Moving Forward with Maximizing New Zealands Defense Force Assets

Wooki

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Thought I would start a thread on how to maximize ALL of the NZDF assets with a view to strengthening alliances. Started off with the MRV.

The MRV

Recognizing Drawbacks
The recent new build of New Zealand's MRV is a good step in the right direction, but with the wrong vessel.

Its a RORO and by its very nature is vulnerable when participating in ship-to-shore operations where there are no port facilities (over the beach operations). There also doesn't appear to be any facility for a deck through hatch when unable to use the ramps due to higher sea states and weather.

RORO cargo operations become very hazardous when the deck is slick from rainwater, simply because of lack of grip for wheeled vehicles. i.e. An LAV-III is going to have trouble making it down the ramp to the LCM if the ramp approaches are wet, its going to "broach" and if the driver has had to "gun it" to get up over any significant riser to the ramp, the friction strakes (strips of metal welded across the ramp) on the ramp are not going to be as effective when the driver hits the brakes in his/her attempt not to careen into the waiting LCM wheelhouse.

Using the side ramp however might alleviate these problems as the ship can create a larger lee and side ramps are normally located level with the vehicle deck, so a slick vehicle deck becomes less of a problem. But as to whether anyone has thought of this and made the side ramp(s) strong enough is another thing.

The ideal (in these circumstances) is being able to use the 60 ton crane to lift the LAV onto the LCM. Safe, quick and efficient (without compromising your water tight integrity to the extent that opening a stern door will) provided you have modified the LAV with heavy duty lifting Lugs to facilitate the operation.

Also being a RORO makes it vulnerable to damage from light arms fire (as small as 7.62mm at a strike velocity of around 500m/s should do the trick for a single skinned v/l.... That's not good for the NZN as an AK47 has a muzzle velocity of 700m/s) that could compromise its watertight integrity and lead to capsizing. Hopefully the v/l is designed with longitudinal ballast tanks down each side of the vehicle deck that would create "spaced armor", but sometimes European ROROs don't have this feature.

It requires just 1.5 to 2 cm of water on the vehicle deck to seal its fate. Which in layman's terms means about 300 x 7.62mm holes and 6 hours in sea state of 5 or more to say goodnight. Less if it was in a sea way with higher wave amplitudes, such as shallow areas with a large fetch like The Great Lakes, Chesapeake bay, Bass Strait, Cook Strait, or making a run Southwards along the 100 fathom line on the East Coast of Australia or South Africa.

The good thing about 7.62mm holes is that they are easy to patch. ;)

Oh one other point, a catamaran stern to assist maneuver in shallow water would have been good (A feature I think you'll find that is standard on the later "Chief boats" of Meho design that service New Zealand and Southern Pacific Islands). Bit of a blooper that, not following standard commercial practice for the very same islands you wish to provide sea lift capability without the facilities the commercial boats use. For example A Cat stern allows you to transit the waterway between Port Morsby (?) and Milne Bay with relative ease. Like wise the Western and possibly the Northern channel of Ulithi atoll, and even Bangkok.... Shanghai (not that you want to go there) would be a breeze.

What To Do About It
All said and done, the concept is a good one and the drawbacks can be reduced by developing proper cargo handling and damage control procedures, as well as adding new equipment such as;

1) A tracked forklift to assist wheeled vehicles up and down the stern ramp. A tracked forklift is good as this will eliminate cargo stoppages due to flat tires from running over lashing points as well, in addition to being able to cart containerized cargo up the beach as referred to in (4) below... Or A winch and cable to attach to vehicles and control descent/ascent along the stern ramp.

2) Partitioning the vehicle deck with water proof bulkheads to improve water tight integrity and decrease Free Surface Effect.

3) Creating a large through hatch in the weather deck to unload cargo and stores vertically (If it is not already in place).

4) In disaster operations the LCM could still be useful if the NZN used an old Nuku’alofa (Tonga) Container Terminal trick, where they moved containers (TEU) around with a 10 ton forklift, by lifting one end of the box while the other has specially fitted wheels or "dollies" that slot straight into the twistlock points on the container (1 or 2 man operation). That way you could use a forklift to tow a container onto the LCM and then move it up the beach before coming back to the ship.

5) Adding a run about working boat to actively keep threats away from the v/l when working. No USS Coles.

6) Purchase a complimentary LOLO v/l, to do the things the MVR is not good at and add additional sea lift that gives further weight to New Zealand's contribution to allied efforts.

Because the technology already exists (and is therefore cheap), there is no reason why you could not purchase a "modified" LOLO or 2 to compliment the MVR and get into places it can't. If you were going for another new build, make it an icebreaker.

Remember the greatest asset the MVR has is helicopter operations. You don't have to search around for that with a complimentary v/l.

Using the MRV: Opportunities Missed and Available

As far as capability the only real lack of fore sight is that it is not an icebreaker. Why? Because The Australian Antarctic Division currently Time Charter an obsolete v/l called the Aurora Australis and will be or are currently looking for a replacement. The MRV could have fit the bill while patrolling Southern waters and deliver stores to Antarctic bases AND make NZ money by doing so. There is nothing like a military asset paying for itself, while it is also doing its job. A missed opportunity as well as justifying the 100 Million USD price tag.

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/islands_oceans_poles/antarctic_region_2000.jpg

Having said that the MRV can patrol Southern Ocean waters like no existing Australian Naval v/l can, so there is an opportunity to "lease" there, or at the very minimum provide a capability (persistence) that the RAN simply do not have. This is an incredibly important capability in pursuing illegal fishermen and adds value to the ANZAC relationship hand over fist because the MRV will literally be saving Australia 100s of thousands of dollars in saved resources every month. E.G. A single 30 ton Orange Roughy catch is worth about 88000 USD at 2 USD per filleted pound.

Conclusion

To sum up the MRV, the best significant enhancement that is "doable" right now is get tracked forklifts. Reduces accidents on the ramps, lowers maintenance (and very important) keeps cargo flowing where the wheeled forklift can't.

Armor to follow.


Cheers


W
 

Sea Toby

New Member
Most ships outside decks have no-skid applied, including landing craft and ramps. I can't imagine an LAV going less than 10 kilometers per hour hydroplaning into a landing craft. I'd be more worried about ice during the winter, but its amazing what a little rock salt and sand will do to create traction. Even in a well dock, vehicles have to go down a ramp. Lashing points? Have you ever been on a ferry before? Ferries don't sink with a centimeter or two of rain on their decks. Even on civilian vessels, pumps are required. And I can't imagine any vehicle, much less a LAV not be able to overcome any ten centimeter obstacle, much less a two centimeter obstacle.

The New Zealand MRV has hatch covers incorporated into the hangar deck. Using both 60 ton cranes is an option to offload at a dock, or on the landing craft. The draft of the Canterbury is only 5.3 meters full load. The port of Cork, Ireland, for example, has a commerical depth of 12.9 meters, a fishing port further upstream, Kinsale, Ireland, has a commerical depth of 5.3 meters. While the Canterbury may not be able to offload at every fishing port in the South Pacific, most of the commerical ports are suitable for Canterbury's depth. Frankly, if a commercial port can unload a tanker of any kind, it is suitable for the Canterbury. Notice the Canterbury's civilian sister ferries operate safely from the ports of Douglas, Isle of Man and Ronne, Bornholm island.

The Canterbury will have water proof and fire proof emergency doors. All ferries with passengers have them. Why would you think the Canterbury wouldn't?

The Canterbury includes two LCMs and two Rhibs. Its capable of carrying and unloading SAS boats. The Canterbury is armed with a 25mm Bushmaster gunmount forward, with two 12.7mm machine guns, one to port and one to starboard. I wouldn't worry about any USS Cole incidents.

While I don't know for certain the width of the Canterbury's steel hull, I expect its capable of sustaining hits from small arms. Most commerical ship's hulls are. These civilian commerical ships are built to a standard against fire and flooding.

Here is a link of a few pictures of the Ben My Chree going through a storm. I wouldn't worry too much about the sea worthiness of the Canterbury. In her six years of service, the Ben My Chree has yet to fail to make a scheduled voyage, despite the weather.

http://www.killey.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=28&start=15
 
Last edited:

Wooki

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #3
Sea Toby said:
...but its amazing what a little rock salt and sand will do to create traction.
We'll have to disagree on that, maybe on a road but not on steel. Also the Southern Pacific Stevedoring practice is to use saw dust.
Sea Toby said:
...Lashing points? Have you ever been on a ferry before?
Yes, indeed I have.:rolleyes:
Sea Toby said:
Ferries don't sink with a centimeter or two of rain on their decks. Even on civilian vessels, pumps are required. And I can't imagine any vehicle, much less a LAV not be able to overcome any ten centimeter obstacle, much less a two centimeter obstacle.
Who said that? I was talking about rain slick decks and seawater on the vehicle deck.... and yes it only takes 2 cm Toby....too many people have died finding that out.

10cm obstacle? Its common practice to slant the deck up to the ramp over 10's of meters. I haven't seen the plans but as its common, I would presume that the Canterbury would hold with the commercial norm. This becomes a problem when working heavy cargo on and off the ship and tracking in the wet, especially when you approach the 80 ton bracket of Australian M1A1s.
Sea Toby said:
The draft of the Canterbury is only 5.3 meters full load. The port of Cork, Ireland, for example, has a commerical depth of 12.9 meters, a fishing port further upstream, Kinsale, Ireland, has a commerical depth of 5.3 meters. While the Canterbury may not be able to offload at every fishing port in the South Pacific, most of the commerical ports are suitable for Canterbury's depth.
Draft while important is not what I was referring to... I was talking about entrance shape and under water prismatic coefficient and the shallow water effects that will cause a merchant ship (like the Canterbury) to ground before you could blink. Something you cannot afford to do in the Pacific because you won't be hitting sand and mud, its going to be limestone and coral.
Sea Toby said:
Notice the Canterbury's civilian sister ferries operate safely from the ports of Douglas, Isle of Man and Ronne, Bornholm island.
Yes and these are not Southern Pacific ports.
Sea Toby said:
The Canterbury will have water proof and fire proof emergency doors. All ferries with passengers have them. Why would you think the Canterbury wouldn't?
What's to suppose it has enough? I am saying this is a weakness in design and needs to be monitored closely.
Sea Toby said:
While I don't know for certain the width of the Canterbury's steel hull, I expect its capable of sustaining hits from small arms. Most commerical ship's hulls are. These civilian commerical ships are built to a standard against fire and flooding.
You know..... Given the "have you been on a ferry?" comment and now this, I think it is fair to say that there is a reason that I have "defense professional" against my handle. I am well aware of the IMO regulations concerning ROROs, and I am most intimate with the ballistic characteristics of 8mm of mild steel, so its my hope that you included that little tidbit to provide information to the general public.
Sea Toby said:
Here is a link of a few pictures of the Ben My Chree going through a storm. I wouldn't worry too much about the sea worthiness of the Canterbury.

http://www.killey.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=28&start=15

Thanks for the link Toby. If you read the post, I wasn't expressing concern about the MRV's sea worthiness, in fact I listed it as an asset and FYI, she'll be fighting larger seas than that, if she patrols the Southern Ocean.

Good day

W
 

Sea Toby

New Member
In a rolling and pitching sea, how can 2 centimeters of water not spill off the top deck of a ship? Please pour a glass of water on your flat kitchen formica. Notice how the water flows to the floor? Any inside decks will have pumps sufficient to pump the water out, if not proper drainage, even on a civilian ferry. Simple physics.

In any landing craft operation the sea state will be no higher than Sea State 3, moderate seas. The hydraulic ramps on the Canterbury will be sufficient to discharge a New Zealand LAV, otherwise they couldn't board the ship with the same ramp. Looking at the images on the web, the ship to landing craft angle of descent can't possibly be more than 15 degrees. The drop in elevation is at most 2 meters. This isn't steep. From the NZ Navy website: the Stern ramp has marriage blocks that allow the LCM to position itself aft of the ramp and flippers ensure alignment. AMOG Consulting has approved this design, AMOG having significant experience.

Why would anyone place a 80 ton M-1 tank on a LCM with a design limit of 60 tons? Yes, the landing craft would sink.

Do you really expect the New Zealand navy to sail any ship into a charted coral reef? I don't. The landing craft have enough fuel to travel 250 nautical miles. That should leave plenty of room to use the landing craft over any reefs. The Canterbury has the same draught as the Australian ex-US Navy Newports. In fact, many other landing vessels have deeper drafts. The whole purpose of having the Resolution is to do surveys.

The vehicle deck is above the waterline. How can bullet holes allow water onto the vehicle deck? This ship won't be doing any landing operations in Sea States higher than 3, moderate seas. Do you really expect the New Zealand government to land any of its army on a contested beach? Do you think with up to 360 sailors and soldiers onboard, they would not plug any of the holes quickly?

While I will admit that a military designed vessel will have better damage control, I am not willing to admit that civilian designed vessels are deathtraps without enough flooding and fire controls. And I don't think Lloyds of London would ever give insurance to such a poorly designed commerical vessel either.

I can't believe I'm reading this rubbish. Even the Dutch Rotterdam design ADI sponsored is a civilian designed vessel. There are many civilian designed vessels being used worldwide for landing ships and replenishment ships, some as patrol vessels. There is a reason why the Dutch Rotterdam class costs $180 million US and the US San Antonio class costs over $1 billion US? New Zealand would never be able to afford a military designed landing ship. Period.
 
Last edited:

Wooki

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #5
Sea Toby said:
In a rolling and pitching sea, how can 2 centimeters of water not spill off the top deck of a ship? Please pour a glass of water on your flat kitchen formica. Notice how the water flows to the floor? Any inside decks will have pumps sufficient to pump the water out, if not proper drainage, even on a civilian ferry. Simple physics.
A Vehicle deck is not a Weather deck Toby. Only a foolish person and definitely no Captain I know would rely on p/ps 24/7/356 days of the year.

Sea Toby said:
In any landing craft operation the sea state will be no higher than Sea State 3, moderate seas. The hydraulic ramps on the Canterbury will be sufficient to discharge a New Zealand LAV, otherwise they couldn't board the ship with the same ramp. Looking at the images on the web, the ship to landing craft angle of descent can't possibly be more than 15 degrees. The drop in elevation is at most 2 meters. This isn't steep. From the NZ Navy website: the Stern ramp has marriage blocks that allow the LCM to position itself aft of the ramp and flippers ensure alignment. AMOG Consulting has approved this design, AMOG having significant experience.
How is this relevant to anything originally posted? As for invoking the name AMOG, it doesn't hold any water (intimidation) with me as they are industry peers.

Sea Toby said:
Why would anyone place a 80 ton M-1 tank on a LCM with a design limit of 60 tons? Yes, the landing craft would sink.
Who said you would load an M1A1 onto an LCM?? I was talking about how dangerous wet ramps get when you get into the 80ton bracket. e.g. 4 x TEU on one cassette OR an M1A1 tank. Please read the post. I am respectful of the reader's level of education so don't need to post the obvious. Of course you can't load a 70 ton tank onto a craft with a 45 ton deadweight capacity. Please!
Sea Toby said:
The vehicle decks is above the waterline. How can bullet holes allow water onto the vehicle deck? This ship won't be doing any landing operations in Sea States higher than 3, moderate seas...
Well, I would look back at the great photo link you posted. Again, Are you really seriously asking me to explain to you blow-by-blow how water comes through a hole(s) above the waterline? Think about what I wrote about wave amplitudes.
Sea Toby said:
While I will admit that a military designed vessel will have better damage control, I am not willing to admit that civilian designed vessels are deathtraps without enough flooding and fire controls. And I don't think Lloyds of London would ever give insurance to such a poorly designed commerical vessel either.

I can't believe I'm reading this rubbish. Even the Dutch Rotterdam design ADI sponsored is a civilian designed vessel. There are many civilian designed vessels being used worldwide for landing ships and replenishment ships, some as patrol vessels. There is a reason why the Dutch Rotterdam class costs $180 million US and the US San Antonio class costs over $1 billion US? New Zealand would never be able to afford a military designed landing ship. Period.
And again, your insulting attitude is getting old fast. This is supposed to be about how to make the MRV better so it can be leveraged to assist allied operations and give the NZDF a legup. Not about you making personal attacks and irrelevant statements such as the last paragraph. I looked at the pros and cons and then came up with the mind shattering observation that a tracked forklift would be the most cost effective addition to the MRV to get the most out of the vessel.

Its practical and low cost, will allow container moves using the LCM and something that can be done. If you have something constructive to add, I would greatly appreciate that you do so, or go elsewhere.

cheers

W
 

Sea Toby

New Member
Here is a link to Lloyd's Register's website. I'm sure you'll agree if Lloyd approves a ship design its a safe design.
http://www.lr.org/Industries/Marine/About+us

When the Canterbury is doing a landing operation in Sea State 3 or better, moderate seas, it will be nearly impossible for the sea to enter the vehicle deck, as the vehicle deck is above the water line. If the ship is in a storm of Sea State 7 or more, I doubt seriously the ship will be any where near land. Surely the ship wouldn't be involved in any landing operations within range of small arms.

The first picture link shows that the Canterbury has drainage on the vehicle deck.
The second picture link shows that the Canterbury has drainage holes on the side of the hull near the vehicle deck.

If words can't persuade anyone, maybe a picture will.

http://homepage.mac.com/donclark/.Public/CanterburyVD.jpg

http://homepage.mac.com/donclark/.Public/CanterburyHVD.jpg

Common sense leaves one to think if the ship has a sprinkler system on every deck, and a foam system in its cargo decks, surely the architect thought of a way to drain both.
 
Last edited:

webmaster

Troll Hunter
Staff member
Wooki, thanks for the great insight on NZDF.

Folks, lets read wooki's post and then reply accordingly. If I understand it correctly, the idea is to move forward and beyond current challenges faced by NZDF and coming up with solutions and ideas that will result in stronger and better NZDF with solid alliances and strategic ability to face threats.

Let us not reinvent the discussion which took place in other NZDF related threads.

Thanks, enjoy!
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Hi Wooki, are you going to be posting your CV90-120 ideas soon?
I have a few ideas regarding LAVIII w/105mm that I'd like to compare/contrast

Also I have a few questions regarding maritime operations & the South Pacific.

Ro/Ro vessels are usually intended to operate in a port, where vehicles can "roll-on/roll-off" via ramp from the hold or vehicle deck onto the dock, correct?

Lo/Lo vessels are designed so that vehicles, etc. are lifted by crane out of a deck hatch onto a dock or waiting landing craft/lighter/small craft etc.

From what I understand, the South Pacific (excepting Aussie & NZ ports) isn't exactly brimming with modern port facilities. The could be made worse by natural disaster or other infrastructure damaging event. Also, isn't much othe South Pacific still either poorly or completely uncharted? The impression I have is that the RAN operates survey vessels to chart parts of the EEZ where the oceanography is still unknown.

I welcome all replies to fill in the blanks in my knowledge on this.
 

Wooki

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #9
Todjaeger said:
Hi Wooki, are you going to be posting your CV90-120 ideas soon?
I have a few ideas regarding LAVIII w/105mm that I'd like to compare/contrast

Also I have a few questions regarding maritime operations & the South Pacific.

Ro/Ro vessels are usually intended to operate in a port, where vehicles can "roll-on/roll-off" via ramp from the hold or vehicle deck onto the dock, correct?

Lo/Lo vessels are designed so that vehicles, etc. are lifted by crane out of a deck hatch onto a dock or waiting landing craft/lighter/small craft etc.

From what I understand, the South Pacific (excepting Aussie & NZ ports) isn't exactly brimming with modern port facilities. The could be made worse by natural disaster or other infrastructure damaging event. Also, isn't much othe South Pacific still either poorly or completely uncharted? The impression I have is that the RAN operates survey vessels to chart parts of the EEZ where the oceanography is still unknown.

I welcome all replies to fill in the blanks in my knowledge on this.
Yes, I got a bit sidetracked. sorry... You are basically correct about the South Pacific ports and survey situation, although it is getting better. I understand Fiji were hunting for funds (a loan) in 2002 from Asia Development Bank to upgrade its second port (Lautoka) because of the strain cargo movements were placing on Suva Island's road infrastructure.

Australia has some of the best hydrographic survey tech and skill set available, but even some of their charts still use hydrographic information from James Cook's voyage. That is probably because of;

1) the sheer size of the coastline
2) James Cook was very good at surveying ;)

anyway, I will get back to it.

Cheers

W
 

Wooki

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #10
Armor

My little disclaimer: Force structure suggestions below are to promote thought and discussion

Why Does The NZDF Need It?

With Australia's purchase of the M1A1 MBT one could argue that the NZDF doesn't need armor because Australia can provide it for them. Its a good point.

But in trying to construct a cohesive and integrated alliance or allied relationships, I believe New Zealand should look to enhancing it's allies capabilities while at the same time developing a legitimate (albeit small) independent operational capability.

Why the need for a legitimate independent operational capability? Because New Zealand should be the nation who takes the lead in the South Pacific and not Australia. Amongst the South Pacific island nations, NZ has the largest economic mass, the cultural background and historical links (heritage) and is a center for education and health.

I was going to say "achilles heel" but really it is "the biggest pain in the neck" about the M1A1 is that it is heavy and as such can be difficult to transport around theaters like the South Pacific. There is a significant logistical tail associated with the tank and it's weight can pose problems when crossing the typical bridge found on a Pacific island.

So it would seem logical that if the NZDF were to pick a tank , that it be a tank that could do things the M1A1 can't. That (to me) is a light tank. The definition of light? In this case I would say something of the same weight as a semi trailer.... < 40 metric tons. But even this is a little bit of a stretch.

A light tank also means an opportunity to develop NZ industry as "being light" also translates to "being easier to modify than an MBT".

How to Organize the Armored Force

With regard to operating closely with allied nations, constructing an armored force would be best done by creating a series of large companies that could be attached and detached (no Bobcat promo pun:p: ) to allied units with relative ease.

Organic Logistics

"Relative ease" equates to logistical compatibility, which would mean at first glance the LAV, as it is light and Australia already uses it. Makes sense, but the logistical hurdle could also be overcome if the attached armor was of a common chassis but used the same munitions as the allied force. In the later case the NZDF would have to ensure logistical supply.

In other words I think the key component is a common platform family integral to the NZDF companies. If this platform differs from that used by the NZDF's allies then there must be an organic logistical component associated with each company that can also be "attached" to the allied force's logistical effort, so as to make the use of differing equipment [or the other way if it turns out, common equipment ( e.g. LAV) but different munitions (e.g. Bushmaster III 35/50)] seamless.

Expeditionary Force Structure

If you put a company of armored vehicles together with the logistics to support it, then what you basically have created is a small expeditionary force. There are people here more able than me to argue about the "full size" of that force when all the companies are together, but such a force lends itself to the "combined arms" approach that has met with some success in Iraq and Afghanistan. Meaning, you can attach Infantry to it and even helo assets.

Out of all this, I think it is most important that the NZDF acquire at least one more supply vessel to establish a "bridge" between NZ and the expeditionary unit. One v/l loading in NZ (or where ever) and the other discharging at the deployed unit's location.

And finally, I don't think it prudent to expand upon this concept and start talking about a USMC-like sized force. The thought process is how to maximize NZDF impact upon allied operations in a streamlined and efficient manner that won't break the NZDF budget. I do think it prudent to look at the USMC and other marine services and attempt to draw lessons from their experience and operations.

The use of the word "Services" is deliberate in that I am thinking business like operations.

Vehicle Types


Tracked AFVs

Given the 2 most likely environments to be encountered by NZDF forces operating alone are:

1) Urban
2) Tropical

I think a tracked vehicle has the best tactical maneuver in this environment. Its also easier and safer to unload from a RORO than a wheeled vehicle for reasons stated before. Most importantly, a tracked vehicle provides a stable gun platform and an increased rate of fire as a result, which is important for a light tank. This is perhaps my major beef with the MGS and Centauro. They look like a bouncing Pogo stick when fired, (Tires are springs which ever way you cut it) so if you don't have to make do with what you have, avoid it.

CV90 Family

The CV90 family is an obvious choice. It is similar to or lighter [edit: this is wrong, the MGS is around 18700 Kg, sorry] than the Stryker wheeled vehicle and the big gun (for me) is the CV90120-T as opposed to the CV90105, simply because its munitions are compatible with the M1A1. No other reason from my side of the fence.

The Ruag 120mm Compact Tank Gun also comes in with a max recoil of 260 KN IIRC. This is less than the Bighorn 120mm mortar made by the same company. I would go with the 52 caliber version (if possible) with a muzzle velocity of greater than 1680m/s. I.e. Its a good gun that you can fire in tricky stability situations like crossing a muddy 40 degree slope and crossing a light bridge.

http://www.ruag.com

From an industry perspective I like the Ruag 120 CTG because the design lends itself to further recoil reduction, especially with a Hybrid /Electric drive system, which would make it even more suitable to firing in difficult situations such as you would find in the tropics. Its an "always on weapon".

And this is part of the reason for my vague reference to NZ industry being able to contribute to a light tank platform.

The CV90 chassis itself, is ideal for an up-armoring package where as the Stryker and LAVIII are basically maxed out right now.

If you don't like the CV90120-T, then I would go with a CV9050 with the 50mm bushmaster 3 cannon. Fifty to 60 mm is a good size for infantry fire support operations.

Another good option is the Oto Melara 60 mm Hitfist turret, but as no one has bought that weapon, it is straying a wee bit from "business like practices".

-----------------------------------

I'll leave others to put forward their suggestions. I also think in this context, reviewing Singaporean equipment is valid. A Bronco articulated vehicle might not be your first choice for armor, but if it is toting a 120mm direct fire mortar (with sights to match), maybe it could be.

http://www.rescueleader.com/products/bronco.htm

And for context, AD's response to this subject on the RNZAF losing comabt capability thread;

Aussie Digger said:
IN response to the NZ/Singapore issue of embedding these units to "harden up" Australian unit's, I don't personally like the idea. I personally think a Country's defence force SHOULD be designed for it's own defence first and foremost, with interoperability a distant second.

Most Country's require a lot of similar capabilities (infantry, artillery, transport capabilities, surveillance and fire support to various degree's) but not all. NZ is currently satisfied with it's 25mm gun armed LAVIII's, Javelin and the future auto-grenade launchers to provide it's "higher level" direct fire support.

Australia and SIngapore have both decided they require a bit more than this and have opted for various tank designs, Australia obviously having chosen the M1A1 to provide this capability.

We are currently in the process of "hardening" the Australian Army with more armoured vehicles (Abrams, M113AS3/4, Bushmaster and ASLAV) than we've operated since WW2. The numbers respectively are: Abrams - 59, M113AS3/4 - 350, Bushmaster - 299 and ASLAV - 257 (with REAL opportunities for additional Abrams and Bushmaster vehicles existing) . A total of 965 new or upgraded armoured vehicles in less than 10 years overall!!! If the options on additional Bushmasters and Abrams are taken up under the modified HNA plan, this will likely lift the armoured vehicle acquisition to over 1200 vehicles, a not insignificant armoured force by any standard...

This "new fleet" is replacing a current armoured force of around 600 M113AS1's and 90 Leopards. Quite a lift in overall capability really.

If any further "hardening" of our Army is required, I'd prefer to see it done through enhancement of OUR capability. A CV-90/120 would be an impressive capability to bring to an operation, but I'd rather an M1A1 any day of the week...
cheers

W
 
Last edited:

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Wooki said:
Armor

My little disclaimer: Force structure suggestions below are to promote thought and discussion

Why Does The NZDF Need It?

With Australia's purchase of the M1A1 MBT one could argue that the NZDF doesn't need armor because Australia can provide it for them. Its a good point.

But in trying to construct a cohesive and integrated alliance or allied relationships, I believe New Zealand should look to enhancing it's allies capabilities while at the same time developing a legitimate (albeit small) independent operational capability.

I was going to say "achilles heel" but really it is "the biggest pain in the neck" about the M1A1 is that it is heavy and as such can be difficult to transport around theaters like the South Pacific. There is a significant logistical tail associated with the tank and it's weight can pose problems when crossing the typical bridge found on a Pacific island.

So it would seem logical that if the NZDF were to pick a tank , that it be a tank that could do things the M1A1 can't. That (to me) is a light tank. The definition of light? In this case I would say something of the same weight as a semi trailer.... < 40 metric tons. But even this is a little bit of a stretch.

Organic Logistics

"Relative ease" equates to logistical compatibility, which would mean at first glance the LAV, as it is light and Australia already uses it. Makes sense, but the logistical hurdle could also be overcome if the attached armor was of a common chassis but used the same munitions as the allied force. In the later case the NZDF would have to ensure logistical supply.

In other words I think the key component is a common platform family integral to the NZDF companies. If this platform differs from that used by the NZDF's allies then there must be an organic logistical component associated with each company that can also be "attached" to the allied force's logistical effort, so as to make the use of differing equipment [or the other way if it turns out, common equipment ( e.g. LAV) but different munitions (e.g. Bushmaster III 35/50)] seamless.

Tracked AFVs

Given the 2 most likely environments to be encountered by NZDF forces operating alone are:

1) Urban
2) Tropical

I think a tracked vehicle has the best tactical maneuver in this environment. Its also easier and safer to unload from a RORO than a wheeled vehicle for reasons stated before. Most importantly, a tracked vehicle provides a stable gun platform and an increased rate of fire as a result, which is important for a light tank. This is perhaps my major beef with the MGS and Centauro. They look like a bouncing Pogo stick when fired, (Tires are springs which ever way you cut it) so if you don't have to make do with what you have, avoid it.

CV90 Family

The CV90 family is an obvious choice. It is similar to or lighter than the Stryker wheeled vehicle and the big gun (for me) is the CV90120-T as opposed to the CV90105, simply because its munitions are compatible with the M1A1. No other reason from my side of the fence.

The Ruag 120mm Compact Tank Gun also comes in with a max recoil of 260 KN IIRC. This is less than the Bighorn 120mm mortar made by the same company. I would go with the 52 caliber version (if possible) with a muzzle velocity of greater than 1680m/s. I.e. Its a good gun that you can fire in tricky stability situations like crossing a muddy 40 degree slope and crossing a light bridge.

http://www.ruag.com

From an industry perspective I like the Ruag 120 CTG because the design lends itself to further recoil reduction, especially with a Hybrid /Electric drive system, which would make it even more suitable to firing in difficult situations such as you would find in the tropics. Its an "always on weapon".

And this is part of the reason for my vague reference to NZ industry being able to contribute to a light tank platform.

The CV90 chassis itself, is ideal for an up-armoring package where as the Stryker and LAVIII are basically maxed out right now.

If you don't like the CV90120-T, then I would go with a CV9050 with the 50mm bushmaster 3 cannon. Fifty to 60 mm is a good size for infantry fire support operations.

cheers

W
Regarding Armour for NZ, I do see a potential need for mobile fire support for infantry or mechanized troops, of a greater degree than provided by 25mm cannon or 40mm grenade launchers. Basically a vehicle with enough fire power to damage/destroyer most other armoured vehicles and any hardened structures (i.e. bunkers, reinforced buildings, etc.) that it encounters. As of right now, NZ would need to either get one of it's Javelins to an area to fire, or a Seasprite or Orion aircraft to fire a Maverick AGM. Or of course, have an ally destroy the vehicle, bunker, etc. for them.

Given the current equipment used by NZ and Australia as well, I would go with a LAV III-based 105mm gun system.

With what I anticipate the type of targets to be engaged, I see little difference in the performance of a 105mm vs. 120mm gun. This is operating under the assumption that MBT would not be engaged by the vehicle, or at least if they are engaged, would be from "sniper" positions where they could shoot'n scoot. Given the widespread use of the 105mm gun before the appearance of the 120mm, ammo stocks should be readily available. Currently Australian 105mm ammo stocks for the Leopard I's could be purchased, or US, Canada, Israel, etc.

In regards to ammo compatibility, between the NZDF vehicle and ADF M1A1 MBT, I don't see that as a pressing issue. For the most part, I don't think that the two vehicles would see much deployment together, therefore the advantage of a common logistical train for gun ordnance wouldn't exist. As was mentioned in a prior post, in most South Pacific areas, an M1 wouldn't be deployed because the existing infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.) aren't strong enough to withstand the passing of a 60ton tank. Thus no need for 120mm ammo for Abrams that aren't there. In other areas where an Abrams could (and would) be deployed, I would expect that the degree of enemy firepower requiring the armour protection of an Abrams would mean that a light tank (even up-armoured) would be insufficient. Again negating any need for ammo of any caliber for the NZ vehicle.

My preference for a LAV III-based system stems from the fact that LAVs are the current NZ armoured force, and are used by the ADF as well. A LAV mounted gun would be interoperable with both the NZDF and ADF and could make use of already existing support facilities. By using a wheeled LAV chassis, driver & repair training could be intermixed with NZLAV training. If a tracked vehicle, or potentially a different wheeled vehicle were chosen, it could be difficult (and/or more expensive) to maintain the needed training facilities, since presumably there wouldn't be more than perhaps 24 vehicles. Remember, NZ only has around 105 NZLAV.

Also, by using a LAV chassis, when deployed it would be mixed in with the logistical train used for the NZLAV or ASLAV since there would be significant parts commonality.

Keeping in mind the previously mentioned deficiencies of wheeled gun systems, I would consider the ability to use and work with what NZ already has to be more important.

Having said that, I freely admit that I actually don't particularly like the LAV III/Stryker/etc. Even up-armoured, I consider the protection too little and while fast & mobile on roads and some offroad areas, I consider it insufficient to make up for the deficiencies in armour. It makes a decent recon vehicle with some firepower if it gets surprised, but is not what I would considered a combat vehicle.
 
Last edited:

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Wooki said:
Armor

How to Organize the Armored Force

With regard to operating closely with allied nations, constructing an armored force would be best done by creating a series of large companies that could be attached and detached (no Bobcat promo pun:p: ) to allied units with relative ease.

Expeditionary Force Structure

If you put a company of armored vehicles together with the logistics to support it, then what you basically have created is a small expeditionary force. There are people here more able than me to argue about the "full size" of that force when all the companies are together, but such a force lends itself to the "combined arms" approach that has met with some success in Iraq and Afghanistan. Meaning, you can attach Infantry to it and even helo assets.

Out of all this, I think it is most important that the NZDF acquire at least one more supply vessel to establish a "bridge" between NZ and the expeditionary unit. One v/l loading in NZ (or where ever) and the other discharging at the deployed unit's location.

And finally, I don't think it prudent to expand upon this concept and start talking about a USMC-like sized force. The thought process is how to maximize NZDF impact upon allied operations in a streamlined and efficient manner that won't break the NZDF budget. I do think it prudent to look at the USMC and other marine services and attempt to draw lessons from their experience and operations.

The use of the word "Services" is deliberate in that I am thinking business like operations.

cheers

W
Concerning armour and expeditionary forces, I'm not quite sure what you mean Wooki when mean attaching & detaching companies as part of an expeditionary force. Are you specifically referring to large, free companies of some armoured gun system that can be added to the Order of Battle of a larger (combined arms) unit? Or do you mean composite units of NZ armour that would be made up NZLAVs and whatever other armour they have?

If you mean the latter, I would agree that having deployable (possibly in some sort of ready deployment) companies of mixed armour would be good. I would consider it important though that the balance of forces in the company not only allow it to contribute to a larger force, but also be capable of relatively independent operations.

If you instead are talking about concentrating the gun system into one company (or two depending on the number of vehicles) which would then deploy alongside of NZ or allied units, that I'm not sure would be a good idea.

For the mobile gun system I would instead organize it into platoons/sections that would be attached and detached to different companies to form composite units, then these composite companies would be deployed.

With regard to the company/troop structure, here's what I envision.

1. A command platoon/section of 1-2 NZLAV & personnel
2. 2-3 platoon/sections, each containing 4 NZLAV & infantry
3. 1-2 platoon/sections, each containing 4 mobile gun systems

The target would be to usually have a total of 12-14 vehicles total, with infantry. With the gun systems deployed so closely with the NZLAVs and infantry it can help to ensure that the infantry have the fire support when they need it and where they need it. It would also help to protect the gun systems from becoming overwhelmed or useless in areas where a large gun isn't practical or useful, but 25mm cannon or small arms is.

In addition, by allowing the gun platoons to be detached or reattached as needed, it would still allow deployments of an entire company/troop of the mobile guns which could become useful if participating with allies in Battalion group sized operations.
 

Wooki

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #13
Todjaeger said:
Regarding Armour for NZ, I do see a potential need for mobile fire support for infantry or mechanized troops, of a greater degree than provided by 25mm cannon or 40mm grenade launchers. Basically a vehicle with enough fire power to damage/destroyer most other armoured vehicles and any hardened structures (i.e. bunkers, reinforced buildings, etc.) that it encounters. As of right now, NZ would need to either get one of it's Javelins to an area to fire, or a Seasprite or Orion aircraft to fire a Maverick AGM. Or of course, have an ally destroy the vehicle, bunker, etc. for them.

Given the current equipment used by NZ and Australia as well, I would go with a LAV III-based 105mm gun system.

With what I anticipate the type of targets to be engaged, I see little difference in the performance of a 105mm vs. 120mm gun. This is operating under the assumption that MBT would not be engaged by the vehicle, or at least if they are engaged, would be from "sniper" positions where they could shoot'n scoot. Given the widespread use of the 105mm gun before the appearance of the 120mm, ammo stocks should be readily available. Currently Australian 105mm ammo stocks for the Leopard I's could be purchased, or US, Canada, Israel, etc.

In regards to ammo compatibility, between the NZDF vehicle and ADF M1A1 MBT, I don't see that as a pressing issue. For the most part, I don't think that the two vehicles would see much deployment together, therefore the advantage of a common logistical train for gun ordnance wouldn't exist. As was mentioned in a prior post, in most South Pacific areas, an M1 wouldn't be deployed because the existing infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.) aren't strong enough to withstand the passing of a 60ton tank. Thus no need for 120mm ammo for Abrams that aren't there. In other areas where an Abrams could (and would) be deployed, I would expect that the degree of enemy firepower requiring the armour protection of an Abrams would mean that a light tank (even up-armoured) would be insufficient. Again negating any need for ammo of any caliber for the NZ vehicle.

My preference for a LAV III-based system stems from the fact that LAVs are the current NZ armoured force, and are used by the ADF as well. A LAV mounted gun would be interoperable with both the NZDF and ADF and could make use of already existing support facilities. By using a wheeled LAV chassis, driver & repair training could be intermixed with NZLAV training. If a tracked vehicle, or potentially a different wheeled vehicle were chosen, it could be difficult (and/or more expensive) to maintain the needed training facilities, since presumably there wouldn't be more than perhaps 24 vehicles. Remember, NZ only has around 105 NZLAV.

Also, by using a LAV chassis, when deployed it would be mixed in with the logistical train used for the NZLAV or ASLAV since there would be significant parts commonality.

Keeping in mind the previously mentioned deficiencies of wheeled gun systems, I would consider the ability to use and work with what NZ already has to be more important.

Having said that, I freely admit that I actually don't particularly like the LAV III/Stryker/etc. Even up-armoured, I consider the protection too little and while fast & mobile on roads and some offroad areas, I consider it insufficient to make up for the deficiencies in armour. It makes a decent recon vehicle with some firepower if it gets surprised, but is not what I would considered a combat vehicle.
MGS 105mm = much sucking of teeth for me.... Lets say we stick with the LAV then I would say the 105mm is simply too big for the chassis.

The problem is that the vehicle is already overloaded and then adding a 105 mm to it makes for a very unwieldy weapon. I would imagine if you let rip with it on some New Zealand roads you would fall down the hill. I'm half serious.

If we stay with the LAV then the short list of weapons would be:

1)The Oto Melara 60/70.

http://www.otomelara.it/products/schedule.asp?id=prod_land_hitfist_60_ge

2) Bushmaster III 50mm with "supershot" munitions

I might add the AMOS single barrel 120 mm mortar, but you would need to develop a direct attack configuration with sights, etc. I say "might" as it may have the same problems as the 105mm gun.

The 60/70 is an ideal size because you actually can get a lot of effect out of the HE round. The larger Mk44 also fits the same bill. Its intriguing how much more HE blast you can get with a relatively small increase from 30mm up to the 40mm.

so, I would round off the list with;

3) Mk44 40mm
4) AMOS single barrel

An article which is a good read regarding armored trends;

http://www.armada.ch/06-1/complete_06-1.pdf

If people are hell bent on the MGS, then I would look at a weight reduction re-design of the vehicle.

First up would be to scrap ceramic applique tiles and take a good long look at Titanium Aluminides.

And then I would use the Aussie "Stopshot" fiberglass technology (I think I posted that somewhere before)

Http://www.stopshot.com.

Not interested in the glass, but the fiberglass technology which provides ballistic protection against small arms in the 5.56mm range. Use that as a spaced "flexor" plate and you get the standoff to help defeat ATGMs and RPGs. Its beautiful as you absorb a hell of a lot of kinetic energy from your soviet era 14+mm anti aircraft projectile before it hits the main armor, and its light.

Because it is Kiwi technology; I would also seriously look at junking the GM powerplant and making a replacement engine out of that Christchurch shop, "Mace Engineering". They have a pivotal 2 stroke engine which basically would halve the weight of the power plant for the same horse power.

Doing that gives you an instant HEV option, which again gets rid of stuff you need to maintain like the transmission and now you have a bucket full of room and a lighter vehicle.

And now we are straying away from the very reason you would use the LAV in the first place, which is commonality of parts, right? :)

So why not go with the CV90 series? It is not perfect, but a good option all the same.

The Australians didn't try to make their armor LAV's. They just bought a tank and that is the philosophy behind my thinking. The fact that you can use the CV90 chassis for stuff that the LAV could do, is coincidence. Its because it is a stable tracked platform that you can successfully mount a 120mm on it and keep it light (which I think is a pre-requisite for Kiwi Armor).

ahh, I just re-read and saw you said basically the same thing:p:

Anyway, Better go. re: force structure, totally agree and more eloquently put. Its just a smaller concept then what I was proposing, as I was thinking about being able to embed NZDF components into allied units and trying to come up with the smallest component size you could do that with and not create a logistical nightmare, or expose your troops to an identity crisis.

Sorry I have run out of time, as I found your points V interesting Tod

cheers

W
 

Sea Toby

New Member
In a significant conflict, whether New Zealand has a regiment of 40 tracked APC/IFVs isn't going to make much difference when an enemy may have hundreds, if not thousands. The New Zealand army along with its government has chosen to equip their two regiments with APCs, wheeled LAVs, suitable for most peacekeeping missions. Their tracked M113s APCs in Bosnia could not keep up with the supply convoys. Therefore, their choice of speedy wheeled vehicles over tracked vehicles.

However, having tracked IFVs would be a great asset for the New Zealand army. Without any doubt. Unfortunately, New Zealand's army is leaning in another direction, motorised infantry instead of mechanized infantry. Nor is the government currently willing to fund tracked vehicles, much less armoured tanks or IFVs.

A nation can only do so much with an army of less than 2500 men with 105 LAVIIIs, a navy of 2 frigates, and an air force with 0 fighters, and 7 transport aircraft.

Would I support doubling the size of their defence forces, YES. Unfortunately, it appears I'm in the minority.

My NZ Defence Force wishlist to be fulfilled in 4 years:
Army:
1 more LAV regiment
1 CV-90 regiment
1 Paladin regiment
Navy:
2 more frigates
2 minehunters
Air Force:
2 squadrons of trainers/light fighters
5 more transport planes
8 more medium helicopters

Did I just spend $6 billion NZ? I haven't a clue where the personnel comes from. The money would come from the ongoing government surplus.
 
Last edited:

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Tracked vs. Wheeled for a MGS

With regards to a 105mm mounted on a LAV MGS, I have heard stories of what can happen. One of the ones I heard and found most amusing was that in testing, if the gun wasn't fired forward over the front of the vehicle but instead to the left or right side the recoil would roll the LAV. I'd love to see either pictures or a video of this if anyone has it.

The doctrine I expect would be used takes this design weakness into consideration. The vehicle would primarily be stationary while firing, and the targets would either be fixed postions like bunkers or other armoured vehicles. As I mentioned before about shoot'n scoot, I was referring to using the MGS to fire from ambush positions, much like German Jagdpanther tactics in Western Europe in 1944-1945. This would allow the MGS to be properly arranged for firing and also allow coverage of choke points like roads, bridges, fords, etc and the MGS could quickly redeploy once it has fired a round or several rounds.

As for the use of light tracked vehicles, and a CV90-based chassis specifically, the only problem I have with that is there would currently be no commonality of parts, training, or other support with anything in the NZDF inventory and little commonality with ADF inventory. Given the fairly small deployments the NZDF has done, along with total force size, I see that as something of a significant hindrance to maintaining an effective force.

Now if the ADF does adopt an IFV, and especially if they choose a CV90 family vehicle (I've said it before and I'll say it again, my vote for IFV is CV9040) my concern would be much reduced. If NZ decided concurrently to start reconstituting a tracked vehicle force the only real debate I would have would revolve around 105mm vs. 120mm for main armament.

Something I had left off the Expeditionary force.
Include repair/recovery configured LAVs. Either as a single vehicle included in the command section, or a repair section. Not sure what would be considered a suitable number for most forces. Does anyone reading this know approximately what ratio of repair/recovery LAVs : to regular LAVs is considered adequate or appropriate? Same question for tracked vehicles as well.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Sea Toby said:
In a significant conflict, whether New Zealand has a regiment of 40 tracked APC/IFVs isn't going to make much difference when an enemy may have hundreds, if not thousands. The New Zealand army along with its government has chosen to equip their two regiments with APCs, wheeled LAVs, suitable for most peacekeeping missions. Their tracked M113s APCs in Bosnia could not keep up with the supply convoys. Therefore, their choice of speedy wheeled vehicles over tracked vehicles.
From what I foresee, NZ wouldn't become involved in a significant conflict by itself. Also if the situation was such that the enemy had hundreds, or thousands of armoured vehicles, then NZ would be a small part of a much larger coalition. The ideas I've been bouncing around regarding a NZ armoured force are intended to come up with an effective force that NZ can deploy when & where needed, either by itself or attached to an allied force.

At the same time, the limitations of existing equipment must be realised. While LAVs might be suitable for some peacekeeping missions, they are inappropriate for use under a number of circumstances. If the force might encounter/come under fire regularly from an enemy with weapons of greater than 0.30 cal./7.62mm then the armour is insufficient. If they need to operate away from established roads and patrol in rough or broken terrain the wheel system might not provide enough mobility. Also, if targets need to be engaged outside the effective range of a 25mm gun, or are too well armoured or protected, then the armament needs to be enhanced.

Given the conversion to an all-wheeled LAV force, the first two concerns can't be addressed at present. However the the armament can.
 

Wooki

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #17
Todjaeger said:
With regards to a 105mm mounted on a LAV MGS, I have heard stories of what can happen. One of the ones I heard and found most amusing was that in testing, if the gun wasn't fired forward over the front of the vehicle but instead to the left or right side the recoil would roll the LAV. I'd love to see either pictures or a video of this if anyone has it.

The doctrine I expect would be used takes this design weakness into consideration. The vehicle would primarily be stationary while firing, and the targets would either be fixed postions like bunkers or other armoured vehicles. As I mentioned before about shoot'n scoot, I was referring to using the MGS to fire from ambush positions, much like German Jagdpanther tactics in Western Europe in 1944-1945. This would allow the MGS to be properly arranged for firing and also allow coverage of choke points like roads, bridges, fords, etc and the MGS could quickly redeploy once it has fired a round or several rounds.

As for the use of light tracked vehicles, and a CV90-based chassis specifically, the only problem I have with that is there would currently be no commonality of parts, training, or other support with anything in the NZDF inventory and little commonality with ADF inventory. Given the fairly small deployments the NZDF has done, along with total force size, I see that as something of a significant hindrance to maintaining an effective force.

Now if the ADF does adopt an IFV, and especially if they choose a CV90 family vehicle (I've said it before and I'll say it again, my vote for IFV is CV9040) my concern would be much reduced. If NZ decided concurrently to start reconstituting a tracked vehicle force the only real debate I would have would revolve around 105mm vs. 120mm for main armament.
I didn't work on the MGS, but I have seen clips of the 120mm Centauro firing at 90 degrees on a side slope. It takes a good 3 seconds for the vehicle to stop rolling (bouncing from one side to the other). Rather than inspire confidence, its a bit unsettling. i.e. you are hanging on for dear life for 3 seconds before you can do anything like reload, take a look around, see if you hit the target, etc.

I did do some work on an electric active suspension system to stop this. And to make a long story short. It is near impossible because of the tires. The best way to cut this down is to reduce recoil (why they went for the 105 anyway, I guess) and (in the case of the MGS) fire out of battery.

That is why I suggested the 60/70. Its probably the biggest caliber that can comfortably fit onto an LAVIII and can handle 70's era tanks that you are more likely to meet than any other. In addition to that it has an effective HE munition, meaning you can take out a building, and reduce collateral damage.

Anyway, re: logistics, what needs to happen is create "intelligent logisticians". The technology is there today to have your NZDF grunt say, "I need widget x" and order it online from the battlefield and have it delivered to him directly from the manufacturer.

The DoD emall is a good attempt to do this and it actually did have soldiers from Kosovo make in theater orders and get the part they needed in days as opposed to weeks.

I think that would be the most vital ability for the NZDF to have so as to contribute to allied deployments.

Re: 40 tanks
Sea Toby said:
In a significant conflict, whether New Zealand has a regiment of 40 tracked APC/IFVs isn't going to make much difference when an enemy may have hundreds, if not thousands. The New Zealand army along with its government has chosen to equip their two regiments with APCs, wheeled LAVs, suitable for most peacekeeping missions. Their tracked M113s APCs in Bosnia could not keep up with the supply convoys. Therefore, their choice of speedy wheeled vehicles over tracked vehicles.

However, having tracked IFVs would be a great asset for the New Zealand army. Without any doubt. Unfortunately, New Zealand's army is leaning in another direction, motorised infantry instead of mechanized infantry. Nor is the government currently willing to fund tracked vehicles, much less armoured tanks or IFVs.

A nation can only do so much with an army of less than 2500 men with 105 LAVIIIs, a navy of 2 frigates, and an air force with 0 fighters, and 7 transport aircraft.

Would I support doubling the size of their defence forces, YES. Unfortunately, it appears I'm in the minority.
That was the point raised before that in order for New Zealand to increase international influence (as why else is NZ engaged in peace keeping operations if it doesn't want to maintain a reputation as a good international citizen) and the NZDF to make a significant impact upon the outcome of an allied operation than it must have an ability to provide assets that can win the battle so-to-speak.

So while taken alone, buying a bunch of 120mm armed tracked vehicles seems a bit odd, when taken in context with allied forces engaged in conflicts like Afghanistan it makes a lot of sense and makes the NZDF force the winning ingredient.

IIRC NZ artillery Observors did exactly this for Australia in Vietnam on more than a few occassions. Long Tan springs to mind, but I could be wrong.

But how do you do that?

And AD's comment about Aussie forces developing their own ability is fine, but including the upgraded M113s as "armor" is a bit of a stretch, as they will be obsolete before they are deployed. In other words, I see that as an opportunity for NZ to provide the backbone that Australia (in this instance) is looking for, but won't quite achieve with their M113s.

Just quickly, I am not against the M113. Its just that I see it for what it is. A Taxi, and believe it or not, just the fact that they have added a wheel will probably reduce casualties caused by mines. Something not designed for, but a nice side effect for Australian troops, if it holds true.

cheers

W
 
Last edited:
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Wooki said:
IIRC NZ artillery Observors did exactly this for Australia in Vietnam on more than a few occassions. Long Tan springs to mind, but I could be wrong.

But how do you do that?

And AD's comment about Aussie forces developing their own ability is fine, but including the upgraded M113s as "armor" is a bit of a stretch, as they will be obsolete before they are deployed. In other words, I see that as an opportunity for NZ to provide the backbone that Australia (in this instance) is looking for, but won't quite achieve with their M113s.

Just quickly, I am not against the M113. Its just that I see it for what it is. A Taxi, and believe it or not, just the fact that they have added a wheel will probably reduce casualties caused by mines. Something not designed for, but a nice side effect for Australian troops, if it holds true.

cheers

W
I agree, but the armour protection levels for the M113As3/4 upgrade was actually the best feature OF the vehicle in my opinion. The "base" armour protection was being rasied to be able to defeat 14.5mm/12.7mm AP rounds. Additional modular applique armour kits were also to be provided to protect against up to 30mm AP and "light" anti-armour weapons.

From the Australian Army's POV with it's traditional light infantry focus, this plus a bit of firepower is exactly what the Australian Army needs. The 2 major wars being fought by the West today, Iraq and Afghanistan, are, by and large, light infantry or light motorised infantry wars with heavily armoured forces largely relegated to "support roles".

Now it's dangerous to equip a future force in light of previous experience and present experience, which is why many people in Australia (myself included) think that an "armoured taxi" with a bit more firepower is exactly what we need. Our operations will always require us to deploy full sized infantry sections from our armoured vehicles. Very few if any IFV's can do this, as the large stabilised turrets mounting medium calibre weapons, multiple GPMG's and often anti-armour weapons, which typify modern IFV's simply take up too much space.

As a perfect example of this in the Australian context; the ASLAV-25, (equipped with 2 man turret and 25mm Bushmaster cannon, co-ax MAG-58 7.62mm GPMG and flex MAG-58) shares the same basic vehicle dimensions as the ASLAV-PC (fitted with Kongsberg Protector "remote weapon station" with 12.7mm gun or Mk 19 40mm AGL). Yet the ASLAV-25 can only carry 6x troops in the troop compartment whereas the ASLAV-PC can carry 10x.

A troop capacity of 7 (as carried by M2A3 Bradley and Warrior IFV) or 8 as (carried by CV-90) is insufficient to carry an Australian infantry section. In addition to which our infantry platoons are about to be enhanced with the addition of "maneuvre support teams", which are teams organised to operate heavy weapons and embedded within the platoons. As such the size of our platoons is likely to increase to 45-55 troops per platoon. If an IFV with it's greater firepower but less carrying capacity were to be chosen, 7 - 8 IFV's would be required per platoon, as opposed to 5-6 APC's, a VERY expensive exercise...

To summarise, what Australia therefore truly needs, is an armoured personal carrier with the capacity to carry a full section, with armour protection similar to that of modern IFV's and firepower comparable to that of IFV's but without the large turret system normally employed on such IFV's. A practical example of this, indicates a remote weapon station, fitted with a cannon and preferrably a co-ax 7.62mm GPMG could be the ideal solution.

The M113AS3/4 if it could be sorted out quickly, but with an RWS fitted with a medium calibre cannon would go a long way to achieving this IMHO...
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Would a mix of something like 4 CV90 & 2 M113 per platoon be considered a viable option? I can see a need for platoon strength patrols/deployments needing fire support, but not to the degree of an attached M1 or two per platoon. That I would have done at company/troop or battalion/squadron level. (This is directed at AD for the ADF deployments)

Would a 76mm (3in) gun be able to be mounted on a LAV chassis without causing the recoil problems found with a 105mm gun? I'm thinking in terms of a gun like was found on the Saladin Armoured Cars, that sort of thing.

I'm still currently going with a LAV chassis idea since I think there could be problems if NZ needed to provide two separate parts/supply trains during a deployment.

Regarding the "intelligent logisticians" if it worked in Kosovo, then it should work in a peacekeeping mission. How well would that be expected to work in actual combat operations? Perhaps instead of having the parts shipped to the unit in the field, it could be sent to a Forward Operating Base and the distributed from there. In some respects, that sounds like a suggestion I made at work (not taken up, but there you have it). The suggestion was as follows. Techs at work would be provided with laptops or electronic styluses (ala UPS) that could be connected to the company system via phone and/or wirelessly. Data on work orders would be entered into the device allowing closer monitoring of job completion and also allow better tracking of information, instead of relying on receipt of work orders and any accompanying notes at the end of business. Changing that over slightly to a work order entry & inventory tracking system shoulds like a possibility. There would most likely be a large initial effort to build the system and establish that parts & inventory database. Once that was done, it should work fairly smoothly. Through such a system, usage & wear on vehicles could be tracked for potential recurring issues, and it could reduce time taken to order and receive replacement parts. Not to mention make inventory management more efficient by moving to a JIT based system.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Wooki said:
The problem is that the vehicle is already overloaded and then adding a 105 mm to it makes for a very unwieldy weapon. I would imagine if you let rip with it on some New Zealand roads you would fall down the hill. I'm half serious.

An article which is a good read regarding armored trends;

http://www.armada.ch/06-1/complete_06-1.pdf

If people are hell bent on the MGS, then I would look at a weight reduction re-design of the vehicle.

First up would be to scrap ceramic applique tiles and take a good long look at Titanium Aluminides.

And then I would use the Aussie "Stopshot" fiberglass technology (I think I posted that somewhere before)

Http://www.stopshot.com.

Not interested in the glass, but the fiberglass technology which provides ballistic protection against small arms in the 5.56mm range. Use that as a spaced "flexor" plate and you get the standoff to help defeat ATGMs and RPGs. Its beautiful as you absorb a hell of a lot of kinetic energy from your soviet era 14+mm anti aircraft projectile before it hits the main armor, and its light.

Because it is Kiwi technology; I would also seriously look at junking the GM powerplant and making a replacement engine out of that Christchurch shop, "Mace Engineering". They have a pivotal 2 stroke engine which basically would halve the weight of the power plant for the same horse power.

Doing that gives you an instant HEV option, which again gets rid of stuff you need to maintain like the transmission and now you have a bucket full of room and a lighter vehicle.

And now we are straying away from the very reason you would use the LAV in the first place, which is commonality of parts, right? :)

cheers

W
I was re-reading this post and a few things occurred to me.

First I read the link provided for armour trends, and I noticed where Belgium plans on switching to wheeled armour vehicles. This is apparently to replace all tracked armour, including M113 and Leopard Is. <insert shudder here>
I just can't see a light wheeled armour vehicle replacing a 40 ton MBT.

There was also mention of a further order of M1117 for a "Convoy Protection Vehicle"
<insert another shudder here>
May be it's just me, but I think a military vehicle that can expect to find itself under attack should have better protection than is sufficient to withstand 7.62mm AP rounds.

Regarding the the things you mentioned to reduce weight and increase protection for a 105mm MGS, I agree if that was done only for the MGS vehicle that would pretty much defeat the purpose of having a common chassis. On the other hand, if those modifications/upgrades were done fleet wide... Might it not only maintain commonality of parts, but improve the capabilities of the NZLAV in service? If so, then I think NZ should try such an upgrade path, unless they're looking to replace the NZLAV which I sort of doubt at this point.

On a tangential note, do you think a similar set of upgrades could be applied to the Australian M113 program? Or the NZ M113 which have been decommissioned (assuming they were mothballed and are still in good enough condition). Reactivation of the M113 could allow NZ to restart a tracked armour program. I also would see less problems emerging if there were logistics for two different deployed tracked vehicles, as opposed to a wheeled vehicle with a tracked vehicle deployed alongside it.
 
Top