks to replace the rest of the MOGs and Mercedes heavy trucks?
Since the MAN HX's are militarised versions of the MAN TG range of commercial trucks and share engines, chassis and various other bits and bobs, it would make more sense for the military to purchase MAN TG trucks to replace the rest of the MOGs and Mercedes heavy trucks?
It would make sense from a whole package point of veiw and spares, support and training angle however euro trucks usually cost more even in the civilian market so will come down to how much $$$ govt is willing to throw at the project and perceived requirement for envisaged roles. The current CL fleet is a mix of makes deemed fit for purpose and some "other" support trucks are included such as Scania, mercedes, hino, fuso etc.
If they go with longevity and keep for 30-40 years then the civ MANs would be a better choice in terms of quality, commonality and features and they may stump the cash otherwise could just be similar to the tritons (LOT of @5 years) and tender out replacements at select time/life cycles (ie 10 years/500,000ks) to maximise return on the market. Another option could be a lease arrangement with a company like SG fleet which currently takes care of some of the CL fleet for DF, again down to cost.
For these particular vehicles I have no issues with going for a "cheaper" option such as hino as they are still very capable for around nz and even regionally (even better supported in fact locally, islands etc) and for their intended roles(non-operational) as the fleets are still large enough for optimised support chains. A common family has its obvious benefits but if it is at the cost of overall numbers due to price per truck for example than in this instance an acceptable compromise.
Can't beat euro comfort and quality but also can't ignore japanese price and practicality, be interesting to see which path they take.
Can't beat euro comfort and quality but also can't ignore japanese price and practicality, be interesting to see which path they take.[/QUOTE]
Often prestige is mistaken for quality and having been involved to some degree with transporting bulk materials I would comment that the Jap trucks I dealt with ( mainly mitzi's and izuzu's) gave far less problems than the euros (Volvo) or yank's (KW,s) that came my way and talking to a service manager of a large transport company with a mixed fleet he had the same experience. In his words, you never saw the Japs between servicing but the yanks and euros were a common feature in the workshop. However the armies trucks don't do near the work per year that transport trucks do so will last a lot longer
Often prestige is mistaken for quality and having been involved to some degree with transporting bulk materials I would comment that the Jap trucks I dealt with ( mainly mitzi's and izuzu's) gave far less problems than the euros (Volvo) or yank's (KW,s) that came my way and talking to a service manager of a large transport company with a mixed fleet he had the same experience. In his words, you never saw the Japs between servicing but the yanks and euros were a common feature in the workshop. However the armies trucks don't do near the work per year that transport trucks do so will last a lot longer
Often prestige is mistaken for quality and having been involved to some degree with transporting bulk materials I would comment that the Jap trucks I dealt with ( mainly mitzi's and izuzu's) gave far less problems than the euros (Volvo) or yank's (KW,s) that came my way and talking to a service manager of a large transport company with a mixed fleet he had the same experience. In his words, you never saw the Japs between servicing but the yanks and euros were a common feature in the workshop. However the armies trucks don't do near the work per year that transport trucks do so will last a lot longer[/QUOTE]
Agreed which is exactly why I think for the garrison fleet at least japanese trucks are the way to go, less complicated, does the job and reliable. For admin roles, training, back up, reserves etc they would be more than adequate for the price (comparitively). The operational fleet needs the options, not nesscessarily the home fleet so not an issue.
In saying that we have obviously had a stirling run out of the mercedes brand so euro still has it's reputation but still too early to tell if the MANs can carry the torch just yet. I think it will come down to who has the best deal, options and support package at the time if the NMV project is anything to go by in this regard when the tenders are let.