New Zealand Army

RegR

Well-Known Member
That's not the way it works, the money will go straight back to the consolidated fund for general government use. Once something is sold, it is gone for good because the government is the legal owner, not the defence force, hence the government charge for using it, deducted from the defence budget. The only thing in this sale for the defence force is a reduction, "small", of the government charge.
Well govt also said we will divest ourselves of 2 IPVs to be replaced by an OPV as well, so apparently there is a precedent, govt just needs to stick to its plans. Doesn't matter where govt money goes as end of the day govt funds defence anyway, it's just a giant circle jerk.

There is already provision in the current bushmaster contract for 12-14 more options, govt just has to sign off, where ever further funding is found is not really the point. What I am saying is bushmasters would actually be used whereby the LAVs were not, case and point the short lived engineer LAVs, vastly simplified training and operation on what is essentially an armoured truck would make that more than feasable.
 

Rob c

Well-Known Member
All I'm saying is what we have is literally what we have and the vital component is manpower, trained and experienced manpower, which we just cannot seem to maintain in any decent viable numbers no matter how hard, DF, recruiters and govt try.
It is all about the terms and conditions, they were drastically altered 20 + years ago, This problem of retention was talked about in one of the defence white papers some time ago, with proposed solutions, this included a bulged pay scale in the 5 to about 15 year mark I think it was plus some other changes. As it was going to cost money it was never implemented as per normal. there was a lot of other suggestions but again the been counters won, to bad about the extra training cost as this is another part of the budget. I spent years at defence headquarters with the official title of AE2, sounds good , but just meant I was dog's body to AE1 until he went on leave, anyway part of my job was to get money out of treasury for aircraft contractors. The hoops you had to go through were unbelievable and moving money from one account to another was a no no, even if it was going to save money.
 

RegR

Well-Known Member
It is all about the terms and conditions, they were drastically altered 20 + years ago, This problem of retention was talked about in one of the defence white papers some time ago, with proposed solutions, this included a bulged pay scale in the 5 to about 15 year mark I think it was plus some other changes. As it was going to cost money it was never implemented as per normal. there was a lot of other suggestions but again the been counters won, to bad about the extra training cost as this is another part of the budget. I spent years at defence headquarters with the official title of AE2, sounds good , but just meant I was dog's body to AE1 until he went on leave, anyway part of my job was to get money out of treasury for aircraft contractors. The hoops you had to go through were unbelievable and moving money from one account to another was a no no, even if it was going to save money.
Dont get me wrong I was on the receiving end of that payroll, funding and financial planning for a good many years and understand full well defence was the hardest to get funding but always the easiest to lose funding. That is why hopefully the money from this sale will at least hold the wolves at bay and satisfy defences perceived pound of flesh requirement. The cancelled SOPV was another govt rort. If only media would report on defence sacrifices with as much enthusiasm and "debate" as defence aqquisitions.
 

RubiconNZ

The Wanderer
All I'm saying is what we have is literally what we have and the vital component is manpower, trained and experienced manpower, which we just cannot seem to maintain in any decent viable numbers no matter how hard, DF, recruiters and govt try.
As a side note NZDF‘s recruitment is absolute s*@#house. In a information rich world the sum total of information availble to prospective recruits is what is available on the sub par recruitment website.

Interestingly the NZ Army News had an essay extolling the values of Military Public Affairs capability something which has not been done very well.
 

RegR

Well-Known Member
As a side note NZDF‘s recruitment is absolute s*@#house. In a information rich world the sum total of information availble to prospective recruits is what is available on the sub par recruitment website.

Interestingly the NZ Army News had an essay extolling the values of Military Public Affairs capability something which has not been done very well.
I get the feeling sometimes recruiters just fill the slots rather than cater to the spots in order to fill their quotas, which ultimately only adds to the turnover rate rather than solve it. Remember recruiters are just soldiers that apply for the position not a specialist trade, for many SNCOs it's a good stepping stone for them to just return nearer to home to concentrate on their plans for after the military ie exit plan. Alot have a passion for the role but just like anywhere there are a few with ulterior motivation. I've heard the recruitment/re-enlistment process can be overly long and unnecessarily tedious so many just give up.
 

KiwiRob

Well-Known Member
You still don't get it. We don't have the crews to operate the LAVs in the first place and if we did then we wouldn't have excess LAVs sitting idle for 20 years. We don't have spare armoured crews, we have spare LAVs, again BECAUSE WE DONT HAVE ENOUGH CREWMEN!! If we had the crew to crew them then we wouldn't need to sell them! Kinda the whole point.

And you seem to be under the illusion that when a vehicle is destroyed that the crew just respawns, jumps into another vehicle and off they go! Pretty naive dont you think in this day and age? These missiles are taking off turrets not puncturing tyres. And yes, planes come with spare engines, they dont come with entire spare planes, slight difference. So by your logic we should get another 3 C130js, to go with the 5 we are getting, hide them away in a hanger somewhere just in case and then if and when 3 are shot down we can use them, even though we have no pilots and crew to fly them because they went down with the first 3?? Sounds expensive and pointless.

You do understand not all infantry ride around in the back of LAV for a living right? I mention Ukraine because they have the opposite problem to us, they have more manpower than "LAVs" so they have the crews to use the vehicles they already have and some. Yes I'm sure they want spares, thing is they wont be spare, they will be used, because they have the people to do so or are you assuming as well that their vehicles, and by some miracle, only their vehicles are whats being destroyed in this war?... Still not sure why you are not understanding the concept and the glaring difference between their situation and ours?
Does it matter if we have the crews for them? This forum continually talks about the rule of three.

On the same point why did the Defense force buy 9040 LMT MARS-L rifles when we don’t have 9040 people to use them?
 

RegR

Well-Known Member
Does it matter if we have the crews for them? This forum continually talks about the rule of three.

On the same point why did the Defense force buy 9040 LMT MARS-L rifles when we don’t have 9040 people to use them?
9500 regulars and 3000 reserves, yea, we have enough to use them...but then a spare rifle isnt quite the same as a spare NZLAV is it...

Yea it does matter, because then no one can operate them and they sit in a warehouse for 20 years, hence why they were sold...
 

KiwiRob

Well-Known Member
9500 regulars and 3000 reserves, yea, we have enough to use them...but then a spare rifle isnt quite the same as a spare NZLAV is it...

Yea it does matter, because then no one can operate them and they sit in a warehouse for 20 years, hence why they were sold...
At least half of those 9500 would never be in a position to use a rifle.

haven’t those LAV’s been cycled through operational, maintenance, reserve, operational?

I still believe selling them like selling the IPV’s was a mistake.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
If a war kicks off, and everyone nation is hovering up kit, where do you think NZ will get it from? Technology wise, It's not 1938, when kit can be churned out like the proverbial sausages, it takes significant time , made worse by lack of industrial capacity so what you are suggesting only makes sense if it's 1938. In this day and age you ether have it to hand or you won't get it at all, and if things get that bad recruitment won't be an issue, but what use is personel without equipment that cannot be had?
The strategic landscape looks more like 1914/39 than it has in decades so divesting ourselves of hard to produce equipment on the basis of recruitment problems is incredibly short-sighted under the circumstances.
The NZLAV is a good bit of kit.
Why sell any of then for such a small financial return?
100 plus vehicles provides enough to do justice for three active Sqns plus a training Sqn.
It also allows for a good reserve for maintenance and attrition plus scope to use the NZLAV for additional engineering or other tasks that evolve.

This type of vehicle still has relevance and the fleet is still relatively young.

Additional bushmasters will have their place as will something else.
These are complimentary systems not substitutes.

If anything the NZLAV should be upgraded with a 30mm canon, ATGM and updated systems

20 Million USD...
We have got to be joking!

Events in Europe have reminded us that numbers matter!

Regards S
 
Last edited:

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
And on the IPC, I bet they did not enjoy that though or want to make it a regular occurrence...
I see if I can find the article. It was all done up and quite luxurious.

Six arrested in $225 million drug bust on former NZ Navy vessel - NZ Herald

Seized 37m yacht Kahu to be sold in 24-hour auction (boatinternational.com)

Looks like they lengthened it by 10m because Kiwi was 27m when I was on it. That would've increased increased the speed through the water although the latest data on the site says 13 knots with a 7,000 mile range. We didn't have that range on Kiwi with our endurance being five days because that was the capacity of the water tanks for 18 crew.
 

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
The NZLAV is a good bit of kit.
Why sell any of then for such a small financial return?
Indeed for a small army such as ours we obtained a rather capable vehicle. In terms of protection for the crew and troops being carried, ceramic appliqué armour (MEXAS) can be fitted to protect against 14.5×114mm heavy calibre rounds from 500 metres (the Canadians also have "add-on-armour kits to better protect against IED's, explosively formed penetrators (EFP's) and 30 mm caliber armour piercing rounds"). Cage armour can be fitted if required (eg for protection against shaped charges).

It is also fitted with a "nuclear, biological, chemical (NBC) filtration system (accompanied with a GID-3 chemical detector and AN/VDR-2 radiation detector systems)".

Something I didn't know is it was "designed to produce a very low and very compact structure to minimize radar and IR-signatures" and it also uses "heat-absorbing filters to provide temporary protection against thermal imaging (TIS), image intensifiers and infrared cameras (IR)".

However as the war in Ukraine has shown with tanks and other armoured vehicles being destroyed by ATGWs, there is an option to integrate an "active protection system based on the Israeli Trophy system", and one would hope this is something that the NZDF will be most interested in and could easily justify even for say a couple of dozen vehicles initially, trialed and tested ready for deployment (as we wouldn't likely deploy that many anyway - but if there was a need to deploy further vehicles then additional systems could be procured, noting though that this can cause some delays to deployments (as what happened with previous M113 deployments in the past IIRC), so it's a balancing act between needs and costs etc).

(The above "quote" marks are lifted from this book called "Ironsides" which forms the basis of most of the info on the LAV III wiki page).

It is also a lighter vehicle compared to newer generation armoured fighting vehicles (which has some advantages for us in terms of use and deployability) but they are nearly twenty years old now and newer generation vehicles will come with other improvements and technologies, so it will be interesting what the NZDF's needs assessments will be once the LAV upgrade/replacement project kicks off.

Also as pointed out by other posters here, perhaps it could be questioned as to the appropriateness of this vehicle now that its user base and conops have changed, in terms of a replacement vehicle.

OTOH if upgrades are the way forward, perhaps it could be accomplished in batches seeing we have so many of them and not all are in use at any one time? Interesting options and decisions for Defence planners perhaps.
 

RegR

Well-Known Member
Indeed for a small army such as ours we obtained a rather capable vehicle. In terms of protection for the crew and troops being carried, ceramic appliqué armour (MEXAS) can be fitted to protect against 14.5×114mm heavy calibre rounds from 500 metres (the Canadians also have "add-on-armour kits to better protect against IED's, explosively formed penetrators (EFP's) and 30 mm caliber armour piercing rounds"). Cage armour can be fitted if required (eg for protection against shaped charges).

It is also fitted with a "nuclear, biological, chemical (NBC) filtration system (accompanied with a GID-3 chemical detector and AN/VDR-2 radiation detector systems)".

Something I didn't know is it was "designed to produce a very low and very compact structure to minimize radar and IR-signatures" and it also uses "heat-absorbing filters to provide temporary protection against thermal imaging (TIS), image intensifiers and infrared cameras (IR)".

However as the war in Ukraine has shown with tanks and other armoured vehicles being destroyed by ATGWs, there is an option to integrate an "active protection system based on the Israeli Trophy system", and one would hope this is something that the NZDF will be most interested in and could easily justify even for say a couple of dozen vehicles initially, trialed and tested ready for deployment (as we wouldn't likely deploy that many anyway - but if there was a need to deploy further vehicles then additional systems could be procured, noting though that this can cause some delays to deployments (as what happened with previous M113 deployments in the past IIRC), so it's a balancing act between needs and costs etc).

(The above "quote" marks are lifted from this book called "Ironsides" which forms the basis of most of the info on the LAV III wiki page).

It is also a lighter vehicle compared to newer generation armoured fighting vehicles (which has some advantages for us in terms of use and deployability) but they are nearly twenty years old now and newer generation vehicles will come with other improvements and technologies, so it will be interesting what the NZDF's needs assessments will be once the LAV upgrade/replacement project kicks off.

Also as pointed out by other posters here, perhaps it could be questioned as to the appropriateness of this vehicle now that its user base and conops have changed, in terms of a replacement vehicle.

OTOH if upgrades are the way forward, perhaps it could be accomplished in batches seeing we have so many of them and not all are in use at any one time? Interesting options and decisions for Defence planners perhaps.
The 9 (8 now) sent to Afghanistan were up-armoured for the deployment so we at least have a base batch there for options.
 

kiwi in exile

Active Member
Indeed for a small army such as ours we obtained a rather capable vehicle. In terms of protection for the crew and troops being carried, ceramic appliqué armour (MEXAS) can be fitted to protect against 14.5×114mm heavy calibre rounds from 500 metres (the Canadians also have "add-on-armour kits to better protect against IED's, explosively formed penetrators (EFP's) and 30 mm caliber armour piercing rounds"). Cage armour can be fitted if required (eg for protection against shaped charges).

It is also fitted with a "nuclear, biological, chemical (NBC) filtration system (accompanied with a GID-3 chemical detector and AN/VDR-2 radiation detector systems)".

Something I didn't know is it was "designed to produce a very low and very compact structure to minimize radar and IR-signatures" and it also uses "heat-absorbing filters to provide temporary protection against thermal imaging (TIS), image intensifiers and infrared cameras (IR)".

However as the war in Ukraine has shown with tanks and other armoured vehicles being destroyed by ATGWs, there is an option to integrate an "active protection system based on the Israeli Trophy system", and one would hope this is something that the NZDF will be most interested in and could easily justify even for say a couple of dozen vehicles initially, trialed and tested ready for deployment (as we wouldn't likely deploy that many anyway - but if there was a need to deploy further vehicles then additional systems could be procured, noting though that this can cause some delays to deployments (as what happened with previous M113 deployments in the past IIRC), so it's a balancing act between needs and costs etc).

(The above "quote" marks are lifted from this book called "Ironsides" which forms the basis of most of the info on the LAV III wiki page).

It is also a lighter vehicle compared to newer generation armoured fighting vehicles (which has some advantages for us in terms of use and deployability) but they are nearly twenty years old now and newer generation vehicles will come with other improvements and technologies, so it will be interesting what the NZDF's needs assessments will be once the LAV upgrade/replacement project kicks off.

Also as pointed out by other posters here, perhaps it could be questioned as to the appropriateness of this vehicle now that its user base and conops have changed, in terms of a replacement vehicle.

OTOH if upgrades are the way forward, perhaps it could be accomplished in batches seeing we have so many of them and not all are in use at any one time? Interesting options and decisions for Defence planners perhaps.
Good info in yr post. I wonder if the nzlavs came with all the Canadian systems as specified in your post or if we cut corners and costs. Ie NBC protection systems?

Nzlav were a good piece of kit when acquired. That was pre war on terror, pre IEDs, and before Ukraine.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Good info in yr post. I wonder if the nzlavs came with all the Canadian systems as specified in your post or if we cut corners and costs. Ie NBC protection systems?

Nzlav were a good piece of kit when acquired. That was pre war on terror, pre IEDs, and before Ukraine.
Haven’t really paid attention to our LAV upgrade so I am not sure what actually is getting fitted. Only several hundred were getting full upgrades IIRC. One disappointment was no gun upgrade to 30mm from the current 25mm, strictly a cost measure ( big surprise). Would hope a Trophy add on is a pending addition!
 

Stuart M

Well-Known Member
You still don't get it. We don't have the crews to operate the LAVs in the first place and if we did then we wouldn't have excess LAVs sitting idle for 20 years. We don't have spare armoured crews, we have spare LAVs, again BECAUSE WE DONT HAVE ENOUGH CREWMEN!! If we had the crew to crew them then we wouldn't need to sell them! Kinda the whole point.
I do get exactly what you are saying, what I am telling you is that your reasoning is wrong because done right, we shouldn't be crewing all the LAVs. Without attrition reserves we might as well sell the lot, they clearly are of no use beyond ornamental value, and that is gross misuse of taxpayers money. Frankly we'd get better value reequipping QAMR with Horses and Lee Enfeild's for parades if we cannot properly sustain them with modern gear in anything involving combat.


But if you want to keep using that argument, then please explain why the US has 3000 odd M1s stashed in reserve in the Sierra Nevada mountain ranges near California.


Snip These missiles are taking off turrets not puncturing tyres. And yes, planes come with spare engines, they dont come with entire spare planes, slight difference. So by your logic we should get another 3 C130js, to go with the 5 we are getting, hide them away in a hanger somewhere just in case and then if and when 3 are shot down we can use them, even though we have no pilots and crew to fly them because they went down with the first 3?? Sounds expensive and pointless.


Not sure Air Force training time frames for pilots is particularly applicable to this thread, as its NZ army, but in general you will need replacement pilots in a war, but again you would still need aircraft for them to fly, agreed? How long does it take to manufacture an aircraft assuming normal production rates vs operational requirements in the here and now in a war, vs pilot training times? A subject for the Airforce thread perhaps.

But having a spare three C130's , especially with the reliability issues we have had with the H models as they got older, isnt a bad idea, would've been nice to have spares available when one breaks down to keep a mission going.



You do understand not all infantry ride around in the back of LAV for a living right? I mention Ukraine because they have the opposite problem to us, they have more manpower than "LAVs" so they have the crews to use the vehicles they already have and some. Yes I'm sure they want spares, thing is they wont be spare, they will be used, because they have the people to do so or are you assuming as well that their vehicles, and by some miracle, only their vehicles are whats being destroyed in this war?... Still not sure why you are not understanding the concept and the glaring difference between their situation and ours?
I thought we were discussing the subject of attrition reserves? It goes without saying that in combat that lives will be lost along with equipment, the question is how so you keep that unit up to strength without equipment, just having lots of manpower is not enough, even though you claim that it is. This is not the 19th century (and even then the levee en masse really wasn't that good an idea in practice).

If you have sufficient equipment available why would anyone not hold items in reserve to keep units in combat up to strength? To illustrate this, at 2nd El Alamein 8th Army had a 1000 tanks in reserve to cover attrition losses, quite apart from those on issue, now why do you think that was done? Why not just create an extra armoured corp from all those tanks just sitting around in Egypt doing nothing? That seems to be what you advocate, is it not?
An equipment reserve was kept because we, like the Germans (except Adolf in his bunker) realised there are few things more pointless than a tank unit without tanks, which of course happened to the Germans at El Alamein and at Kursk. Without equipment reserves and industry incapable of producing enough to cover operational losses, their armoured forces were ground down to ineffectiveness, and it would't have mattered if the Germans has a million extra soldiers the result would have been the same.


Under normal circumstances basic takes 16 weeks, and that can be shortened, but modern equipment cannot be produced that quickly, and yet the fighting wont stop to accommodate production runs. Moreover, even if you are not engaged in fighting you will still have attrition issues through breakdowns and the problems associated with normal maintenance. This is why selling off those LAVs was foolish, if you only have exactly enough to equip a unit during peacetime, it will quickly be ineffective in wartime no matter how many soldiers you have.


So, as I keep asking you, what will soldiers do if they have no equipment to fight with?
Can you please explain this?
 

RegR

Well-Known Member
I do get exactly what you are saying, what I am telling you is that your reasoning is wrong because done right, we shouldn't be crewing all the LAVs. Without attrition reserves we might as well sell the lot, they clearly are of no use beyond ornamental value, and that is gross misuse of taxpayers money. Frankly we'd get better value reequipping QAMR with Horses and Lee Enfeild's for parades if we cannot properly sustain them with modern gear in anything involving combat.


But if you want to keep using that argument, then please explain why the US has 3000 odd M1s stashed in reserve in the Sierra Nevada mountain ranges near California.






Not sure Air Force training time frames for pilots is particularly applicable to this thread, as its NZ army, but in general you will need replacement pilots in a war, but again you would still need aircraft for them to fly, agreed? How long does it take to manufacture an aircraft assuming normal production rates vs operational requirements in the here and now in a war, vs pilot training times? A subject for the Airforce thread perhaps.

But having a spare three C130's , especially with the reliability issues we have had with the H models as they got older, isnt a bad idea, would've been nice to have spares available when one breaks down to keep a mission going.





I thought we were discussing the subject of attrition reserves? It goes without saying that in combat that lives will be lost along with equipment, the question is how so you keep that unit up to strength without equipment, just having lots of manpower is not enough, even though you claim that it is. This is not the 19th century (and even then the levee en masse really wasn't that good an idea in practice).

If you have sufficient equipment available why would anyone not hold items in reserve to keep units in combat up to strength? To illustrate this, at 2nd El Alamein 8th Army had a 1000 tanks in reserve to cover attrition losses, quite apart from those on issue, now why do you think that was done? Why not just create an extra armoured corp from all those tanks just sitting around in Egypt doing nothing? That seems to be what you advocate, is it not?
An equipment reserve was kept because we, like the Germans (except Adolf in his bunker) realised there are few things more pointless than a tank unit without tanks, which of course happened to the Germans at El Alamein and at Kursk. Without equipment reserves and industry incapable of producing enough to cover operational losses, their armoured forces were ground down to ineffectiveness, and it would't have mattered if the Germans has a million extra soldiers the result would have been the same.


Under normal circumstances basic takes 16 weeks, and that can be shortened, but modern equipment cannot be produced that quickly, and yet the fighting wont stop to accommodate production runs. Moreover, even if you are not engaged in fighting you will still have attrition issues through breakdowns and the problems associated with normal maintenance. This is why selling off those LAVs was foolish, if you only have exactly enough to equip a unit during peacetime, it will quickly be ineffective in wartime no matter how many soldiers you have.


So, as I keep asking you, what will soldiers do if they have no equipment to fight with?
Can you please explain this?
We do have attrition reserves, we just dont need 30 more of them. Out of a total of 73 each of the 2 squadrons has @20 hulls along with a HQ element, and a few with guns and combat school. You do the math.

This is going around in circles. Deals done, not by you, not by me, by some people in the know, military included. 8 more to go even.

Comparing us to the US now???
 

Stuart M

Well-Known Member
We do have attrition reserves, we just dont need 30 more of them. Out of a total of 73 each of the 2 squadrons has @20 hulls along with a HQ element, and a few with guns and combat school. You do the math.
Well, clearly I don't consider that to be anything like sufficient to sustain a unit in a hostile environment letalone in direct combat, so I guess we shall have to agree to disagree.

This is going around in circles. Deals done, not by you, not by me, by some people in the know, military included. 8 more to go even.
By the politicians, because they can and as for those in the forces, well Id say they don't always get it right.

Comparing us to the US now???
Sure, why not? They can read the history books as well as us, and have recent combat experience that we don't, so if they can see the value in attrition reserves, why not NZ?
Of course, different politics over there and no "incredibly benign strategic environment" nonsense.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
An equipment reserve was kept because we, like the Germans (except Adolf in his bunker) realised there are few things more pointless than a tank unit without tanks, which of course happened to the Germans at El Alamein and at Kursk.
Not to get off topic but German tank losses incurred at Kursk; never reached the point where units had no tanks. 2nd SS Panzer Corps for example; after Kursk fought on in the Mius and later at the Kharkov area; relying mostly on what it had when the offensive at Kursk was called off.
 

Stuart M

Well-Known Member
Not to get off topic but German tank losses incurred at Kursk; never reached the point where units had no tanks. 2nd SS Panzer Corps for example; after Kursk fought on in the Mius and later at the Kharkov area; relying mostly on what it had when the offensive at Kursk was called off.
True, an overstatment on my part, but the Germans never properly recovered after those events and lost the strategic initiative. Nevertheless, 1300 odd armoured vehicles lost in July/August 43, is a ferocious toll, it broke their back.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
It was a major loss; one which could not have been replaced in the short term but I would argue it didn't break their back. From Nipe's ''Blood, Steel And Myth : The 2nd SS Panzer Korps And The Road To Prochorowka'' we know that German tank losses weren't catastrophic and that quite a number of damaged vehicles were returned to action. What IMO was more impactful for the Germans in terms of losing the initiative and material was the loss of Army Group Centre the following year.
 
Top