New Zealand Army

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
Re: 25mm guns. I remember reading on wikipedia (yea I know) that upgrading to a 30mm bushmaster increases firepower by 50% for a 20% increase in caliber size at 70% parts commonality. 30mm seems to be the way forward and would be an easy relatively cheap upgrade for both the LAVs and RNZN, but would it be warrented given the amount of action we see? Not sure what the NZ LAV upgrade is likely to entail, but wouldn't be too surprised if its a limited upgrade. Would be interesting to see us relook at our whole turret design/options. Again, the articles in previous issues of DTR are a great read regarding this. Would sooner see us incorporate a precision missile capability than a large calibre gun.

Fiji recently recieved weapons shipments from Russia, which included RPGs (as well as 5.56mm AK101s). This should be considered. Give their history of instability and coups, some of these may fall into the wrong hands.
This gives you a basic understanding in the different caliber guns in relations to the Bushmaster's (25,30,35mm).

WARFARE TECHNOLOGY: ATK Bushmaster III Automatic Cannon

Overall gives a good impression that the 25mm is absolutely useless today, let alone into the future. 30mm is good and useful but does have difficulties against some upgraded vehicles (BMP-3+) while the 35mm doesnt so if your looking for future use then 35mm would be the logical choice, However will be interesting to see how the 40mm comes along.

Regards, vonnoobie.
 

Raven22

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The chain-guns on the LAV are used for more than just killing BMP-3s, so it's hardly useless. You aren't able to up gun the Delco turret on the LAVIII, so if you wanted to upgrade the gun you'd need a whole new turret. If you really want to kill other IFVs though, it's a relatively simple matter to strap some ATGMs to the turret. That way you can kill tanks as well.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
This gives you a basic understanding in the different caliber guns in relations to the Bushmaster's (25,30,35mm).

WARFARE TECHNOLOGY: ATK Bushmaster III Automatic Cannon

Overall gives a good impression that the 25mm is absolutely useless today, let alone into the future. 30mm is good and useful but does have difficulties against some upgraded vehicles (BMP-3+) while the 35mm doesnt so if your looking for future use then 35mm would be the logical choice, However will be interesting to see how the 40mm comes along.

Regards, vonnoobie.
Your link also has a short review of Denmark's experience with the CV9035. It gives high marks for the 35mm round as well has highlighting why
tracked vehicles were favoured for Helmond.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
Your link also has a short review of Denmark's experience with the CV9035. It gives high marks for the 35mm round as well has highlighting why
tracked vehicles were favoured for Helmond.
Hi John

Little lost, where the section on why they preferred tracked to wheeled

The number of ready to fire ammunition is very important, ie. CV9035 has a total of 70 rounds of belted 35mm ready-to-fire, which is not bad.
That the only section I can in regards to CV90. Nothing about tracked v wheels debate or am I missing something?
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Hi John

Little lost, where the section on why they preferred tracked to wheeled



That the only section I can in regards to CV90. Nothing about tracked v wheels debate or am I missing something?
Sorry for the confusion. The CV9035 Danish reference is here and does mention the terrain problems that favoured tracked vehicles. Canada experienced the same issue which is partly why the failed CCV program got started. We had an opportunity to buy some surplus CV90s but DND preferred new kit and thus ended up with nothing.
WARFARE TECHNOLOGY: CV9035 Afghanistan and some experiences
 

kiwipatriot69

Active Member
Sorry for the confusion. The CV9035 Danish reference is here and does mention the terrain problems that favoured tracked vehicles. Canada experienced the same issue which is partly why the failed CCV program got started. We had an opportunity to buy some surplus CV90s but DND preferred new kit and thus ended up with nothing.
WARFARE TECHNOLOGY: CV9035 Afghanistan and some experiences
Would be cheaper i wonder to go down this path though for a tracked solution like this, rather than a Lav 6 type upgrade? especially if we intend to increase the firepower, wont that mean replacing the turret too?
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
IMHO the defense of NZ mainland should beca secondary concern when it comes to chosing new army equipment. Everybody with the ability to cross the pacific and land an amphibious task force in NZ will brush aside the army forces regardless of their equipment.

I am sceptical of extensive upgrades to an existing fleet. They tend to cost nearly as much as a new vehicle with the additional burden of having to compromise due to using existing vehicles as a base (M113AS4 anyone...).

While I agree that tracked vehicles have their advantage as several ISAF participants experienced I don't think it is a viable option for NZ. Wheeled vehicles are a bit cheaper to procure but especially cheaper to run. And I gather the NZ army is too cash strapped to add aditional burden to the maintenance budget.

But getting a well armed and protected vehicle is essential for such a small force. Light infantry is a mere speed bump without proper support assets and the force size and political climate makes force protection a primary concern.

NZ should take a hard look at Phase 2 of the AUS Land 400 program. The packages under consideration tick all the boxes even if reduced sonewhat in order to keep the price down for NZ (no APS for example). Add an already mentioned 120mm mortar capability (probably on mothballed low mileage LAV chassis) and one has a well rounded small force (light mechanized infantry with adequate directvand indirect fire support).
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Would be cheaper i wonder to go down this path though for a tracked solution like this, rather than a Lav 6 type upgrade? especially if we intend to increase the firepower, wont that mean replacing the turret too?
A CV90 would be a more expensive option as well as being more costly to operate. In a perfect world it would be nice to have both but money talks! Other than Afghanistan, are there any other possible missions that NZ would require a tracked APC? I think you are correct about a turret upgrade being necessary for the 35 mm gun. The Canadian army will continue to use the 25 mm gun on their LAV 6s, likely to minimize the upgrade cost which would be ok if the CCV program had survived, even with a reduced number (30-40 instead of the 100+ that the army requested). Oh well, at least we still have our Leo 2s.
 

kiwipatriot69

Active Member
A CV90 would be a more expensive option as well as being more costly to operate. In a perfect world it would be nice to have both but money talks! Other than Afghanistan, are there any other possible missions that NZ would require a tracked APC? I think you are correct about a turret upgrade being necessary for the 35 mm gun. The Canadian army will continue to use the 25 mm gun on their LAV 6s, likely to minimize the upgrade cost which would be ok if the CCV program had survived, even with a reduced number (30-40 instead of the 100+ that the army requested). Oh well, at least we still have our Leo 2s.
Yeah, i had a look at the Lav 6.0 for Canada, and land 400 program for Australia yesterday. In Austrailias case, going for vehicles like Bionix, Boxer, or CV90 as A Nz option might not be such a good idea, even IF we got an KC390 or similar sized airlifter, we still wouldnt be able to deploy them except by sea.
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Buy A400M...;)

Seriously, I don't think it's that much of a problem. You either have enough time to move the kit by sea using Canterbury or rented civilian assets or you use allied or civil air assets to get them into theater like Antonovs or AUS/US C-17s.

Any serious modern IFV, be it wheeled or tracked, is not going to fit into a C-130.
 

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Buy A400M...;)

Seriously, I don't think it's that much of a problem. You either have enough time to move the kit by sea using Canterbury or rented civilian assets or you use allied or civil air assets to get them into theater like Antonovs or AUS/US C-17s.

Any serious modern IFV, be it wheeled or tracked, is not going to fit into a C-130.
Check out the RNZAF page, were there is additional information regarding the strategic and tactical transport RFI. It seems that a c130J purchase would be unlikely and that the ability to lift a up armored LAV or NH 90 is a desirable attribute for the C130 replacement. Possibly making the A400 or C2 front runners. This would allow for the transportation by air for all but the heaviest IFV
 

kiwipatriot69

Active Member
Check out the RNZAF page, were there is additional information regarding the strategic and tactical transport RFI. It seems that a c130J purchase would be unlikely and that the ability to lift a up armored LAV or NH 90 is a desirable attribute for the C130 replacement. Possibly making the A400 or C2 front runners. This would allow for the transportation by air for all but the heaviest IFV
Thanks Rob C, i will check that out over my coffee break, cheers.
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Ah, it' basically the current build of our AGDUS system.

I used this alot. Very nice training tool and easy to use. Generates somecreally usefull post action review data when coupled to a modern training center but also works nice as as a standalone tool. As all these laser based simulators it lacks in simulating HE effects (from handgrenades to artillery rounds) with some laser tricks (wide beam) and referes with "lasers of god" trying to work around this as good as possible.

Are you also going to buy the vehicle kits or just the infantry kits?
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro

kiwi in exile

Active Member
Found this on future New Zealand special operations vehicle.

The New Zealand Ministry of Defence has awarded a contract to high mobility vehicle specialist Supacat, to deliver Special Operations Vehicles – Mobility Heavy (SOV-MH) for the New Zealand Defence Forces.

Supacat to deliver Special Operations Vehicles – Mobility Heavy (SOV-MH) to New Zealand - Supacat - High mobility vehicles

Thats great news. was expected but still great news.

Only question now is in terms of numbers and if they will have the RWS and EO/IR mast like the aussie ones. There was discussion about another limited buy of SF support vehicles (Bushmasters hopefully). hopefully we can expect an announcement soon.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
Thats great news. was expected but still great news.

Only question now is in terms of numbers and if they will have the RWS and EO/IR mast like the aussie ones. There was discussion about another limited buy of SF support vehicles (Bushmasters hopefully). hopefully we can expect an announcement soon.
I think the Bushmaster lines closed, replaced with Hawkie line. Wonder if we can temped the Kiwis with some and throw in 24 bushes sitting on the line somewhere.
 

RegR

Well-Known Member
Thats great news. was expected but still great news.

Only question now is in terms of numbers and if they will have the RWS and EO/IR mast like the aussie ones. There was discussion about another limited buy of SF support vehicles (Bushmasters hopefully). hopefully we can expect an announcement soon.
Yes hopefully a "range" of vehicles to better suit operations as surely we are realising one size does not in fact fit all. Afghan has proven this in a few ways across the PRT and SF rotations in terms of vehicle type, usability, operation and suitability. Bougainville, Timor and Afghan have shown the need for a varied response and capability in terms of terrain, open, close, urban and varying threat levels.

Supacat was a no brainer and bushmaster seems a good bet as proven, reliable and supported platforms. Other options include something like iveco LMT, yes hawkeis, light tacticals and even armoured landcruisers (along with their normal nissan patrols, quads, MCs etc) which also have potential for wider use throughout NZDF as deemed fit and required later on down the track, difference is SAS has a bigger justification stick to push projects through relatively quickly. No doubt they have looked to our allies and at what/how they are using their vehicle fleets for options and ideas on what/how to best implement and alot of lessons learned would have been gleaned from current ops especially.

Hopefully the current SOV fleet is re-distributed to recon units in the BNs or QA rather than sold, mothballed or otherwise disposed of.
 

40 deg south

Well-Known Member
Found this on future New Zealand special operations vehicle.

The New Zealand Ministry of Defence has awarded a contract to high mobility vehicle specialist Supacat, to deliver Special Operations Vehicles – Mobility Heavy (SOV-MH) for the New Zealand Defence Forces.

Supacat to deliver Special Operations Vehicles – Mobility Heavy (SOV-MH) to New Zealand - Supacat - High mobility vehicles
Interesting that they are buying off the Australian assembly line rather than the one in the UK.

The SOV-MH vehicles will be manufactured at Supacat’s existing assembly facilities in Australia using Supacat Team Australia members to manufacture and assemble the vehicle. This represents the first time that Supacat Team Australia members will be exporting completed vehicles and complements the opportunities already emerging for Australian suppliers to enter Supacat’s global
supply chains. - See more at: Supacat to deliver Special Operations Vehicles – Mobility Heavy (SOV-MH) to New Zealand - Supacat - High mobility vehicles
 
Top