New Zealand Army

[Redlands18]

NZ Army Motorised Infantry Battle Group.

I am throwing this out for discussion. It's one suggested acquisition set for the NZ Army that has the probability of both interoperability and compatibility with the AU Army. I have deliberately neglected the rotary wing airlift capability.

From what I understand a MIBG (Motorised Infantry Battle Group) comprises infantry in soft skinned vehicles; and that the command and support structures are relatively small, compared to a brigade structure. Ukraine has shown the vulnerability of soft skinned vehicles anywhere within enemy artillery and drone range. Hence my belief that such a force structure has a good probability of suffering severe casualties before the MIBG reaches the frontlines, if they are detected by the enemy. Based upon the presumption that we could face the PLA in battle, this isn't an ideal situation, especially with the PLA-GF watching and learning the lessons of the Russo - Ukrainian War. The PRC has a strong drone manufacturing capability and they are not the Russian military, WRT inept leadership, logistics etc., and they have a political philosophy and governance system that they all believe in.

This leads into the question how do we equip the NZ Army and MIBG in order for it to survive and fight; and the organisational structure that best serves the NZ Army.

I note that the Australians have selected the Hanwha AS-21 Redback as its tracked IFV replacing their M113 AS APC. They have also selected the AS-9 Huntsman and its AS-10 ammo supply vehicle for its SPG capability, and the Rheinmetall Boxer for its CRV / wheeled IFV. The Redback, being based on the Hanwha K21 IFV that's in service with the South Korean Army. The Elbit MT30 turret with the Mk-44 Bushmaster 30mm gun and Spike LR2 ATGM, is mounted on the Redback.

The Australian Army has a minimal AD capability based on the NASAMS system, and no real mobile VSHORAD capability to protect its armoured forces in the field, especially when they are on the move. I get the impression that the Australians haven't figured out that the may be bereft of battlefield air superiority; and questions have to be asked whether or not they have bought fully into the US arrogance about that. According to 4 Star Gen Breedlove (USAF Ret) former SACEUR, the last time a US soldier was killed by enemy fixed wing action, was in April 1953 in Korea.

NZ
The NZ Army reconstitution plan calls for the commonality of platforms etc., with the Australian Army. With this in mind we should consider a ground combat fleet comprising a mix of:

• Hanwha Redback IFV.
• Rheinmetall CRV.
• Bushmaster 4 x 4 vehicles.
• AS9 Huntsman SPG
• AS10 ammo supply vehicles for the Huntsman SPG.
• We should also adopt the Australian Army Battle Management System.

Such a fleet would give us a good combat capability and hopefully the Redback should be able to be integrated with turrets already integrated on the K21. This would enable us to utilise the base Redback vehicle for other capabilities, such as a light tank for infantry fire support and as a mobile VSHORAD, something both the Australians and us are sorely lacking in. The Aussies are using the Redback for their armoured force infantry and whilst we don't field a MBT, we should have such a vehicle for our infantry to ensure that they can be safely deployed in a hostile environment, especially one where a wheeled IFV may be incapable of traversing, or insufficiently armoured for.

We could use the CRV to replace the current NZLAV on a one for one basis. The Aussies intend using it for recon but we could and should use it for fast deployment of troops. Each CRV should have the 30mm turret installed as well. It just gives us more flexibility on the battlefield.

We aren't going to acquire MBTs unless we could buy some Leopard Ones and use them in the infantry support role, like the Ukrainians appear to be doing, however I can't really see the justification for that. Hanwha has integrated the Cockerill 105mm gun turret onto the K21 with this being known as the Hanwha K21-105 and it retains the K21 amphibious capabilities. The Cockerill gun is also capable of firing the Ukrainian Falkirk ATGM. Hanwha also has integrated an air defence turret with a radar, 30mm gun, and SHORAD SAMs onto the K21 IFV.

The Ukrainians love the Australian 4 x 4 Bushmaster and it has proved to be quite good on the battlefield. IIRC we have ordered 44 odd Bushmasters. Maybe we should replace the complete Pinzgauer fleet on a one to one basis with the Bushmaster; it would make sense.

Another capability is a MRLS such as HiMARS, but I feel that the South Korean K239 Chunmoo system would be better and more easily obtainable, considering the US delays with manufacturing new order HiMARS because of their inadequate industrial surge capacity.

Whilst it can be argued that we would be operating within the context of an Anzac Brigade, and the AU Army would supply the heavy kit such as arty and tanks, they do have a limited number of armoured combat assets and we should be self sufficient in such capabilities. Ultimately we are responsible for ensuring the survivability of our own forces, regardless of who with, how, and where they are operating. It gives us the capability of working independently if needs be. Cost will be a factor but it would be money well spent; VfM.

Can you see room for the Hawkeii in the NZ Army at all? Has NZ shown any interest in a 4x4 in this class?

 

[ngatimozart]

Can you see room for the Hawkeii in the NZ Army at all? Has NZ shown any interest in a 4x4 in this class?

Maybe, but we have just bought 44 Bushmasters and they are good. I think the Hawkei is to new with a lack of service history for the NZG and I would agree with that. The Bushie is doing great service o then Ukrainian battlefield and that is what impresses me about it when UKR soldiers love it.

 

[Redlands18]

Maybe, but we have just bought 44 Bushmasters and they are good. I think the Hawkei is to new with a lack of service history for the NZG and I would agree with that. The Bushie is doing great service o then Ukrainian battlefield and that is what impresses me about it when UKR soldiers love it.

There is the brake issue of course, every vehicle has been delivered but has to go back to the workshop for remediation work, make any possible export sale difficult at this time.

 

[Stuart M]

NZ Army Motorised Infantry Battle Group.

I am throwing this out for discussion. It's one suggested acquisition set for the NZ Army that has the probability of both interoperability and compatibility with the AU Army. I have deliberately neglected the rotary wing airlift capability.

From what I understand a MIBG (Motorised Infantry Battle Group) comprises infantry in soft skinned vehicles; and that the command and support structures are relatively small, compared to a brigade structure. Ukraine has shown the vulnerability of soft skinned vehicles anywhere within enemy artillery and drone range. Hence my belief that such a force structure has a good probability of suffering severe casualties before the MIBG reaches the frontlines, if they are detected by the enemy. Based upon the presumption that we could face the PLA in battle, this isn't an ideal situation, especially with the PLA-GF watching and learning the lessons of the Russo - Ukrainian War. The PRC has a strong drone manufacturing capability and they are not the Russian military, WRT inept leadership, logistics etc., and they have a political philosophy and governance system that they all believe in.

This leads into the question how do we equip the NZ Army and MIBG in order for it to survive and fight; and the organisational structure that best serves the NZ Army.

I note that the Australians have selected the Hanwha AS-21 Redback as its tracked IFV replacing their M113 AS APC. They have also selected the AS-9 Huntsman and its AS-10 ammo supply vehicle for its SPG capability, and the Rheinmetall Boxer for its CRV / wheeled IFV. The Redback, being based on the Hanwha K21 IFV that's in service with the South Korean Army. The Elbit MT30 turret with the Mk-44 Bushmaster 30mm gun and Spike LR2 ATGM, is mounted on the Redback.

The Australian Army has a minimal AD capability based on the NASAMS system, and no real mobile VSHORAD capability to protect its armoured forces in the field, especially when they are on the move. I get the impression that the Australians haven't figured out that the may be bereft of battlefield air superiority; and questions have to be asked whether or not they have bought fully into the US arrogance about that. According to 4 Star Gen Breedlove (USAF Ret) former SACEUR, the last time a US soldier was killed by enemy fixed wing action, was in April 1953 in Korea.

NZ
The NZ Army reconstitution plan calls for the commonality of platforms etc., with the Australian Army. With this in mind we should consider a ground combat fleet comprising a mix of:

• Hanwha Redback IFV.
• Rheinmetall CRV.
• Bushmaster 4 x 4 vehicles.
• AS9 Huntsman SPG
• AS10 ammo supply vehicles for the Huntsman SPG.
• We should also adopt the Australian Army Battle Management System.

Such a fleet would give us a good combat capability and hopefully the Redback should be able to be integrated with turrets already integrated on the K21. This would enable us to utilise the base Redback vehicle for other capabilities, such as a light tank for infantry fire support and as a mobile VSHORAD, something both the Australians and us are sorely lacking in. The Aussies are using the Redback for their armoured force infantry and whilst we don't field a MBT, we should have such a vehicle for our infantry to ensure that they can be safely deployed in a hostile environment, especially one where a wheeled IFV may be incapable of traversing, or insufficiently armoured for.

We could use the CRV to replace the current NZLAV on a one for one basis. The Aussies intend using it for recon but we could and should use it for fast deployment of troops. Each CRV should have the 30mm turret installed as well. It just gives us more flexibility on the battlefield.

We aren't going to acquire MBTs unless we could buy some Leopard Ones and use them in the infantry support role, like the Ukrainians appear to be doing, however I can't really see the justification for that. Hanwha has integrated the Cockerill 105mm gun turret onto the K21 with this being known as the Hanwha K21-105 and it retains the K21 amphibious capabilities. The Cockerill gun is also capable of firing the Ukrainian Falkirk ATGM. Hanwha also has integrated an air defence turret with a radar, 30mm gun, and SHORAD SAMs onto the K21 IFV.

The Ukrainians love the Australian 4 x 4 Bushmaster and it has proved to be quite good on the battlefield. IIRC we have ordered 44 odd Bushmasters. Maybe we should replace the complete Pinzgauer fleet on a one to one basis with the Bushmaster; it would make sense.

Another capability is a MRLS such as HiMARS, but I feel that the South Korean K239 Chunmoo system would be better and more easily obtainable, considering the US delays with manufacturing new order HiMARS because of their inadequate industrial surge capacity.

Whilst it can be argued that we would be operating within the context of an Anzac Brigade, and the AU Army would supply the heavy kit such as arty and tanks, they do have a limited number of armoured combat assets and we should be self sufficient in such capabilities. Ultimately we are responsible for ensuring the survivability of our own forces, regardless of who with, how, and where they are operating. It gives us the capability of working independently if needs be. Cost will be a factor but it would be money well spent; VfM.

Cant say I disagree with this, the comment about air defence and hubristic assumptions on air superiority is well put and something I think NZ should focus on. Something worth looking at is vehicle point defence, as well as ECM, NZ is not and never will be so blessed with reserves of soldiers and material that we can afford to not take active measures in this area.
The other thing I'd say is the army needs to be bigger, 2x Redback & 2x Boxer units and 4x batteries of arty for sustainability.

As this gear is a bit more sophisticated than (great) granddads old M4 Sherman or Valantine I will also say the deeply unsexy thing; the associated technical training needed to make it all work and keep working requires long service, motivated, smart people. Because of this army needs to attract people into work that is not physically easy in a world that is increasingly sedentary, with plentiful alternative well paid long term options for the smart and motivated.
Combined with working lives that are longer than they have ever been, and that needs better than average pay and conditions to get the right people in roles in a force, that because of size, has limited progression potential.

 

[jbc388]

NZ Army Motorised Infantry Battle Group.

I am throwing this out for discussion. It's one suggested acquisition set for the NZ Army that has the probability of both interoperability and compatibility with the AU Army. I have deliberately neglected the rotary wing airlift capability.

From what I understand a MIBG (Motorised Infantry Battle Group) comprises infantry in soft skinned vehicles; and that the command and support structures are relatively small, compared to a brigade structure. Ukraine has shown the vulnerability of soft skinned vehicles anywhere within enemy artillery and drone range. Hence my belief that such a force structure has a good probability of suffering severe casualties before the MIBG reaches the frontlines, if they are detected by the enemy. Based upon the presumption that we could face the PLA in battle, this isn't an ideal situation, especially with the PLA-GF watching and learning the lessons of the Russo - Ukrainian War. The PRC has a strong drone manufacturing capability and they are not the Russian military, WRT inept leadership, logistics etc., and they have a political philosophy and governance system that they all believe in.

This leads into the question how do we equip the NZ Army and MIBG in order for it to survive and fight; and the organisational structure that best serves the NZ Army.

I note that the Australians have selected the Hanwha AS-21 Redback as its tracked IFV replacing their M113 AS APC. They have also selected the AS-9 Huntsman and its AS-10 ammo supply vehicle for its SPG capability, and the Rheinmetall Boxer for its CRV / wheeled IFV. The Redback, being based on the Hanwha K21 IFV that's in service with the South Korean Army. The Elbit MT30 turret with the Mk-44 Bushmaster 30mm gun and Spike LR2 ATGM, is mounted on the Redback.

The Australian Army has a minimal AD capability based on the NASAMS system, and no real mobile VSHORAD capability to protect its armoured forces in the field, especially when they are on the move. I get the impression that the Australians haven't figured out that the may be bereft of battlefield air superiority; and questions have to be asked whether or not they have bought fully into the US arrogance about that. According to 4 Star Gen Breedlove (USAF Ret) former SACEUR, the last time a US soldier was killed by enemy fixed wing action, was in April 1953 in Korea.

NZ
The NZ Army reconstitution plan calls for the commonality of platforms etc., with the Australian Army. With this in mind we should consider a ground combat fleet comprising a mix of:

• Hanwha Redback IFV.
• Rheinmetall CRV.
• Bushmaster 4 x 4 vehicles.
• AS9 Huntsman SPG
• AS10 ammo supply vehicles for the Huntsman SPG.
• We should also adopt the Australian Army Battle Management System.

Such a fleet would give us a good combat capability and hopefully the Redback should be able to be integrated with turrets already integrated on the K21. This would enable us to utilise the base Redback vehicle for other capabilities, such as a light tank for infantry fire support and as a mobile VSHORAD, something both the Australians and us are sorely lacking in. The Aussies are using the Redback for their armoured force infantry and whilst we don't field a MBT, we should have such a vehicle for our infantry to ensure that they can be safely deployed in a hostile environment, especially one where a wheeled IFV may be incapable of traversing, or insufficiently armoured for.

We could use the CRV to replace the current NZLAV on a one for one basis. The Aussies intend using it for recon but we could and should use it for fast deployment of troops. Each CRV should have the 30mm turret installed as well. It just gives us more flexibility on the battlefield.

We aren't going to acquire MBTs unless we could buy some Leopard Ones and use them in the infantry support role, like the Ukrainians appear to be doing, however I can't really see the justification for that. Hanwha has integrated the Cockerill 105mm gun turret onto the K21 with this being known as the Hanwha K21-105 and it retains the K21 amphibious capabilities. The Cockerill gun is also capable of firing the Ukrainian Falkirk ATGM. Hanwha also has integrated an air defence turret with a radar, 30mm gun, and SHORAD SAMs onto the K21 IFV.

The Ukrainians love the Australian 4 x 4 Bushmaster and it has proved to be quite good on the battlefield. IIRC we have ordered 44 odd Bushmasters. Maybe we should replace the complete Pinzgauer fleet on a one to one basis with the Bushmaster; it would make sense.

Another capability is a MRLS such as HiMARS, but I feel that the South Korean K239 Chunmoo system would be better and more easily obtainable, considering the US delays with manufacturing new order HiMARS because of their inadequate industrial surge capacity.

Whilst it can be argued that we would be operating within the context of an Anzac Brigade, and the AU Army would supply the heavy kit such as arty and tanks, they do have a limited number of armoured combat assets and we should be self sufficient in such capabilities. Ultimately we are responsible for ensuring the survivability of our own forces, regardless of who with, how, and where they are operating. It gives us the capability of working independently if needs be. Cost will be a factor but it would be money well spent; VfM.

I fully agree with what you have written but and there is a huge "BUT" it depends on who is going to win the upcoming election...
1, Labour who most likely isn't going acheive a third term in power... who may in 3 years increase the NZDF's budget slowly if they return to the hall's of power.
2, National who will most likely win power in October, but are allergic to actually funding new purchases of badly needed upgrades/replacement/new equipment. With a leadership that just isn't interested in defence spending. They will in most cases be looking to cut public spending at maybe upto 10% and yet again defence will be an easy target!!
3 The Act party who will most likely force the National Party to spend a little more on defence.

I'm hoping to be proved wrong if a National/Act does do the right thing and provides the funding and right defence purchases... but going on past form....

The outlook in the short term really doesn't look to flash for the NZDF!!

 

[Mikeymike]

The Australian Army has a minimal AD capability based on the NASAMS system, and no real mobile VSHORAD capability to protect its armoured forces in the field, especially when they are on the move. I get the impression that the Australians haven't figured out that the may be bereft of battlefield air superiority; and questions have to be asked whether or not they have bought fully into the US arrogance about that.

I get the feeling the Australian Army is well aware but are mostly unsure of the best way to replace/build their air defence capability as well as the optics for political reasons.

The replacement of RBS70 (VSHORAD) with NASAMs (SHORAD) is being positioned as a 1 for 1 replacement when it is a massive upgrade. Under the current plans the army/RAAF is building quite a decent air defence capability with the only gap being the VSHORAD capability. This also happens to be the cheapest tier with a few off the shelf options. This could include keeping the RBS70s, purchasing off the shelf Manpads to purchasing air defence variants of the Boxer/IFV once production has started. This last option I think Australia is actually quite well-positioned with multiple options to look at from those offfered by Rheinmetall/Hanwha to what some Australian companies like EOS can offer.

Personally I would expect that the Australian (and NZ) army are looking at the capabilities being shown in Ukraine, what is working and what is not. The west have sent quite a few systems in this space to Ukraine so seeing what works and how it is being implemented is incredibly valuable.

For example, I suspect Australia is watching very carefully how the Skyranger does (as well as NASAMs and Patriots).

 

[kiwi in exile]

I think any deployed nzdf element in combat would benefit from scaleable counter uas and counter rocket, artillery, mortar capability plus shorad. Ukraine and other recent conflicts have shown how commercial uav s can be easily and cheaply weaponised effectively against troops and armour. Even by non state actors. Hard kill and soft kill options should be persued.

Skyranger has a 35mm gun only system that can be mounted on a boxer, a man truck, and a pirhana ifv (part of the lav family). This fulfils c-uas, c-ram and shorad.

There is also a skyanger 30 30mm gun system with 2 X shorad missiles, soft kill c-uas capability and in future a laser for c-uas. Not sure if the smaller calabre gun is as good as c-ram. Again can be mounted on boxer and pirhana.

The us hàs a Stryker/lab mounter C-uas/shorad system. There is also a Polaris mzr softkill counter uas system that has been used to bring down an Iranian drone. In use with the usmc Would be a good baseline capability for us.

Probably overkill but given we have the trucks and rnzn is a Camm user I would love to see a kiwi sky sabre.

Re: ecm- I think I remember seeing a pic of a Dutch electronic warfare bushmaster variant. This is something else we should look into.

I'd rather see smaller deployable formations with a better range of contemporary tools than X number of brigades with X number of boxers and X number of 155mm spgs.

 

[kiwi in exile]

What are readers thoughts on the contemporary utility of our towed 105mm guns? They lack range, mobility (in a sense), and precision effects. Would it be better to move to rocket or missile based precision fires... Loitering munitions... in a conventional artillery duel (like Ukraine) they we would be easiily out ranged or out gunned by a near peer adversary. We do not have the drones to use for istar. The cost of maintaining this limited capability could be redirected to something else.

 

[Redlands18]

What are readers thoughts on the contemporary utility of our towed 105mm guns? They lack range, mobility (in a sense), and precision effects. Would it be better to move to rocket or missile based precision fires... Loitering munitions... in a conventional artillery duel (like Ukraine) they we would be easiily out ranged or out gunned by a near peer adversary. We do not have the drones to use for istar. The cost of maintaining this limited capability could be redirected to something else.

Archer Artillery System - Wikipedia
M982 Excalibur - Wikipedia
Moving to something like the Archer system would have a lot going for it in the NZ context, only around about US$5m or so each. Now being built on the Rheinmetall HX2 8x8 which the NZ Army is already operating, and the Archer is armoured. The Excalibur guided round has a range of 50km when fired from the Archer. This would be a decent affordable step up as against trying to operate a small number of tracked SPGs when you are not using other tracked vehicles, like MBTs or APCs.

 

[SP_viewer]

Hey guys, I was just reading through the FLOC 2035 document for the NZ Army when I saw this image:

I was just wondering if anyone knows what sight that is on the (what I assume is a) Carl Gustav? Is it a piece of kit in service or is this just from the battle lab?

 

[kiwi in exile]

Hey guys, I was just reading through the FLOC 2035 document for the NZ Army when I saw this image:
View attachment 50900
I was just wondering if anyone knows what sight that is on the (what I assume is a) Carl Gustav? Is it a piece of kit in service or is this just from the battle lab?

I remember seeing this at the time too.

I think its an AN/PAS heavy weapon thermal sight which is the heavy weapon version of the clip on thermal sight used on the MARS etc.
Heres a photo of one on a NZDF GMG on operation in Aust.

 

[recce.k1]

New Remote Ground Sensor (RGS) system for the Army has been announced.

The New Zealand subsidiary of defence business EPE has been awarded a contract on reconnaissance and surveillance work for the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF.)

According to a statement from Brisbane-based EPE, EPE New Zealand will deliver the Exensor Flexnet Remote Ground Sensor (RGS) system in collaboration with Bertin Exensor.

The RGS system is described as combining “intelligence collected by seismic, acoustic, and TI sensors to detect and identify threats and targets” and able to “enhance New Zealand Army situational awareness and support deployed command decision-making across all echelons of command.”

EPE, Exensor to deliver ground sensor network for NZ Defence Force - Australian Manufacturing Forum

The New Zealand subsidiary of defence business EPE has been awarded a contract on reconnaissance and surveillance work for the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF.) According to a statement from Brisbane-based EPE, EPE New Zealand will deliver the Exensor Flexnet Remote Ground Sensor (RGS) system in...

www.aumanufacturing.com.au

 

[Rob c]

this is a u tube video of the gear for a 72hour patrol. a lot more than they had in my day, over 40years ago. a bit of an eye opener.

 

[ngatimozart]

this is a u tube video of the gear for a 72hour patrol. a lot more than they had in my day, over 40years ago. a bit of an eye opener.

Wot!!!! They still using the No 4 Mk1*, Bren and Sten??? Or are they using Brown Bess muskets?

On a serious note, is it the kit they are wearing. They use the MAG58 which is the pre-eminent western medium MG. The MARS rifles are no slouches either, but I still think that 5.56mm x 45 is too small a calibre. They should either go back to the 7.62mm x 51 round or to the new US 6.8mm round.

 

[Challenger]

Appreciate about 4-5 years late…. but the 2019 DWP stated the goal of growing from a 4,500 to a 6,000 strong force (current manning/recruiterment issues aside) what does this actually mean for the orbat?

Assuming RNZIR gets a 3rd batt for the rule of 3s - but other than that?

 

[Rob c]

Wot!!!! They still using the No 4 Mk1*, Bren and Sten???

Yep when I started, we used the above but they had given up on the Sten and were cutting them up and dumping them. We also had my least favorite weapon. The Smith and Western 38, the most inaccurate thing I had the misfortune to fire and if you were lucky enough to hit something, there was a fair chance that you would just annoy them and piss them off unless you got real lucky.

 

[SP_viewer]

Appreciate about 4-5 years late…. but the 2019 DWP stated the goal of growing from a 4,500 to a 6,000 strong force (current manning/recruiterment issues aside) what does this actually mean for the orbat?

Assuming RNZIR gets a 3rd batt for the rule of 3s - but other than that?

Surely they'll need more manpower to run all the new drone systems that will be coming into service? Wonder whether that just means expanding 16Fd reg/signals or a whole new formation?

 

[ngatimozart]

Surely they'll need more manpower to run all the new drone systems that will be coming into service? Wonder whether that just means expanding 16Fd reg/signals or a whole new formation?

The introduction of a drones doesn't necessarily mean new people and new formations. It all depends upon the CONOPS they adopt. For reference the Ukrainians have drone operators embedded with company and platoon sized infantry formations. I see that the Ukrainians are forming a separate military branch purely for drones: Ukraine Setting up Separate Military Branch for Drone Warfare (businessinsider.com). The PLA has a separate branch for all its rockets / missiles known as the PLA-Rocket Force (PLA-RF), so something similar could feasibly happen here. Whether or not, is entirely another story and like everything it has its advantages and disadvantages.

On another note:
The New Zealand Light Armoured Vehicle (NZLAV) is due for either a Mid Life Upgrade (MLU) or replacement by 2030. I think that it may be replaced with the Boxer Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle (CRV). I also believe all of the Pinzgauer fleet should be replaced with Thales Bushmasters.

I would also suggest that the NZ Army (NZA) become the Australian & NZ armies littoral warfare capability. Since the NZA is going to be undergoing significant restructuring training, this could be the opportunity to have it specialise in littoral warfare. If this is accepted, then the United States Marine Corps (USMC) and the UK Royal Marines (RM) should be involved in supporting such an activity. Also, if it is accepted, I suggest forgoing the Boxer CRV, acquiring the USMC BAE Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) instead, integrating a 30mm turret along with Spike LR. Once the NZ Army has achieved Full Operational Capability (FOC) with this, some Australian infantry companies could be cycled through being trained on and gaining familiarity with the capability. This broadens the knowledge and experience to a wider AU-NZ miliary base.

 

[Armchair]

Also, if it is accepted, I suggest forgoing the Boxer CRV, acquiring the USMC BAE Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) instead, integrating a 30mm turret along with Spike LR. Once the NZ Army has achieved Full Operational Capability (FOC) with this, some Australian infantry companies could be cycled through being trained on and gaining familiarity with the capability. This broadens the knowledge and experience to a wider AU-NZ miliary base.

This article suggests the ACV is further along than I had thought.

Marine amphibious combat vehicle variants will arrive

The command and control and 30 mm-equipped versions will be ready for unit testing in 2024.

www.marinecorpstimes.com

But it suggests IOC for the 30mm armed variant for USMC will be mid 2026 but a hypothetical NZ Army FOC would be well into the 2030s.

I like the principle but In the NZ context the question for me is what vessels would those ACVs swim from in the 2030s? If deploying the capability relied on RAN well decks then that seems like a significant constraint. RNZN littoral lift vessels that can unload (non swimming) armoured vehicles on a (undefended) beach and also serve in HADR may be a better (sovereign) fit for NZ.

The range of Boxer variants also seems like a good fit for NZ (especially as they are likely to come into service earlier elsewhere in greater numbers and presumably at lower cost than ACV).

 

[ngatimozart]

This article suggests the ACV is further along than I had thought.

Marine amphibious combat vehicle variants will arrive

The command and control and 30 mm-equipped versions will be ready for unit testing in 2024.

www.marinecorpstimes.com

But it suggests IOC for the 30mm armed variant for USMC will be mid 2026 but a hypothetical NZ Army FOC would be well into the 2030s.

I like the principle but In the NZ context the question for me is what vessels would those ACVs swim from in the 2030s? If deploying the capability relied on RAN well decks then that seems like a significant constraint. RNZN littoral lift vessels that can unload (non swimming) armoured vehicles on a (undefended) beach and also serve in HADR may be a better (sovereign) fit for NZ.

The range of Boxer variants also seems like a good fit for NZ (especially as they are likely to come into service earlier elsewhere in greater numbers and presumably at lower cost than ACV).

The 2019 DCP talks about two Enhanced Support Vessels using the LPD as an example. If this is the case then they envisage something with a well dock.