New Zealand Army

[Todjaeger]

Not quite sure why you are comparing LAVs and Bushmasters, different Vehicles for different jobs. The main roles of the LAV is Recce, Fire Support, Escort, the Bushmasters job is basically as a Battlefield Taxi, replacing carrying Soldiers in the back of Trucks, delivering logistics to the frontlines. etc.

A battlefield taxi? That does not sound right, as that is a role for an APC, while a Bushmaster is an IMV, intended more to provide some protection to troops while getting them to/from the battlefield. It would be the role of an armoured personnel carrier to transport troops on/across a battlefield.

 

[RegR]

Some mentioned here possibly upgrading the disused LAVs to ambulance and other roles, thats why i mentioned it, it seems Bushmaster will be taking some of those roles then?Would I be correct in assuming this vehicle provides better protection and would of been a better, cheaper option to converting some of the lavs?
Going by the last post, can I assume that another similar vehicle again to the LAV then will be chosen?

Bushmasters would be a more suitable ambo then say a converted LAV imo in terms of application, cost etc (for us anyway) but then the LAV platform would make a better mortar carrier for example so they definately have their pros and cons. I actually think it's time we bit the bullet so to speak and made use of the excess @35 NZLAV as if we have not been able to find a buyer after all these years then chances are we never will now as there are more and more other options on the market now anyway (some ASLAVs soon for example).

Mortars, dedicated driver trainers, HQ fitouts etc etc, may as well use them as the fleet is still aging the same regardless and no ppint having 30 plus low k scrap hulls in 10 years...even if we say sent a sections worth over to Canada to tag onto the LAV6 upgrade for any future Afghan type deployment so they are at least ready to go beats just having them sit in a warehouse for the next decade as is (or ideally squadrons worth, better yet full fleet). Canada have some interesting variants in the 6 build which could be applicable.

 

[ngatimozart]

Bushmasters would be a more suitable ambo then say a converted LAV imo in terms of application, cost etc (for us anyway) but then the LAV platform would make a better mortar carrier for example so they definately have their pros and cons. I actually think it's time we bit the bullet so to speak and made use of the excess @35 NZLAV as if we have not been able to find a buyer after all these years then chances are we never will now as there are more and more other options on the market now anyway (some ASLAVs soon for example).

Mortars, dedicated driver trainers, HQ fitouts etc etc, may as well use them as the fleet is still aging the same regardless and no ppint having 30 plus low k scrap hulls in 10 years...even if we say sent a sections worth over to Canada to tag onto the LAV6 upgrade for any future Afghan type deployment so they are at least ready to go beats just having them sit in a warehouse for the next decade as is (or ideally squadrons worth, better yet full fleet). Canada have some interesting variants in the 6 build which could be applicable.

Actually I would rather we bite the bullet and go Boxer with an unmanned Lance turret. The Boxer actually has far more to offer in the long term than the any LAV variant does. We have 2 FVEY nations going with it and we would have the be able to take advantage of a large order if we tacked onto an Aussie or UK order. If we went with the Aussies we could also have the Spike LR integration as well which the Aussies have paid for, plus the Aussies are license building the Spike LR and the ammo for the Rheinmettall 30 mm gun in Australia.



This is a graphic of the Boxer variants that are available and the beauty is that most of them come in modules that we could acquire over and above the base vehicles. If we do the same with LAV's we have to acquire the whole vehicle. For example we could acquire say 90 drive units and 120 modules. At present there are 11 modules available: artec-boxer.com: Variants The module exchange is relative easy and quick as shown in the video below. A more thorough Think Defence article: Boxer Armoured Vehicle Details and Variants gives better details on the advantages of the Boxer.

I do think that it is something that we should seriously consider, because in reality WRT ground force equipment we do better to be more compatible with the Aussies.

 

[RegR]

Actually I would rather we bite the bullet and go Boxer with an unmanned Lance turret. The Boxer actually has far more to offer in the long term than the any LAV variant does. We have 2 FVEY nations going with it and we would have the be able to take advantage of a large order if we tacked onto an Aussie or UK order. If we went with the Aussies we could also have the Spike LR integration as well which the Aussies have paid for, plus the Aussies are license building the Spike LR and the ammo for the Rheinmettall 30 mm gun in Australia.

View attachment 47925

This is a graphic of the Boxer variants that are available and the beauty is that most of them come in modules that we could acquire over and above the base vehicles. If we do the same with LAV's we have to acquire the whole vehicle. For example we could acquire say 90 drive units and 120 modules. At present there are 11 modules available: artec-boxer.com: Variants The module exchange is relative easy and quick as shown in the video below. A more thorough Think Defence article: Boxer Armoured Vehicle Details and Variants gives better details on the advantages of the Boxer.

I do think that it is something that we should seriously consider, because in reality WRT ground force equipment we do better to be more compatible with the Aussies.

Difference being we already have the LAV so that's the bulk of the cost already taken care of, considering we can't even on sell 35 of them to recoup any costs I can't see us doing any better with 105 so we would literally be starting again.

If we thought NZLAV was too big and bulky for most deployments then we would definately struggle with boxer as it is a bigger beast to say the least. I would go so far as to say it would be even less suited to the pacific than the current LAV (a definate consideration for us) whereas boxer is right at home in the wide open spaces of Australia (a definate consideration for them). It definately has its uses but would we nesscessarily benefit from a good majority of them? A good comparison is when everyone thought we were going to get C17s when turns out C130s were the go for us, got to way up the probabilities/possibilities in terms of actual operation, suitability and cost not just go for the biggest baddest kid on the block and hope for the best because the neighbours have it.

Alot like to say we need to operate the same equipment to be compatible and yes we do share alot of equipment but in reality there is a bit of a difference between say a unimog truck and a AFV ie we don't borrow each others planes, frigates and APCs just because we have the same kit. I've worked with the Aussies quite abit around the globe and tbh cannot say we actually shared that much big ticket gear bar the odd landrover, hiace, radio etc, there is a difference between using allies gear and actual using allies gear. In Timor for example we pretty much had the same vehicles yet we both ran our own seperate workshops literally a spanners throw away from each other in the same compound. The main focus with kit is generally same/similar TTPs (emphasise similar as even those can be different), employment, values etc in that we can work together with our equipment not nesscessarily work each others equipment, equipment specific of course. Another example is the ANZAC frigates as those have not been similar in alot of ways for quite awhile now, we can work on them because we have similar training but would be another story operating them fully from scratch. There are even still opsec requirements between our 2 nations and we are borderline related.

 

[ngatimozart]

Difference being we already have the LAV so that's the bulk of the cost already taken care of, considering we can't even on sell 35 of them to recoup any costs I can't see us doing any better with 105 so we would literally be starting again.

If we thought NZLAV was too big and bulky for most deployments then we would definately struggle with boxer as it is a bigger beast to say the least. I would go so far as to say it would be even less suited to the pacific than the current LAV (a definate consideration for us) whereas boxer is right at home in the wide open spaces of Australia (a definate consideration for them). It definately has its uses but would we nesscessarily benefit from a good majority of them? A good comparison is when everyone thought we were going to get C17s when turns out C130s were the go for us, got to way up the probabilities/possibilities in terms of actual operation, suitability and cost not just go for the biggest baddest kid on the block and hope for the best because the neighbours have it.

Alot like to say we need to operate the same equipment to be compatible and yes we do share alot of equipment but in reality there is a bit of a difference between say a unimog truck and a AFV ie we don't borrow each others planes, frigates and APCs just because we have the same kit. I've worked with the Aussies quite abit around the globe and tbh cannot say we actually shared that much big ticket gear bar the odd landrover, hiace, radio etc, there is a difference between using allies gear and actual using allies gear. In Timor for example we pretty much had the same vehicles yet we both ran our own seperate workshops literally a spanners throw away from each other in the same compound. The main focus with kit is generally same/similar TTPs (emphasise similar as even those can be different), employment, values etc in that we can work together with our equipment not nesscessarily work each others equipment, equipment specific of course. Another example is the ANZAC frigates as those have not been similar in alot of ways for quite awhile now, we can work on them because we have similar training but would be another story operating them fully from scratch. There are even still opsec requirements between our 2 nations and we are borderline related.

I can understand your reasoning and see where you come from, but we are now looking at a conventional war against a tier 1 country and we do need to look at protection etc., for our troops. It's not about running around in the bush or across the Great Sandy Desert in Australia, but operating in the Pacific Islands and archipelagos against a foe who has the same or higher level of weaponry and capability that both we and the Aussies field. It's not tiddly winks any more and we aren't chasing lightly armed insurgents across the deserts or mountains.

 

[RegR]

I can understand your reasoning and see where you come from, but we are now looking at a conventional war against a tier 1 country and we do need to look at protection etc., for our troops. It's not about running around in the bush or across the Great Sandy Desert in Australia, but operating in the Pacific Islands and archipelagos against a foe who has the same or higher level of weaponry and capability that both we and the Aussies field. It's not tiddly winks any more and we aren't chasing lightly armed insurgents across the deserts or mountains.

Who are you refferring to out of interest? I'm abit lost as to which conflict we are in wrt the pacific theatre?

 

[shanes_world_05]

Give the 35 LAV's to Wellington Coy 5/7. We'll setup Uber eats in the field and you watch the retention issues go away. And we are right next door to MRO for all the dings and scratches.

 

[ngatimozart]

Who are you refferring to out of interest? I'm abit lost as to which conflict we are in wrt the pacific theatre?

Well look to the north and who is making all the noise about areas of open ocean in international waters that they claim are are theirs, but in fact aren't. You know the PRC.

 

[Nighthawk.NZ]

Lance Corporal pleads guilty to drug charges

Lance Corporal pleads guilty to drug charges

A soldier who pleaded guilty to drug charges has avoided prison due to the effect it will have on her three-month-old baby.

Lance Corporal Kasey Rey Tapara, 31, has been dismissed from the New Zealand Army after pleading guilty to four drug charges.

Tapara admitted to taking MDMA at various North Island locations in 2018, including at popular music festivals Bay Dreams and Ohakuni Mardi Gras.

The supply technician, who has served in Iraq, also pleaded guilty to supplying and offering to supply the class B drug to fellow soldiers.

During the court-martial hearing, Major Woodman, the second-in-charge of Tapara's unit, said she lacked maturity and leadership skills, and had lost the trust of her battalion.

In an emotional oral submission, Tapara pleaded with the sentencing panels to consider a punishment that would allow her to stay with her baby.

"I'll do anything else, just don't separate me from my baby. She's my world," she said.

"I just want to apologise for my actions. My life has been turned upside down because I did something stupid, and it's been hard. If I could turn back the time I would."

The military reduced her sentence by 50 percent due to trial delays, remorse and an early guilty plea.

"However, it was her three-month-old baby that prevented her from imprisonment," Chief Judge Kevin Riordan said.

Military members dismissed her from service - ending a six-year career in the Defence Force.

Lance Corporal pleads guilty to drug charges

@Nighthawk.NZ You have been here long enough to know the rules. No cutting and pasting without original commentary from the poster. Should we award you five days No 9s? Or have your remustered to the stokers branch which would explain your lapse? Maybe you have been loafing with the soup jockeys to much. Or was it the writers - they're dodgy at the best of times? Don't let it happen again.

Ngatimozart

 

[RegR]

Another GATS project ticked off. 12 Iveco MRVs to replace the remaining army Unimog 1300 Ambulances (including 1 to navy). Still a few legacy Unimog and MB2228 types floating around so interesting to see what's next off the rank?

 

[Nighthawk.NZ]

Another GATS project ticked off. 12 Iveco MRVs to replace the remaining army Unimog 1300 Ambulances (including 1 to navy). Still a few legacy Unimog and MB2228 types floating around so interesting to see what's next off the rank?

do you have a link for this?

 

[kiwi in exile]

do you have a link for this?

link States 6 vehicles rather than 12

There are more pics of the ambulances on the Action Manufacturing FB

 

[RegR]

do you have a link for this?

Army news, issue 520, March 2021

 

[kiwi in exile]

Latest army news page 13

New 81mm mortars comming online. The old ones date to 1975 and spare were an issue.
And battle lab trail of loitering munition in 2022. Will be great to see the army get some kind of organic precision, stand off, NLOS capability. There is a pic of the switchblade 600 which has great capabilities. Great to get some positive defence news. Hopefully it doesn't get cut

 

[CJohn]

Logistik Unicorp Group awarded NZDF contract.

New Zealand Defence Force Awards Uniform Management Contract to the Logistik Unicorp Group - Asian Military Review

New Zealand Defence Force bestows its trust on ADA announcing the award of the The Wearables Supply and Managed Services Contract.

asianmilitaryreview.com

Also, it's good to see the new NZ MTP uniform rolled out to replace the short lived MCU camo experiment.

 

[kiwi in exile]

National's Chris Penk tells Australian TV show he's 'embarrassed' for New Zealand after Defence essay controversy

Nationals Penk on Sky media being interviewed by Tony Abbotts ex Chief of Staff regarding an essay penned by a NZDF member "titled 'Can the Army Afford to go Woke, Benign Social Progress or National Security Threat', was last week awarded a prize in the Chief of Army Writing competition and published on the Knowledge-Enabled Army (KEA) website." Would be great if someone on this forum could obtain a copy to the essay. Or a link to the credlin interview video. As an ousider, I cannot comment on the culture of the NZDF and our 'warrior ethos'.
Overall NZDF strategic orientation hardly seems geared for lethality. New purchases are always presented in the media as being great for HADR.

Penk points out that Henares alleged role in the essays removal exeplifies 'cancel culture' and 'wokeness', and also Ministerial interferance.



There was similar debate on this in the Aust media recently
'We've gone a little bit woke': Military reminded core business is to use 'lethal violence'
https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/the-signal/is-the-australian-army-too-woke/13310610
Is the Australian military 'too woke'?

 

[kiwi in exile]

I had never seen the KEA website. Interesting content.

New Zealand Chief of Army Writing Competition Winner of the Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO) Category: Diversity and Inclusion Threats to the NZ Army's Warrior Ethos and War-Fighting Culture - KEA - Knowledge Enabled Army

New Zealand Chief of Army Writing Competition Winner of the New Zealand Defence Force Civilian Writing Category: Slaughtering Sacred Cows - The NZ Army needs to get real about what it can and cannot do out to 2040 - KEA - Knowledge Enabled Army

 

[t68]

National's Chris Penk tells Australian TV show he's 'embarrassed' for New Zealand after Defence essay controversy

Nationals Penk on Sky media being interviewed by Tony Abbotts ex Chief of Staff regarding an essay penned by a NZDF member "titled 'Can the Army Afford to go Woke, Benign Social Progress or National Security Threat', was last week awarded a prize in the Chief of Army Writing competition and published on the Knowledge-Enabled Army (KEA) website." Would be great if someone on this forum could obtain a copy to the essay. Or a link to the credlin interview video. As an ousider, I cannot comment on the culture of the NZDF and our 'warrior ethos'.
Overall NZDF strategic orientation hardly seems geared for lethality. New purchases are always presented in the media as being great for HADR.

Penk points out that Henares alleged role in the essays removal exeplifies 'cancel culture' and 'wokeness', and also Ministerial interferance.



There was similar debate on this in the Aust media recently
'We've gone a little bit woke': Military reminded core business is to use 'lethal violence'
Is the Australian military 'too woke'?
Is the Australian military 'too woke'?

To be honest I'm not really sure what woke is in relation to defence,

I looked up the meaning seems to be about racism, that is something policy will never really stamp out altogether. why do they have to come up with all this new age crap call a spade a spade if you are a racist you are a racist

 

[recce.k1]

National's Chris Penk tells Australian TV show he's 'embarrassed' for New Zealand after Defence essay controversy

Nationals Penk on Sky media being interviewed by Tony Abbotts ex Chief of Staff regarding an essay penned by a NZDF member "titled 'Can the Army Afford to go Woke, Benign Social Progress or National Security Threat', was last week awarded a prize in the Chief of Army Writing competition and published on the Knowledge-Enabled Army (KEA) website." Would be great if someone on this forum could obtain a copy to the essay. Or a link to the credlin interview video.

KIE : Here's the essay.

The essay that defeated New Zealand's army

www.fsu.nz

The Credlin interview video is embeded half-way down within the Newshub article you posted. Otherwise here's the interview on Sky News direct.

‘Heaven forbid that to get woke is now a lawful command’: NZ National Party Defence Spokesman

NZ National Party Defence Spokesman Chris Penk says he is embarrassed the NZ Defence Minister's priorities is to focus on the removal of an essay railing against the dangers of a woke military at a time of increasing tensions in the region. Last week, New Zealand's Chief of Army Major General...

www.skynews.com.au

 

[recce.k1]

To be honest I'm not really sure what woke is in relation to defence,

I looked up the meaning seems to be about racism, that is something policy will never really stamp out altogether. why do they have to come up with all this new age crap call a spade a spade if you are a racist you are a racist

This is what the essay writer was thinking about (in relation to "wokeness" and defence).

The primary threat of any effort to be more ‘Diverse’ and ‘inclusive’ is opportunity cost. Put simply, every resource that we divert toward programmes aimed at improving Diversity and Inclusion is a resource that is not available to be used for the Army’s only responsibility: to protect New Zealand. Whether that is in preparing for wars or fighting them (or civil defence). Every man-hour that is spent on ‘cultural awareness training’ or similar programmes is a man-hour that is not spent training for combat or monitoring our enemies. How are they spending their man-hours?

The second key area where Diversity and Inclusion could harm our effectiveness is in recruitment. Recruiting based on a concerted effort to increase Diversity necessarily comes at the expense of recruiting the best candidates. If the current policy of (presumably) recruiting the best candidates for their roles does not produce the desired Diversity outcomes, then the conflict is self-evident.

For those outside of NZ, the NZ Public Service (civil servants) and Ministries such as Education and Health ... all the way to the Treasury are undertaking diversity (and cultural) awareness training. Most of this stuff is of course imported, from the likes of the USA (and the radicals that promote it, whom are now part of the establishment) ...