Agreed, either Darwin or Shoalwater Bay Qld. Both places would give NZ the opportunity to regularly exercise their mounts with any number of allies including Singapore, USMC and Australia.
New Zealand Army
- Thread starter Whiskyjack
- Start date
-
- Tags
- army artilery gunner new zealand sas
Maybe a couple of platoons or even a company based permanently in the Top End with the personnel swapping about, say, after six month stints. That should give them plenty of training with the Aussie Army and the USMC, plus exposure to snakes, crocs, drop-bears and other delightful Aussie wildlife.
t68
Well-Known Member
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
From my POV the notion that if a revolving radar antenna can be fitted, why not a turret with a cannon? is a false notion.
Looking at some of the smaller radar arrays which could easily fit within an area the size of a turret, they tend to weigh less than 100 kg, with most examples I have come across weighing between 75 kg and 85 kg. The M242 Bushmaster 25 mm cannon itself weighs ~119 kg, never mind the weight of the ammunition, turret crew, or turret as a whole. Also, a revolving radar antenna does not create recoil forces, which firing that Bushmaster certainly would. Yes, the container structure could be reinforced to handle the kinetic energy transferred but that would mean additional design work and fabrication.
As I understood the initial concept, it sounded as though the idea behind mounting the turrets to the ISO containers was to create what would essentially be transportable 'pillboxes' to provide/create strongpoints to defend a fixed position. I would appreciate it if the OP of the idea could confirm whether my understanding of the idea is correct, before I go down the rabbit hole of ideas that have come to mind.
I’m not saying it can’t be done, simply that the juice isn’t worth the squeeze. Spending multiple millions to design and engineer a bespoke solution for a tiny number of systems is never going to be cost effective. It would be far cheaper, and far more useful, simply to continue to use the turrets on the vehicles.
Overkill in this instance is not a good thing, as it detracts from the military principles of economy of force and main effort. Obviously, you want to expend the minimum resources you can on force protection. No one has ever won a war by defending their own bases, and the more effort expended on base defence is less effort expended on defeating the enemy. This concept would only have value if it was more economical than the alternatives, and that just isn’t the case.
For example, all the other containerised systems for base defence are remotely controlled. That is so they can be remoted into the CP/TOC, and one or two guys can monitor and control all the systems across the whole base. Obviously, this saves significant manpower. A containerised DELCO turret does not achieve this - you still need a two man crew for each system, with all the limitations below.
The training and manpower constraints of this system would be significant. Normal base defence is small arms, and maybe a HMG/GMG or two. This means more or less any soldier can man the towers, and everyone can rotate through tower piquets. Put a containerised DELCO turret there, and suddenly the only people that can man it are qualified LAV crewman. Therefore you are going to either have to qualify everyone on the DELCO turret (very resource intensive) or you are going to need dedicated crew that do nothing all day other than man the turrets. That is a significant manpower burden if you have multiple systems. If you already have LAVs in theatre this is less of an issue as you rotate the crewman through, but if you already had LAVs in theatre why would you need this system at all? Just have firing positions for the LAVs around the perimeter and you’re golden.
Which leads onto support requirements. Put a containerised LAV turret into theatre and you need most of the support you would need for a LAV proper. You’re going to need qualified gun plumbers to maintain the weapons, qualified tech elecs to maintain the electrical systems, qualified spanners to maintain the underlying system. You’ll need a supply of 25mm ammo, plus a space to store it. You’ll need a facility for bore sighting and zeroing. I’ve already mentioned the crew constraints. If you are going to go to that effort to support a few systems for base defence, you might as well just deploy LAVs anyway.
And finally, the entire system just wouldn’t actually be very good, with a lot of operational limitations. For example, you don’t have elevated sensors - you still only have the sighting systems on the top of the turret. Even a normal tower picquet would have sensors more elevated than that. The gun itself would have very little ability to depress, particularly if it was bolted to the top of a container. You therefore are going to have significant dead zones where you can’t apply fire anyway. As FOBs are generally built on elevated terrain, limited depression is not a good thing. The inability to move, at all, is also a significant limitation. Small arms, even HMGs, can be moved to cover primary, secondary and alternative arcs. Vehicles can be moved into different firing positions to achieve the same. A containerised system cannot, and therefore you are going to need a large number of systems to cover a useful portion of the perimeter.
Have a read of the sunk cost fallacy in business. Throwing good money after bad is not cost effectiveness.
Not an expert on weight but I assume that is alittle more than 85kg all up.
So imagine this for a moment. Remove radar/mortar system and replace with a 25mm cannon that you may have laying around for some reason, but this is the general idea.
I am honestly struggling to figure out why this is such a hard concept for people to even fathom. Took me all of 5 minutes to find this on open source so obviously at least one other person on the planet has thought about it and in fact taken into account certain considerations such as space, weight, roles, recoil, transportability etc etc.
My Idea is to put to use the spare turrets (which alone are otherwise rather useless) that will come off any re-roled NZLAVs rather than seeing them go to waste sitting idle in a Trentham warehouse for the next 10-15 years. Just trying to free up some space in the store as there are already 20 spare complete NZLAVs in there awaiting sale and dust and cobwebs is at a premium.
For the record I would actually much prefer the mortar system, difference being we don't already have these in stock and in excess.
Last edited:
Yes but this is the thing, for something this complex I would never expect NZ to engineer these kinds of upgrades ourselves, never have never will as we just do not have the required levels of backround, expertise, numbers or resources, just like I will not expect NZ to complete the MLU on the NZLAVs ourselves TBH (any decent one anyway) which is why I think the LAVs should just go to Canada and tag onto their upgrade program. Easier, safer and hopefully issue free. Same applies here, merely aqquire the containers from already established/proven companies such as Patria already with mounts to suit and then retro-fit the turrets into them. Similar to us swapping turrets on vehicles just in this case containers.
I would love remotely operated systems, would have saved me a great portion of my life watching my arcs at 0300 but NZ still primarily maintains the old Mk1 eyeball alongside your mates next to you on sentry. The turrets still maintain the MAG58s so that is still the initial option so even if piquets are just using the container as an improved sanger, with the option of increased response, then so be it otherwise respond with the MAGs as per usual. I would not expect everyone to be proficient on the cannon/optics in general and in the event of a contact everyone stands to anyway so just make it SOP for a trained per to respond to the turrets as opposed to anywhere else if required as per.
What's to say they won't be deployed alongside NZLAV anyway as if you require one or the other then generally the threat levels similarly up there, so maintain one, the other or both it's all relative to the mission. I am suggesting these for the re-roled left over LAV turrets so if all goes well and we eventually sell the "excess" hulls then there should'nt actually be "spare" LAVs to send (just for this particular role anyway) and a turret is still less work to maintain/operate/transport than a turret and a LAV as a container is essentially still just that, a container.
Agreed there will be limitations but that also comes down to planning and sighting for best use and is a consideration for most static posts regardless. Mounting the system on the rear of the container vs the centre impoves your arcs as does raising/lowering an end, earthworks, stacking, lines of sight etc etc failing that it can still be moved by MHE and/or even left on a truck to find the optimum site, obviously if you still have an actual LAV on base or not responding with QRF then you could just use that to cover a found deadzone like normal. Still far easier to relocate than a sanger or a building at the end of the day.
Yes there will always be pros and cons to any systems, nothing is perfect otherwise I would hope we would already have it, I am merely offering a possibility for something we currently have that will otherwise not be used. I just hate seeing wasted or under-utilised resources, I guess something I took away from the military at least, ironic since at times they are the worst, if only joe public knew...
Last edited:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I still would like to know if this proposed containerized system is supposed to be acting as a sort of 'pillbox' but given some of the links provided, it really sounds as though that is the idea.
With respect to having something like this designed and fabricated, has anyone done this with a LAV III turret yet? If not, then before any potentially surplus NZLAV turrets could be re-used for such a design, someone would need to do the necessary engineering and fabrication. Unless/until someone else is interested in doing so, then NZ would need to at least fund if not carry out the necessary work.
IMO it is not a question of whether the work could be done, but whether or not the finished product would be worth the effort and cost. At present, I strongly suspect the answer would be, "no." From my POV, the idea seems more like a solution looking for a problem, than a solution to a problem.
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
The NEMO AMOS system that is mounted on an ISO twenty foot frame is top mounted and not recessed. For the exact same reasons NEMO developed the AMOS in a box these surplus turrets could provide a multitude of uses.
Yes the production run would be small but it doesnt appear to be a major job that couldn't be handled by NZ engineering companies.
The base could be backfilled or sandbagged to afford protection from small arms when used as site protection at remote facilities. The turret has armour protection from 7.62 mm. With a 3000 m range and 200 rpm this mount can truly reach out and touch someone. Of course no weapon is immune from something bigger but how often will the likely beligerant be armed with artillery or tanks?
I am assumming that the Delco turret is electrically powered so cabling to seperate generators can provide power.
FOBs, air fields and other high value remote locations would benefit from this enhanced protection.
Just another idea outside of the institutional box.
Yes the production run would be small but it doesnt appear to be a major job that couldn't be handled by NZ engineering companies.
The base could be backfilled or sandbagged to afford protection from small arms when used as site protection at remote facilities. The turret has armour protection from 7.62 mm. With a 3000 m range and 200 rpm this mount can truly reach out and touch someone. Of course no weapon is immune from something bigger but how often will the likely beligerant be armed with artillery or tanks?
I am assumming that the Delco turret is electrically powered so cabling to seperate generators can provide power.
FOBs, air fields and other high value remote locations would benefit from this enhanced protection.
Just another idea outside of the institutional box.
Seriously if you think they can put a 120mm mortar into this container firing it directly and indirectly but a bushmaster cannon in the same configuration will somehow defy physics then I honestly do not know what to say. Patria themselves even say they can sell the containers minus the weapon system and do you honestly believe they cannot then modify a cupola designed to take a 120mm system to instead take a 25mm system in its place? I would not be surprised if it has similar dimensions for the turret already, can obviously handle the weight, size, recoil and operation but for some reason this will be a headscratcher? I obviously have more faith in their engineers then you do.
Yes a container is expensive but still not nearly as expensive as a light armoured vehicle (financially and figuratively) and yes we probably won't spend money on making this a reality, but neither will half the things discussed on these pages (despite what we think) but IMO the effort and cost is worth using a capabilty at all vs wasting away. Army itself is moving to containerisation for a multitude of applications and reasons for ease, expediency and simplicity, we obvoiusly have differring veiws on the "price" of containers and the roles they can/could play, but then is'nt that the point of these discussion threads?
All found in the Mitchell St bar district but then you have to add the outback stuff!
Army are probably somewhat naive in that department, but jolly jack would be right in his / her element. Mitchell St bar district be a second home.
Ain't gonna be a flyer Reg because it takes up scarce resources and isn't that practical. Like some else said, if you going to do something like that a remotely operated 50 cal is just as effective.
I’m going to stop commenting on this, as we’re clearly not going to agree.
Spending many millions of dollars to create a system to fill a requirement that doesn’t exist and that is less effective than current systems is not good business.
Not that naive NG where do you think Army spent there OT leave during TimorArmy are probably somewhat naive in that department, but jolly jack would be right in his / her element. Mitchell St bar district be a second home.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
From my POV designing a system like this would be much like designing a new armoured fighting vehicle which would be a major job for any NZ engineering firms.
Any work done to prepare a fighting position could just as easily (if not more so) also be done to prepare a fighting position for a NZLAV. That could be a sunken gun pit, erecting a sandbag wall, or even better using some of the modular armoured wall systems.
The NZLAV turrets are currently protected to at least NATO STANAG 4569 Level 3. The rest of the NZLAV's have the same level of protection with the added benefit of the armour being sloped to a degree in certain directions which can help reduce the effectiveness of some fire. A turret mounted in/on an ISO container would be connected to something with flat sides and a roof. That could of course be armoured (with associated design and fabrication costs and weight) but being flat-sided armour of the same composition and thickness would be less effective than sloped armour. OTOH the container could be left with the welded corrugated steel construction that is standard in ISO container construction, but that would leave all the personnel and internal systems within the container vulnerable to injury or damage from small arms fire, grenade, mortar or artillery shell fragments and splinters, etc. I do not imagine that a flat, unarmoured ISO container roof would withstand 60 mm or 81/82 mm mortar fragments all that well, never mind if it took a direct hit.
Relating to the NZLAV turret, that is a direct fire weapon, which has an effective range out to 3 km, that is worth SFA if the turret cannot be brought to bear on the target. Targets below the gun traverse could not be engaged, and the same would apply either firing indirectly from behind obstructions, or approaching while using buildings/terrain to screen the approach. Unless NZ managed to construct a field base or outpost on a flat plan that is at least 6 km in diameter (damned unlikely IMO) then much of what the Bushmaster could do would not be able to be utilized.
There would also be the not insignificant matter of getting the turret container into position and keeping it operation. Cabling could be run to a generator to provide power, but that cabling would need to either be armoured, buried, or preferably both, otherwise it would be vulnerable to getting cut by incoming fire (mortar and grenade fragments in particular) or if a vehicle accidentally hits or runs over it.
Again, all this can be done, but at what point does the effort required exceed the value of the capability output. IMO the above would have happened some time ago.
I will be following Raven's lead. IMO the proposed idea as I understand it, would provide a solution a solution of questionable effectiveness for a problem that does not really exist which could be better met using existing NZ Army kit, and with no units in existence anyway AFAIK, would require funding to develop, fabricate and then test.
Despite what others have apparently assumed, I have not stated that such a system could not be developed, but rather that the effort required would IMO far exceed the value of the capability which would be delivered.
Last edited:
I think RegR idea has some merit ,but not in the way he envisions it ..As I have said before I have no military background (apart from NZ National Service where I reached the rank of Signalman).
I propose the thought that a couple of surplus turrets be placed on a standard container base as a fully self supporting unit (hydraulics ,power etc) .The Navy could then be able to use them as additional firepower if they require them .I am aware that there are problems attached to this ,but I feel in the case of the OPV for example a gun in the front is only of some use. A LAV turret with some stabilization would be more use than an unstabilized .5 HMG. .As quite a few ships have container docks .I would surmise that some would have available power points for reefer containers.
I realise that there will be holes in my proposal so feel free to shoot me down (Mods ,do whatever you want to with this post).
I propose the thought that a couple of surplus turrets be placed on a standard container base as a fully self supporting unit (hydraulics ,power etc) .The Navy could then be able to use them as additional firepower if they require them .I am aware that there are problems attached to this ,but I feel in the case of the OPV for example a gun in the front is only of some use. A LAV turret with some stabilization would be more use than an unstabilized .5 HMG. .As quite a few ships have container docks .I would surmise that some would have available power points for reefer containers.
I realise that there will be holes in my proposal so feel free to shoot me down (Mods ,do whatever you want to with this post).
Where is the base place to start to cost out such an effort? Are there cost figures for something like 2 squadron when based at Nowra or other smaller army facilities run by other nations in NZ or Oz?
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I had an additional thought for people to consider regarding taking the NZLAV turrets off 'surplus' vehicles and re-using as part of a stationary system.
If one looks at the direct fire weapons developed over the last 50 years or so, how many direct fire guns of 20 mm or large calibre have been developed which are not mobile/vehicle mounted? Towed AT guns are largely a thing of the past, as is parking a direct fire gun in a fixed position.
If one looks at the direct fire weapons developed over the last 50 years or so, how many direct fire guns of 20 mm or large calibre have been developed which are not mobile/vehicle mounted? Towed AT guns are largely a thing of the past, as is parking a direct fire gun in a fixed position.