New Zealand Army

[ADMk2]

Whilst I see a need for a SPG in the NZ Army, I don't support it replacing towed artillery. Both kinds have their strengths and weaknesses. Towed guns have a higher rate of sustained fire than SPGs do. SPGs are capable of shoot and scoot so not as prone to counter battery fire as towed guns are. I see SPGs in the NZ Army ORBAT as mobile fire support for the infantry with the ability to keep pace with the infantry. However for sustained bombardment, towed guns are far better. Hence my choice would be an armoured vehicle such as the LAV being fitted with Cockerill 105mm gun turrets or similar. I would also stay with the 105mm howitzers because that particular calibre allows for a higher rate of fire than 155mm. Whilst the 105mm shell is smaller than the 155mm, more 105mm can go down range per minute than 155mm. Again each calibre has its advantages and disadvantages. In the NZ context we can lift a 105mm howitzer by air using the NH90 without the requirement to partially disassemble the weapon. If we moved to 155mm we'd have to lift the weapon in pieces which then has to be reassembled at the gun pit before it can undertake a fire mission. That takes time. Also resupply by helo of ammo is easier with 105mm. You don't have to breakdown all of the packaging as much as you have to with 155mm.

If range and lethality and shoot and scoot operations are a concern, there are a range of upgrades including digital fire control, addition of GPS / INU and improved ammunition natures that largely address these concerns, including a rocket assisted 105mm round that can reach 19.5k’s and provide an 80% lethality improvement, plus as you mentioned the air mobility with NH-90i is a big plus in the NZ context.

A self-propelled 120mm mortar could be a good option to improve overall fire support as well as provide very rapid mobility well and truly able to keep up with any NZ Army elements.

A 120mm AMOS turret on an in-service LAVIII vehicle, perhaps mounting ATK’s 120mm mortar PGK, would be a handy little acquisition for NZ precise and light fire support purposes and wouldn’t exactly break the bank.....

 

[Novascotiaboy]

Of the 105 or so LAV hulls in service how many are considered surplus? I remember seeing the figure of 35 being stored and at one time being considered for sale. There is a cost of ownership for these hulls even though they may be unused. I have asked this question before but do not remember if anyone commented but are there companies in NZ able to undertake modifications such as swapping turrets and doing overhaul work if funds were to be made available?

There must be a place in the NZ Army for these hulls in different roles? Turretless hulls would fit in the C130 without mod allowing quik deployment to locations requiring armour protection and pintle mounted HMG or AGL. Ambulances and command posts do not require the 25mm Bushmaster. The space created inside would offer many benefits.

The big money has been spent on the acquisition. Why let them sit when they could be employed?

 

[Todjaeger]

Of the 105 or so LAV hulls in service how many are considered surplus? I remember seeing the figure of 35 being stored and at one time being considered for sale. There is a cost of ownership for these hulls even though they may be unused. I have asked this question before but do not remember if anyone commented but are there companies in NZ able to undertake modifications such as swapping turrets and doing overhaul work if funds were to be made available?

There must be a place in the NZ Army for these hulls in different roles? Turretless hulls would fit in the C130 without mod allowing quik deployment to locations requiring armour protection and pintle mounted HMG or AGL. Ambulances and command posts do not require the 25mm Bushmaster. The space created inside would offer many benefits.

The big money has been spent on the acquisition. Why let them sit when they could be employed?

One would also have to keep in mind the cost to develop and modify NZLAV hulls into other variants and then sustain the new variants, as well as just how and where they would fit into the overall NZDF and Army force structure.

Consider for instance developing an ambulance from a NZLAV. Army already has ambulances, so a question which would arise is whether or not the NZLAV-ambulance(s) would be in addition to, or in place of some of the current ambulances? I cannot imagine that the cost to maintain and operate a NZLAV-ambulance version would be lower than an ambulance based on a regular vehicle. Then there is the question of where and how a NZLAV-ambulance would be deployed and utilized? Have NZ forces been in situations where an armoured ambulance capability (beyond what is already possessed) was needed to protect wounded personnel while being transported to aide stations or hospital, since the NZLAV was adopted?

Also, just how much would it cost to convert a NZLAV into a proper armoured ambulance? The cost of the ambulance kit alone would likely be greater than USD$60k, never mind the cost to remove the turret, close the opening left by removing the turret, or re-arranging the internal structure and seating/positions to accommodate stretchers, stations for the medics to work from, or store the medical kit in a rapidly accessible fashion.

While the unused NZLAV's likely have a minimum cost to maintain them even while they are not being used, depending on what the service needs are and the cost for other uses for the NZLAV, it still could be best for Army to just keep some of the NZLAV's unused rather than convert them.

 

[ADMk2]

One would also have to keep in mind the cost to develop and modify NZLAV hulls into other variants and then sustain the new variants, as well as just how and where they would fit into the overall NZDF and Army force structure.

Consider for instance developing an ambulance from a NZLAV. Army already has ambulances, so a question which would arise is whether or not the NZLAV-ambulance(s) would be in addition to, or in place of some of the current ambulances? I cannot imagine that the cost to maintain and operate a NZLAV-ambulance version would be lower than an ambulance based on a regular vehicle. Then there is the question of where and how a NZLAV-ambulance would be deployed and utilized? Have NZ forces been in situations where an armoured ambulance capability (beyond what is already possessed) was needed to protect wounded personnel while being transported to aide stations or hospital, since the NZLAV was adopted?

Also, just how much would it cost to convert a NZLAV into a proper armoured ambulance? The cost of the ambulance kit alone would likely be greater than USD$60k, never mind the cost to remove the turret, close the opening left by removing the turret, or re-arranging the internal structure and seating/positions to accommodate stretchers, stations for the medics to work from, or store the medical kit in a rapidly accessible fashion.

While the unused NZLAV's likely have a minimum cost to maintain them even while they are not being used, depending on what the service needs are and the cost for other uses for the NZLAV, it still could be best for Army to just keep some of the NZLAV's unused rather than convert them.

The most significant support requirements for such vehicles will be hull based, engines, transmissions suspension and braking systems and so forth, which will be largely the same, fleet wide.

Obviously the differences will cost but they will provide additional capability as well, there is always a trade off. There is little possibility soft-skinned ambulances will be of much utility in a combat situation except in rear echelon areas, and preparing a future force for what they have done previously seems rather contrary to the NZ strategic guidance...

 

[RegR]

One would also have to keep in mind the cost to develop and modify NZLAV hulls into other variants and then sustain the new variants, as well as just how and where they would fit into the overall NZDF and Army force structure.

Consider for instance developing an ambulance from a NZLAV. Army already has ambulances, so a question which would arise is whether or not the NZLAV-ambulance(s) would be in addition to, or in place of some of the current ambulances? I cannot imagine that the cost to maintain and operate a NZLAV-ambulance version would be lower than an ambulance based on a regular vehicle. Then there is the question of where and how a NZLAV-ambulance would be deployed and utilized? Have NZ forces been in situations where an armoured ambulance capability (beyond what is already possessed) was needed to protect wounded personnel while being transported to aide stations or hospital, since the NZLAV was adopted?

Also, just how much would it cost to convert a NZLAV into a proper armoured ambulance? The cost of the ambulance kit alone would likely be greater than USD$60k, never mind the cost to remove the turret, close the opening left by removing the turret, or re-arranging the internal structure and seating/positions to accommodate stretchers, stations for the medics to work from, or store the medical kit in a rapidly accessible fashion.

While the unused NZLAV's likely have a minimum cost to maintain them even while they are not being used, depending on what the service needs are and the cost for other uses for the NZLAV, it still could be best for Army to just keep some of the NZLAV's unused rather than convert them.

The canadians, who we got the LAVs from, have already done the R&D into re-roleing LAVIIIs and have the logistics in place to convert standard into role specific. I highly doubt we would undertake such a technical and involved project locally and will contract any new variants to coincide with any mid life upgrade to the baseline variant which would no doubt in itself be a technical task given the move towards v hulls for armour.

We do not currently have armoured ambos (amongst other variants) and there in lies the problem. I would not compare a soft skin pinz/mog ambo to LAV-A or even a bushmaster-A (another possibility) as it's akin to comparing a pinzgauer weapons carrier to a pinzgauer crew served or even a GS triton to a GS pinzgauer, ie they are primarily for lesser duties and training purposes. Similar roles for differing threat levels, we are only now finally catching up with the support vehicles that have been constantly quoted to keep pace and match with the LAVs, all but in armour up until now. A few more projects to go in the CSS, FRT and FSV support roles IMO to directly support NZLAV fully. We already had all these with the M113 fleet but seemed to fall by the wayside with the new fleet in order to get the numbers to motorise both battalions which on reflection was seemingly both a waste of time and money as we are going full circle.

 

[Todjaeger]

The most significant support requirements for such vehicles will be hull based, engines, transmissions suspension and braking systems and so forth, which will be largely the same, fleet wide.

Obviously the differences will cost but they will provide additional capability as well, there is always a trade off. There is little possibility soft-skinned ambulances will be of much utility in a combat situation except in rear echelon areas, and preparing a future force for what they have done previously seems rather contrary to the NZ strategic guidance...

AND

The canadians, who we got the LAVs from, have already done the R&D into re-roleing LAVIIIs and have the logistics in place to convert standard into role specific. I highly doubt we would undertake such a technical and involved project locally and will contract any new variants to coincide with any mid life upgrade to the baseline variant which would no doubt in itself be a technical task given the move towards v hulls for armour.

We do not currently have armoured ambos (amongst other variants) and there in lies the problem. I would not compare a soft skin pinz/mog ambo to LAV-A or even a bushmaster-A (another possibility) as it's akin to comparing a pinzgauer weapons carrier to a pinzgauer crew served or even a GS triton to a GS pinzgauer, ie they are primarily for lesser duties and training purposes. Similar roles for differing threat levels, we are only now finally catching up with the support vehicles that have been constantly quoted to keep pace and match with the LAVs, all but in armour up until now. A few more projects to go in the CSS, FRT and FSV support roles IMO to directly support NZLAV fully. We already had all these with the M113 fleet but seemed to fall by the wayside with the new fleet in order to get the numbers to motorise both battalions which on reflection was seemingly both a waste of time and money as we are going full circle.

I am not questioning whether it would be possible to convert some NZLAV's into armoured ambulances. What I am questioning whether or not the 'new' capability would be beneficial enough to justify the costs.

For starters, let us consider where the basic vehicle is going to come from. IIRC Army is keeping ~70 NZLAV's, with up to 35 NZLAV's 'mothballed. As a side note, I do rather wonder what became of the 3 NZLAV's which were damaged in Afghanistan. The up to 35 NZLAV's are presumably available for modification, but would Army be granted sufficient additional future funding to operate nn NZLAV-ambulances in addition to the current 70 NZLAV's, or would one (or more) of the currently operational NZLAV's be put into mothballs? Relating to that question, just how many NZLAV's would or should be converted? Looking at the NZLOV ambulances, I believe Army has ~8 in inventory. Looking at the OrBat for a US Army Stryker Infantry company, there is a single M1133 MEV per company, with each company having a total of 21 Stryker vehicles of various versions, that would suggest that three ambulance conversions might be the appropriate number, but again there would be a question about whether they would be in addition to, or in place of NZLOV ambulances.

Speaking of the NZLOV ambulances, when and where have they been deployed? Have they deployed to Afgahnistan? If no, were they considered for such a deployment? If they were considered, what was the reason why there were not utilized, was it concerns about mobility, vehicle protection, or were there other medical transportation options available which were considered superior?

Speaking of potentially superior medical transport options... Under what conditions would an armoured ambulance be the best option used by the NZ Army? A soldier wounded while in contact with an enemy would need transport to a treatment facility but when and how they go is going to depend on a number of factors, arguably the three most important being the severity of the wound(s), the time it will take to transport to the treatment facility, and the ability to reach the wounded soldier on-site to start stabilizing them. Using a place like Afghanistan as an example, though anywhere that would have long travel times due to either distance or poor road infrastructure, I would imagine that a medevac would be the preferred option, or failing that a casevac, especially if an ambulance did not accompany a convoy or patrol as a matter of routine. If the ambulance (armoured of not) has to travel from wherever they are based or being staged to the patient, and then transport the patient to a treatment centre, the longer that takes and/or the more serious the patient's condition, the worse the outcome is likely to be.

From my POV the only possible improvements an armoured ambulance might make on that is if one was available, it could either accompany a convoy or patrol and have some protection during a contact, or possibly be dispatched if a medevac or casevac was not available (but the armoured ambulance was) and the contact was still ongoing. OTOH if the contact was broken off, or the patient's condition was serious but not requiring immediate intervention, then the patient could potentially be moved via a regular ambulance or vehicle.

Given the history of NZ Army deployments over the last two decades or so, I have to question whether spending even a small amount of funding would be worthwhile.

 

[STURM]

Towed guns have a higher rate of sustained fire than SPGs do.

That's very interesting. Never knew that.

That's the the great thing about DT; there's always new stuff to learn.

 

[RegR]

AND



I am not questioning whether it would be possible to convert some NZLAV's into armoured ambulances. What I am questioning whether or not the 'new' capability would be beneficial enough to justify the costs.

For starters, let us consider where the basic vehicle is going to come from. IIRC Army is keeping ~70 NZLAV's, with up to 35 NZLAV's 'mothballed. As a side note, I do rather wonder what became of the 3 NZLAV's which were damaged in Afghanistan. The up to 35 NZLAV's are presumably available for modification, but would Army be granted sufficient additional future funding to operate nn NZLAV-ambulances in addition to the current 70 NZLAV's, or would one (or more) of the currently operational NZLAV's be put into mothballs? Relating to that question, just how many NZLAV's would or should be converted? Looking at the NZLOV ambulances, I believe Army has ~8 in inventory. Looking at the OrBat for a US Army Stryker Infantry company, there is a single M1133 MEV per company, with each company having a total of 21 Stryker vehicles of various versions, that would suggest that three ambulance conversions might be the appropriate number, but again there would be a question about whether they would be in addition to, or in place of NZLOV ambulances.

Speaking of the NZLOV ambulances, when and where have they been deployed? Have they deployed to Afgahnistan? If no, were they considered for such a deployment? If they were considered, what was the reason why there were not utilized, was it concerns about mobility, vehicle protection, or were there other medical transportation options available which were considered superior?

Speaking of potentially superior medical transport options... Under what conditions would an armoured ambulance be the best option used by the NZ Army? A soldier wounded while in contact with an enemy would need transport to a treatment facility but when and how they go is going to depend on a number of factors, arguably the three most important being the severity of the wound(s), the time it will take to transport to the treatment facility, and the ability to reach the wounded soldier on-site to start stabilizing them. Using a place like Afghanistan as an example, though anywhere that would have long travel times due to either distance or poor road infrastructure, I would imagine that a medevac would be the preferred option, or failing that a casevac, especially if an ambulance did not accompany a convoy or patrol as a matter of routine. If the ambulance (armoured of not) has to travel from wherever they are based or being staged to the patient, and then transport the patient to a treatment centre, the longer that takes and/or the more serious the patient's condition, the worse the outcome is likely to be.

From my POV the only possible improvements an armoured ambulance might make on that is if one was available, it could either accompany a convoy or patrol and have some protection during a contact, or possibly be dispatched if a medevac or casevac was not available (but the armoured ambulance was) and the contact was still ongoing. OTOH if the contact was broken off, or the patient's condition was serious but not requiring immediate intervention, then the patient could potentially be moved via a regular ambulance or vehicle.

Given the history of NZ Army deployments over the last two decades or so, I have to question whether spending even a small amount of funding would be worthwhile.

Well TBH given that same history you could then question the need for NZLAV at all could'nt you but like anything better to be equipped and not need than need and have no equipment.

AND



I am not questioning whether it would be possible to convert some NZLAV's into armoured ambulances. What I am questioning whether or not the 'new' capability would be beneficial enough to justify the costs.

For starters, let us consider where the basic vehicle is going to come from. IIRC Army is keeping ~70 NZLAV's, with up to 35 NZLAV's 'mothballed. As a side note, I do rather wonder what became of the 3 NZLAV's which were damaged in Afghanistan. The up to 35 NZLAV's are presumably available for modification, but would Army be granted sufficient additional future funding to operate nn NZLAV-ambulances in addition to the current 70 NZLAV's, or would one (or more) of the currently operational NZLAV's be put into mothballs? Relating to that question, just how many NZLAV's would or should be converted? Looking at the NZLOV ambulances, I believe Army has ~8 in inventory. Looking at the OrBat for a US Army Stryker Infantry company, there is a single M1133 MEV per company, with each company having a total of 21 Stryker vehicles of various versions, that would suggest that three ambulance conversions might be the appropriate number, but again there would be a question about whether they would be in addition to, or in place of NZLOV ambulances.

Speaking of the NZLOV ambulances, when and where have they been deployed? Have they deployed to Afgahnistan? If no, were they considered for such a deployment? If they were considered, what was the reason why there were not utilized, was it concerns about mobility, vehicle protection, or were there other medical transportation options available which were considered superior?

Speaking of potentially superior medical transport options... Under what conditions would an armoured ambulance be the best option used by the NZ Army? A soldier wounded while in contact with an enemy would need transport to a treatment facility but when and how they go is going to depend on a number of factors, arguably the three most important being the severity of the wound(s), the time it will take to transport to the treatment facility, and the ability to reach the wounded soldier on-site to start stabilizing them. Using a place like Afghanistan as an example, though anywhere that would have long travel times due to either distance or poor road infrastructure, I would imagine that a medevac would be the preferred option, or failing that a casevac, especially if an ambulance did not accompany a convoy or patrol as a matter of routine. If the ambulance (armoured of not) has to travel from wherever they are based or being staged to the patient, and then transport the patient to a treatment centre, the longer that takes and/or the more serious the patient's condition, the worse the outcome is likely to be.

From my POV the only possible improvements an armoured ambulance might make on that is if one was available, it could either accompany a convoy or patrol and have some protection during a contact, or possibly be dispatched if a medevac or casevac was not available (but the armoured ambulance was) and the contact was still ongoing. OTOH if the contact was broken off, or the patient's condition was serious but not requiring immediate intervention, then the patient could potentially be moved via a regular ambulance or vehicle.

Given the history of NZ Army deployments over the last two decades or so, I have to question whether spending even a small amount of funding would be worthwhile.

Well then going by that logic why do we have any LAVs? Or any armoured vehicle at all? Answer is to afford protection under armour fir the nesscessary pers to conduct their job. The same reason we have LAV variants for engineers, workshops, FOs and HQs is because they are in direct support and if there is a requirement for infantry and QAMR to use their LAV then chances are the same threat applies to all.

Ambos and the like are spec vehicles and as such cost extra but also serve a purpose, in this case would be to provide life saving/preserving support that a stock LAV just could not do. We could also just place a stretcher into a van and call it an ambulance but then not quite the same is it, nor is sending a pinzgauer ambulance out with an armoured convoy and expecting it to be fine in any contact or response.

In Afghan the mog ambo deployed but there were also other mogs deployed as well and were mainly for tasks at the PRT such as hospital to airfeild transfers etc ie relatively safe. I'm sure if Pinz were deployed in numbers then pinz ambos would have deployed, it's all about logistics as well, but again would have been confined to base for safety reasons. It's all threat dependant and IMO no point having some armour and your supporties non-armoured if they are working side by side as obviously the threat level is there in the first place.

Given the history of nz army deployments you could then argue why we even have NZLAV at all for the proprtional operational use and cost but better to be prepared and equipped rather than need equipment and be under prepared.

There is also the fact we already own the LAVs and don't seem to be having much luck off loading them so would be sensible to make use of them at cost rather than mothball them or worse sell them at loss. Why would we lose the other ambos? They serve different areas ie combat and peacetime and have designated roles. In Timor during the BATTs we deployed M113 and mog ambos, for a purpose and we also aqquired pinz ambos whilst we had the 1300s and kept them plus who knows if or with how many they will be replaced once finally retired.

 

[ngatimozart]

That's very interesting. Never knew that.

That's the the great thing about DT; there's always new stuff to learn.

I am in error :

Generally, towed 105mm will be faster than 155mm but spadeless self-propelled guns will always be the fastest, not least because they have ammunition onboard and ready to fire.
105mm, 155mm or Something In-between? - Think Defence

 

[Todjaeger]

Well TBH given that same history you could then question the need for NZLAV at all could'nt you but like anything better to be equipped and not need than need and have no equipment.

And the above completely ignores the question of how likely/great is the need vs. the cost (which would almost certainly come at the expense of some other thing for NZDF ) and how useful would the delivered capability be.

Well then going by that logic why do we have any LAVs? Or any armoured vehicle at all? Answer is to afford protection under armour fir the nesscessary pers to conduct their job. The same reason we have LAV variants for engineers, workshops, FOs and HQs is because they are in direct support and if there is a requirement for infantry and QAMR to use their LAV then chances are the same threat applies to all.

Ambos and the like are spec vehicles and as such cost extra but also serve a purpose, in this case would be to provide life saving/preserving support that a stock LAV just could not do. We could also just place a stretcher into a van and call it an ambulance but then not quite the same is it, nor is sending a pinzgauer ambulance out with an armoured convoy and expecting it to be fine in any contact or response.

Umm... No. Or more precisely, an ambulance to be useful, needs to be able to provide life saving/stabilizing transport for the patient(s) as they are being moved to a treatment facility. How often will a scenario arise where NZDF personnel would be wounded while in contact with an enemy so that an armoured ambulance is needed to get to the wounded to start stabilizing and packaging them for transport, and have the ambulance able to get the wounded to a treatment centre or trauma unit within 30 minutes and without having the wounded suffer further injury due to the transit conditions?

BTW the above scenario is assuming that the armoured ambulance was already on scene at the time the soldiers were wounded. If the ambulance was elsewhere, that window of opportunity would shrink by the time it took the ambulance to arrive.

Incidentally with ambulance operations, not only do threats have to be taken into account, but also how long it takes to get a wounded soldier onto an operating table from the time they are wounded.

 

[RegR]

And the above completely ignores the question of how likely/great is the need vs. the cost (which would almost certainly come at the expense of some other thing for NZDF ) and how useful would the delivered capability be.



Umm... No. Or more precisely, an ambulance to be useful, needs to be able to provide life saving/stabilizing transport for the patient(s) as they are being moved to a treatment facility. How often will a scenario arise where NZDF personnel would be wounded while in contact with an enemy so that an armoured ambulance is needed to get to the wounded to start stabilizing and packaging them for transport, and have the ambulance able to get the wounded to a treatment centre or trauma unit within 30 minutes and without having the wounded suffer further injury due to the transit conditions?

BTW the above scenario is assuming that the armoured ambulance was already on scene at the time the soldiers were wounded. If the ambulance was elsewhere, that window of opportunity would shrink by the time it took the ambulance to arrive.

Incidentally with ambulance operations, not only do threats have to be taken into account, but also how long it takes to get a wounded soldier onto an operating table from the time they are wounded.

 

[RegR]

And the above completely ignores the question of how likely/great is the need vs. the cost (which would almost certainly come at the expense of some other thing for NZDF ) and how useful would the delivered capability be.



Umm... No. Or more precisely, an ambulance to be useful, needs to be able to provide life saving/stabilizing transport for the patient(s) as they are being moved to a treatment facility. How often will a scenario arise where NZDF personnel would be wounded while in contact with an enemy so that an armoured ambulance is needed to get to the wounded to start stabilizing and packaging them for transport, and have the ambulance able to get the wounded to a treatment centre or trauma unit within 30 minutes and without having the wounded suffer further injury due to the transit conditions?

BTW the above scenario is assuming that the armoured ambulance was already on scene at the time the soldiers were wounded. If the ambulance was elsewhere, that window of opportunity would shrink by the time it took the ambulance to arrive.

Incidentally with ambulance operations, not only do threats have to be taken into account, but also how long it takes to get a wounded soldier onto an operating table from the time they are wounded.

Exactly, need vs cost, how much is a soldiers/allies/civilians life worth? Battle of Baghak is exactly one of those scenarios that is not only relevant, but actually happened. LAV-A could have been with the patrol if not responded with the QRF and could of been of more use than a couple of medics with their med packs, could have provided safe treatment area with all nesscessary equipment and then transport any pri 2, 3 pers in relative comfort that could not be airlifted out (which was luckily available) out of the dangerzone. The reason we would have armoured ambos is for the very reasons we have any ambo just for combat, to assume we will just send in a normal ambo/have automatic helo access or just put them back into their patrol seat to evac any casualties or provide assistence is IMO both irresponsible and failing any defence pers and for what? To save money on a re-furb to a vehicle we already have because it'll potentially take funds from some other re-furb project? Guess it all depends what the beans consider a priority.

 

[Todjaeger]

Exactly, need vs cost, how much is a soldiers/allies/civilians life worth? Battle of Baghak is exactly one of those scenarios that is not only relevant, but actually happened. LAV-A could have been with the patrol if not responded with the QRF and could of been of more use than a couple of medics with their med packs, could have provided safe treatment area with all nesscessary equipment and then transport any pri 2, 3 pers in relative comfort that could not be airlifted out (which was luckily available) out of the dangerzone. The reason we would have armoured ambos is for the very reasons we have any ambo just for combat, to assume we will just send in a normal ambo/have automatic helo access or just put them back into their patrol seat to evac any casualties or provide assistence is IMO both irresponsible and failing any defence pers and for what? To save money on a re-furb to a vehicle we already have because it'll potentially take funds from some other re-furb project? Guess it all depends what the beans consider a priority.

Still not quite, as the value of such a capability is still an issue, which is part of the need.

Is the time component ever going to be addressed? If it is not going to be addressed, then this discussion of ambulances (regular, aero, or armoured) is pointless.

 

[RegR]

Still not quite, as the value of such a capability is still an issue, which is part of the need.

Is the time component ever going to be addressed? If it is not going to be addressed, then this discussion of ambulances (regular, aero, or armoured) is pointless.

Huh, I'm lost? What has time got to do with a vehicle platform aqquisition?

 

[Todjaeger]

Huh, I'm lost? What has time got to do with a vehicle platform aqquisition?

Apparently my last several posts which referenced the time it would take to get wounded personnel to care were unclear.

Or put another way, would an armoured ambulance capability reduce the time it would take to get a wounded soldier to care, and would that reduction in time be sufficient to make a difference in the outcome of care?

Having read the Court of Inquiry for the Baghak Contact, I find I have some specific thoughts and questions. The Court of Inquiry noted that the eight Kiwi casualties were sustained some time between 1227 and 1239. Six of the eight Kiwis were medevac'd from a Casualty Collection Post established 600 m south of the contact site at 1426, while the remaining two were winched from the high ground at 1558 and medevac'd. All Kiwi casualties were taken to medical facilities in Regional Command North, when the contact site was in Regional Command East. One of the casualties, Lance Corporal Durrer died aboard the medevac after having been winched from the high ground.

Having looked at the ISAF map for the likely location of the contact site and the medical facilities where the casualties were taken to, I strongly suspect that the patient transport time would have been another two hours or more if done by vehicle over road and not helicopter medevac. When responding to trauma, time is life, as the longer the delay between the time when the trauma occurs and treatment in an OR begins, the greater the likelihood of a poor outcome.

Given the area the contact occurred, the only way I see that an armoured ambulance would have been useful would be if it could have collected the patients and gotten them to the Casualty Collection Point sooner than 1426, and that is also assuming that a helicopter medevac would have been available sooner. The two casualties winched from high ground at 1558 were (again, IMO) most likely in a position not feasibly reachable by a vehicle, so an armoured ambulance at the contact site would have made no difference for them.

Regarding Lance Corporal Durrer specifically, he initially survived his wounds for at least 3 hours 19 minutes and it is possible that if had been gotten to the medical facility within that time frame he might have survived.

 

[RegR]

Ok so I think you are missing my point, I am talking equipment to do a specific task not policies, procedures and casualty severity that affect a task, that is another issue all together, it's like talking about the new rifle and then going off on a tangent about rules of engagement, you are looking alittle too much into it.

You do understand we currently have ambos in the defence force correct? So what is it exactly you think these are for and how do we employ them?
I also take it you know most if not all developed armies around the world have these assets, soft skin and armoured, some even have multiple types so just wondering again what is it you think they use these for and why for some reason you think we differ?

 

[t68]

From my perspective having the NZLAV-A close to the battle even if not utilized as evacuation to a casulty clearing station has more equipment that can be utilized than just a medic and his pack being carried, it's these bits that reassure those at the coal face that the powers to be will do everything in there power to treat the wounded to the best of there ability cost should not come into it when you have surpluses hulls

 

[ADMk2]

AND



I am not questioning whether it would be possible to convert some NZLAV's into armoured ambulances. What I am questioning whether or not the 'new' capability would be beneficial enough to justify the costs.

For starters, let us consider where the basic vehicle is going to come from. IIRC Army is keeping ~70 NZLAV's, with up to 35 NZLAV's 'mothballed. As a side note, I do rather wonder what became of the 3 NZLAV's which were damaged in Afghanistan. The up to 35 NZLAV's are presumably available for modification, but would Army be granted sufficient additional future funding to operate nn NZLAV-ambulances in addition to the current 70 NZLAV's, or would one (or more) of the currently operational NZLAV's be put into mothballs? Relating to that question, just how many NZLAV's would or should be converted? Looking at the NZLOV ambulances, I believe Army has ~8 in inventory. Looking at the OrBat for a US Army Stryker Infantry company, there is a single M1133 MEV per company, with each company having a total of 21 Stryker vehicles of various versions, that would suggest that three ambulance conversions might be the appropriate number, but again there would be a question about whether they would be in addition to, or in place of NZLOV ambulances.

Speaking of the NZLOV ambulances, when and where have they been deployed? Have they deployed to Afgahnistan? If no, were they considered for such a deployment? If they were considered, what was the reason why there were not utilized, was it concerns about mobility, vehicle protection, or were there other medical transportation options available which were considered superior?

Speaking of potentially superior medical transport options... Under what conditions would an armoured ambulance be the best option used by the NZ Army? A soldier wounded while in contact with an enemy would need transport to a treatment facility but when and how they go is going to depend on a number of factors, arguably the three most important being the severity of the wound(s), the time it will take to transport to the treatment facility, and the ability to reach the wounded soldier on-site to start stabilizing them. Using a place like Afghanistan as an example, though anywhere that would have long travel times due to either distance or poor road infrastructure, I would imagine that a medevac would be the preferred option, or failing that a casevac, especially if an ambulance did not accompany a convoy or patrol as a matter of routine. If the ambulance (armoured of not) has to travel from wherever they are based or being staged to the patient, and then transport the patient to a treatment centre, the longer that takes and/or the more serious the patient's condition, the worse the outcome is likely to be.

From my POV the only possible improvements an armoured ambulance might make on that is if one was available, it could either accompany a convoy or patrol and have some protection during a contact, or possibly be dispatched if a medevac or casevac was not available (but the armoured ambulance was) and the contact was still ongoing. OTOH if the contact was broken off, or the patient's condition was serious but not requiring immediate intervention, then the patient could potentially be moved via a regular ambulance or vehicle.

Given the history of NZ Army deployments over the last two decades or so, I have to question whether spending even a small amount of funding would be worthwhile.

The capability need in question is protected recovery operations, as well as general mobility within high threat areas. If you have soldiers wounded under fire, you need armour protection to at least attempt personnel recovery. Fixating on Afghanistan Ops isn’t particularly useful, IMHO. It was a large scale coalition operation where plenty of resources for Medevac and Casevac operations were present to the point where neither Australia or NZ needed to deploy aviation assets to ensure such capabilities were available.

To me, such a situation is the exception rather than the rule. With the growing presence of IED’s, anti-armour weapons and ‘Technicals’ with HMG / light cannon armaments being encounted by Australian and NZ forces in the battlespaces they are operating in, the idea that soft-skinned ambulances or recovery vehicles will have any tactical utility is appearing increasingly in the rear vision mirror...

 

[Todjaeger]

Ok so I think you are missing my point, I am talking equipment to do a specific task not policies, procedures and casualty severity that affect a task, that is another issue all together, it's like talking about the new rifle and then going off on a tangent about rules of engagement, you are looking alittle too much into it.

You do understand we currently have ambos in the defence force correct? So what is it exactly you think these are for and how do we employ them?
I also take it you know most if not all developed armies around the world have these assets, soft skin and armoured, some even have multiple types so just wondering again what is it you think they use these for and why for some reason you think we differ?

And you have clearly been missing mine, so I will attempt to convey this one last time.

Which is more important, having kit appropriate for a specific task, or getting an acceptable outcome? Relating to that question, is the role of an ambulance (armoured or not) just the single task of recovering wounded personnel, or is it also getting those wounded to care?

Using the 'new rifle' example, from my POV it would be more like seeing the need for a squad or section-level Designated Marksman-type rifle and then selecting a 'new rifle' which has some features the standard issue rifle lacks but does not have the features to ensure that the 'new rifle' exceeds the performance of the standard issue rifle when used in the Designated Marksman Rifle role.

From my perspective having the NZLAV-A close to the battle even if not utilized as evacuation to a casulty clearing station has more equipment that can be utilized than just a medic and his pack being carried, it's these bits that reassure those at the coal face that the powers to be will do everything in there power to treat the wounded to the best of there ability cost should not come into it when you have surpluses hulls

Which would be preferable, kit intended to reassure troops that the powers that be are concerned about the outcome if they are wounded? Or kit that could actually result in a better care outcome if troops are wounded?

The capability need in question is protected recovery operations, as well as general mobility within high threat areas. If you have soldiers wounded under fire, you need armour protection to at least attempt personnel recovery. Fixating on Afghanistan Ops isn’t particularly useful, IMHO. It was a large scale coalition operation where plenty of resources for Medevac and Casevac operations were present to the point where neither Australia or NZ needed to deploy aviation assets to ensure such capabilities were available.

To me, such a situation is the exception rather than the rule. With the growing presence of IED’s, anti-armour weapons and ‘Technicals’ with HMG / light cannon armaments being encounted by Australian and NZ forces in the battlespaces they are operating in, the idea that soft-skinned ambulances or recovery vehicles will have any tactical utility is appearing increasingly in the rear vision mirror...

Again, is the need really in protected recovery operations? Or is it really in getting casualties to care in time for it to make a difference in outcome?

In my experience, getting a serious trauma patient to care rapidly is of enormous importance if one desires a good outcome. With that in mind, continued use of ground ambulances to transport patients with minor injuries to care still makes sense, as does utilizing them for serious/critical patients when the response and transport time will be short. For serious or critical patients that are at remote or inaccessible sites which would mean a long transit time to care using ground transportation, then a faster method is needed which would most likely be a helicopter casevac or medevac.

When I look at where Oz and Kiwi forces operated at in Afghanistan, and areas where there is a distinct potential for future deployments by either/both countries in the ASEAN and S. Pacific regions, the likelihood of getting wounded personnel to care in a timely fashion is an issue I see arising, and I do not foresee armoured ambulances providing any real improvement.

I have already gone over my interpretation of the released events from the 4 August 2012 Baghak Contact and my belief that if an armoured ambulance had been available and present, it would likely have led to little or no improvement in outcome due to the ambulance being unable to reach the wounded because of the rough terrain, and/or unable to transport the wounded to care due to combination of distance, terrain, and lack of road infrastructure. As a side note, I do feel that it should be pointed out that sending a lone ambulance (armoured or not) without an escort force to transit through a contested countryside for tens of kilometres is to invite an ambush and likely further casualties.

Instead of rehashing Afghanistan, how about we consider a deployment like was done in the Solomons during RAMSI, or a HADR deployment following a natural disaster and/or unrest marked by violence. Would an ambulance (armoured or not) be able to reach an outlying area to recover wounded personnel? If an ambulance could reach (or was already posted) where the wounded were, could it transport the wounded to care in a timely fashion? As an added wrinkle to the scenario, imagine that the closest appropriate medical facility available was the hospital aboard either HMNZS Canterbury or one of the Canberra-class LHD's anchored offshore, and the additional time required to get the wounded to the vessel before treatment could be initiated.

What I am getting at is that while introducing an armoured ambulance capability might permit such an ambulance to deploy with a NZLAV patrol or QRF, given the likely areas and conditions of such a deployment, I would not expect the presence of such an armoured ambulance to contribute significantly to improving the patient outcome for wounded soldiers. Now if NZ was able to also deploy and sustain a medical/surgical treatment team which would be within a short transit time by ambulance then the situation would be different.

I do see the potential for other, larger armed forces to make successful use of armoured ambulances, but that would be more due to additional support elements available IMO. Look at the force structure which supports a US Army Stryker company. At a company level, there is a M1133 Medical Evacuation Vehicle section assigned from the Battalion Aid Station. However, that company is part of a larger battalion which has a medical platoon which in turn includes a surgeon and treatment teams (the Battalion Aid Station). In effect, a Stryker battalion has an additional level of care available to stabilize wounded soldiers beyond what medics and/or an ambulance could do, before transporting the wounded to hospital.

 

[Wombat000]

Getting a time critical casualty to definitive care the most 'efficient' way possible is, I suggest, the gold standard.
With the luxury of resources, at some distance that may well (likely) be a helicopter.
As suggested, sometimes the immediate care solution may indeed be faster by vehicle (start up times, transit, load-go of the helicopter etc v distance/time travelled). The action may be outside the fence!?
The utility of a treatment space (ambulance) that is 'armoured' allows some flexibility/security in dealing with the casualty that may not be available in a soft skinned vehicle.
Whether that may be things such as simply snatching a casualty from a hot zone, or peace of mind to all concerned inside the vehicle that they have a shell around them so can concentrate on the task at hand.
An armoured ambulance may just convey casualties from a hot zone to a forward LZ.
The helo may not even be available so is unexpectedly escorted with the casualties back to the FOB.
Examples are conceivably endless, but perhaps an army is likely better served with the availability of the asset.
-just my 2c worth.