New Zealand Army

Challenger

New Member
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.
How do you envision that littoral capability in functionality?

Similar to the US Marines Force 30 possible doctrine of holding key islands with truck mounted NSMs & HIMARs or a commando raiding style similar to the Royals? Or something completely different?
 

Bluey 006

Active Member
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.
Don't mind the idea of BAE Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV).
Alternatively, you could look at a mix of Terrex II (amphibious) and heavier Terrex III (as the IFV with Elbit Land System's MT30 modular turret, and Mk44 Bushmaster II). Singapore and NZ have a long-standing, close defence relationship. It may be advantageous for SAF to have production and maintenance facilities in NZ for Terrex vehicles and likewise for NZ to have a vehicle that could be maintained in Singapore if forward deployed or on operations in SE Asia. The Terrex would use the same gun and have the same ammunition as the Redback IFV and Hunter IFV also.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
How do you envision that littoral capability in functionality?

Similar to the US Marines Force 30 possible doctrine of holding key islands with truck mounted NSMs & HIMARs or a commando raiding style similar to the Royals? Or something completely different?
ANZAC 2.0

The ANZMIN+2 of February 2024 speaks of seamless integration and great commonality between the ADF & NZDF. What I am discussing here is army focussed because the NZ Army has to be restructured and refurbished with the help of the Australian Army under Plan ANZAC. The NZ Army will align to Australian Army doctrine. This also means that the NZ Army will most likely acquire and operate the same platforms as the Australian Army. It is my contention that Plan ANZAC will become ANZAC 2.0, or we could call it ANZAD (Australia NZ Army Division) which is the intention of Plan ANZAC. I shall use ANZAD because that is closer to the intention and reduces confusion with ANZAC.

This restructuring and refurbishment of the NZ Army offers the rare opportunity to fully introduce a new capability for both armies. It is my suggestion that the NZ component of ANZAD be used to form an ANZAD Littoral Warfare Brigade (LWB) using the US Marine Corp (USMC) and UK Royal Marines (RM) for assistance in the standing up and initial training. Such a force is now a necessity because the Asia Pacific has two large archipelagic systems and other island nations. Using WW2 as an example, the Pacific War between Japan and the Allies, was basically an island campaign. A large future conflict between the PRC and an allied coalition would cover the same territory.

The LWB would be a NZ Army component and the specialist amphibious warfare regiment. Platoons / companies from the various RARs would be phased through for familiarisation in order to widen the knowledge base of basic amphibious skills, across the broader Australian Army. Historical the USMC and RM are light forces, and the USMC has recently embarked upon an A2AD doctrine in order to support the USN sea control doctrine of distributed lethality. To this end the USMC has divested itself of its armoured forces. Whilst this new doctrine has some advantages, it does not necessarily meet Australian and NZ requirements.



How ever the LWB is structured, it will require fire support etc., when ashore. To this end it is suggested that the NZ Army has the following capabilities:
  • M-10 Booker
  • Redback IFV
  • Boxer CRV
  • AS9 Huntsman SPG
  • M142 HIMARS
  • Bushmaster Vehicles
  • Rheinmettall MAN HMV mounted NSM
  • UAV & UGV
The M10 Booker has commonality with the M-1 Abrams currently used by the Australian Army. Crew can be trained on one and operate the other without the need for new training. The Redback is required because although the US Army vehemently denies that the Booker is a light tank, it is a light tank. As such sending tanks into combat without infantry support is suicidal and stupid. This is one very important lesson of the current Russo-Ukrainian War where Russian forces have used tanks to attack Ukrainian forces without the prerequisite infantry support, resulting in Ukrainian ATGM teams, and others, destroying them with relative ease. The American term “shooting fish in a barrel” is an apt description. The Redback is a tracked vehicle that can keep up with tanks, whereas a wheeled vehicle will struggle in some situations.

The Boxer is used in Australian service as a Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle (CRV) whereas in NZ Army service it would replace the current NZLAV. Both the Huntsman and HIMARS are included to provide long range fire support. One quarter of the Redbacks and Boxers need to be fitted with Rheinmetall 30mm air defence turrets. The Russo-Ukrainian War clearly shows the requirement for air defence, both gun and MANPAD because of the prolific use of UAVs in the conflict, both for ISR and FPV strike missions. Serious consideration also has to be given to longer range SAM capability, preferably vehicle mounted NASAMS.

Land based Maritime A2AD is something that the both the Australian and NZ Armies should seriously consider. It is a good defence from maritime encroachment and the NSM (entering service with the RAN) does have a truck mounted variant. It could be a component of the LWR. The Ukrainians have had considerable success using land based maritime A2AD, and USVs, against the Russian navy in the Black Sea.

The LWB would not be so much a light infantry force, but lean more towards a medium combined arms force, yet be able to respond quickly. It could include raiding units based on the RM example. All of its personnel should be trained to the same syllabus as RM recruits before they undertake their specific branch / trade training. It would conduct its training and be based in NZ, with battalion equivalent detachment being permanently based in Australia. The M-10 Bookers, and Redback IFVs, would be form an Armoured Regiment. The Huntsman SPG, HIMARS, NASAMS unit, and NSM unit would form an Artillery Regiment. Both of these regiments would be NZ based, train with their Australian equivalents, and deploy along with infantry from the RNZIR and logistics units etc., as the Littoral Warfare Regiment (LWR), being constituted of companies from the various regiments and battalions. The LWR shall have no fixed number of companies, with the number and type of companies deploying being dependent upon the overall requirements of each deployment. This gives the Command flexibility.

Previously I would have suggested a helicopter component, however evidence from the Russo-Ukrainian War suggests that helicopters struggle to survive on the modern battlefield because of modern air defence capabilities. Even fast jets are struggling to survive anywhere near the contact line. In Ukraine attack helicopters are reduced to lobbing unguided rockets at enemy positions using a quick zoom fire, near the top, then an equally quick bank and drop to ground level returning to base at very low level. Transport helicopters are reduced to providing logistics flights behind the lines and rarely venture near the contact line. However, the LWB should have a UAV & UGV component with a wide variety of UAV and UGV including FPV kamikaze drones. The LWB should follow the Ukrainian example in the types of and how such vehicles are used. Correspondingly, both defensive and offensive EW capabilities are a necessity.

Our potential enemy in the Pacific will have relatively few, if any, of the issues that the Russians are currently displaying in Ukraine and will be far more technically capable because of better education and motivation of its personnel. They also have newer and more capable equipment, are better trained, are politically motivated, and more importantly, they will be actively learning lessons from the Russo-Ukrainian War. This makes them inherently dangerous. Their army is structured along US lines, and they use a doctrine that is similar to US doctrine. They have seen the inherent weaknesses in the Soviet and Russian force structures, doctrine, and command philosophy. This and the Pacific geography are why I believe that the Australian and NZ armies require a dedicated specialised littoral warfare brigade.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Don't mind the idea of BAE Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV).
Alternatively, you could look at a mix of Terrex II (amphibious) and heavier Terrex III (as the IFV with Elbit Land System's MT30 modular turret, and Mk44 Bushmaster II). Singapore and NZ have a long-standing, close defence relationship. It may be advantageous for SAF to have production and maintenance facilities in NZ for Terrex vehicles and likewise for NZ to have a vehicle that could be maintained in Singapore if forward deployed or on operations in SE Asia. The Terrex would use the same gun and have the same ammunition as the Redback IFV and Hunter IFV also.
Yes, the Terrex is one option, but the advantage of the ACV is that it's used by the USMC, and we would have more to do with them in a combat scenario than we would with the Singaporeans. Singapore is an unaligned nation so if we were operating in the South Pacific against hostile forces, we would have close access to USMC & USN logistics trains. Also, our govt has preferences for platforms already operated by our FVEY partners.
 

Bluey 006

Active Member
Yes, the Terrex is one option, but the advantage of the ACV is that it's used by the USMC, and we would have more to do with them in a combat scenario than we would with the Singaporeans.
Certainly, acknowledge the value of having commonality and interoperability with USMC. I also think it makes more sense for NZDF to model itself on USMC than it does for the ADF. I do, however, agree that the USMC strategy of divesting armoured forces is not right for Australia or NZ.

One thing to think about is that currently; we don’t know how engaged the US will be in our immediate region in the future, or its appetite, and capacity for global engagement post-2025 and beyond.

NZ has a formal arrangement with Singapore via Five Power Defence Arrangements, and while NZ has a close relationship with the U.S post-ANZUS over the years it has been strained. Although NZ is now a major non-NATO US ally (as is Singapore), this does not guarantee support in the way Article 5 does for NATO members. AUKUS pillar II may change this.

NZ and Singapore (being located in the South Pacific and South East Asia respectively) have shared interests in a peaceful and secure region, as indeed does the US, but it's not their backyard.

Singapore is an unaligned nation so if we were operating in the South Pacific against hostile forces, we would have close access to USMC & USN logistics trains.
Partnering with a non-aligned nation for “some” defence procurements might not be a bad thing. Historically, NZG has pursued an independent foreign policy and will reserve its right to do so in the future. Not being completely reliant on traditional allies for all equipment builds resilience into this.

While broadly there is huge value in being part of the USMC & USN supply chains (Interoperability, supply chain synergies, and closer relations with USMC and ADF should be a priority for NZDF), NZG needs to consider these supply chains and US industrial capacity are currently strained, and would be put under even more pressure during any future conflict (it is likely many nations would be in line for US equipment). In the absence of a formal priority supply arrangement for NZ during a future conflict, USMC would undoubtedly be given priority for ACV spares and supply.

There is little chance of BAE setting up production in NZ for a small order, I would guess that ST Engineering has a greater appetite for this than BAE. But who knows?

Ultimately though for the fiscally challenged NZDF, all other considerations give way to cost. Whoever can offer the best deal with the biggest economic benefit for NZ likely has the leg up (provided the integrity of the systems and supply can be assured).

Also, our govt has preferences for platforms already operated by our FVEY partners.
They do, and rightly so. However, seamless integration and great commonality do not have to mean the same platforms. There may be advantages in some diversity of platforms to complement the systems and strategies of allies. Having said that, economies of scale and other factors also play into the decision.

Whole heartily support the Littoral Warfare Brigade (LWB) idea for NZ and agree it should lean toward a “medium combined arms force” rather than light infantry but I would suggest a modified capabilities list compared to the one you have put forward. Save that for another day though.
 
Last edited:

Challenger

New Member
ANZAC 2.0

The ANZMIN+2 of February 2024 speaks of seamless integration and great commonality between the ADF & NZDF. What I am discussing here is army focussed because the NZ Army has to be restructured and refurbished with the help of the Australian Army under Plan ANZAC. The NZ Army will align to Australian Army doctrine. This also means that the NZ Army will most likely acquire and operate the same platforms as the Australian Army. It is my contention that Plan ANZAC will become ANZAC 2.0, or we could call it ANZAD (Australia NZ Army Division) which is the intention of Plan ANZAC. I shall use ANZAD because that is closer to the intention and reduces confusion with ANZAC.

This restructuring and refurbishment of the NZ Army offers the rare opportunity to fully introduce a new capability for both armies. It is my suggestion that the NZ component of ANZAD be used to form an ANZAD Littoral Warfare Brigade (LWB) using the US Marine Corp (USMC) and UK Royal Marines (RM) for assistance in the standing up and initial training. Such a force is now a necessity because the Asia Pacific has two large archipelagic systems and other island nations. Using WW2 as an example, the Pacific War between Japan and the Allies, was basically an island campaign. A large future conflict between the PRC and an allied coalition would cover the same territory.

The LWB would be a NZ Army component and the specialist amphibious warfare regiment. Platoons / companies from the various RARs would be phased through for familiarisation in order to widen the knowledge base of basic amphibious skills, across the broader Australian Army. Historical the USMC and RM are light forces, and the USMC has recently embarked upon an A2AD doctrine in order to support the USN sea control doctrine of distributed lethality. To this end the USMC has divested itself of its armoured forces. Whilst this new doctrine has some advantages, it does not necessarily meet Australian and NZ requirements.



How ever the LWB is structured, it will require fire support etc., when ashore. To this end it is suggested that the NZ Army has the following capabilities:
  • M-10 Booker
  • Redback IFV
  • Boxer CRV
  • AS9 Huntsman SPG
  • M142 HIMARS
  • Bushmaster Vehicles
  • Rheinmettall MAN HMV mounted NSM
  • UAV & UGV
The M10 Booker has commonality with the M-1 Abrams currently used by the Australian Army. Crew can be trained on one and operate the other without the need for new training. The Redback is required because although the US Army vehemently denies that the Booker is a light tank, it is a light tank. As such sending tanks into combat without infantry support is suicidal and stupid. This is one very important lesson of the current Russo-Ukrainian War where Russian forces have used tanks to attack Ukrainian forces without the prerequisite infantry support, resulting in Ukrainian ATGM teams, and others, destroying them with relative ease. The American term “shooting fish in a barrel” is an apt description. The Redback is a tracked vehicle that can keep up with tanks, whereas a wheeled vehicle will struggle in some situations.

The Boxer is used in Australian service as a Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle (CRV) whereas in NZ Army service it would replace the current NZLAV. Both the Huntsman and HIMARS are included to provide long range fire support. One quarter of the Redbacks and Boxers need to be fitted with Rheinmetall 30mm air defence turrets. The Russo-Ukrainian War clearly shows the requirement for air defence, both gun and MANPAD because of the prolific use of UAVs in the conflict, both for ISR and FPV strike missions. Serious consideration also has to be given to longer range SAM capability, preferably vehicle mounted NASAMS.

Land based Maritime A2AD is something that the both the Australian and NZ Armies should seriously consider. It is a good defence from maritime encroachment and the NSM (entering service with the RAN) does have a truck mounted variant. It could be a component of the LWR. The Ukrainians have had considerable success using land based maritime A2AD, and USVs, against the Russian navy in the Black Sea.

The LWB would not be so much a light infantry force, but lean more towards a medium combined arms force, yet be able to respond quickly. It could include raiding units based on the RM example. All of its personnel should be trained to the same syllabus as RM recruits before they undertake their specific branch / trade training. It would conduct its training and be based in NZ, with battalion equivalent detachment being permanently based in Australia. The M-10 Bookers, and Redback IFVs, would be form an Armoured Regiment. The Huntsman SPG, HIMARS, NASAMS unit, and NSM unit would form an Artillery Regiment. Both of these regiments would be NZ based, train with their Australian equivalents, and deploy along with infantry from the RNZIR and logistics units etc., as the Littoral Warfare Regiment (LWR), being constituted of companies from the various regiments and battalions. The LWR shall have no fixed number of companies, with the number and type of companies deploying being dependent upon the overall requirements of each deployment. This gives the Command flexibility.

Previously I would have suggested a helicopter component, however evidence from the Russo-Ukrainian War suggests that helicopters struggle to survive on the modern battlefield because of modern air defence capabilities. Even fast jets are struggling to survive anywhere near the contact line. In Ukraine attack helicopters are reduced to lobbing unguided rockets at enemy positions using a quick zoom fire, near the top, then an equally quick bank and drop to ground level returning to base at very low level. Transport helicopters are reduced to providing logistics flights behind the lines and rarely venture near the contact line. However, the LWB should have a UAV & UGV component with a wide variety of UAV and UGV including FPV kamikaze drones. The LWB should follow the Ukrainian example in the types of and how such vehicles are used. Correspondingly, both defensive and offensive EW capabilities are a necessity.

Our potential enemy in the Pacific will have relatively few, if any, of the issues that the Russians are currently displaying in Ukraine and will be far more technically capable because of better education and motivation of its personnel. They also have newer and more capable equipment, are better trained, are politically motivated, and more importantly, they will be actively learning lessons from the Russo-Ukrainian War. This makes them inherently dangerous. Their army is structured along US lines, and they use a doctrine that is similar to US doctrine. They have seen the inherent weaknesses in the Soviet and Russian force structures, doctrine, and command philosophy. This and the Pacific geography are why I believe that the Australian and NZ armies require a dedicated specialised littoral warfare brigade.
That would be one potent fighting force in the field. Agree with the structure, alignment to Australia and what the mission is. Couple of practicalities to clarify.

M-10 - Do we need to go ‘light’? Why not a MBT (if we want tracked) or an a assault gun use the Boxer platform (if wheeled is okay) with a 105mm similar to the Strkyers? Appreciate the new M1s are both expensive and heavy but given a realistic order of 20-30 to operate alongside ~60-80(?) Redbacks in a regt (I’m guessing (1x Tank, 2 Inf)… why not just get M1s..

Would the structure be something along the lines of units in squadron/battery/company size.

1x Tank
2x Redbacks
3x Boxer CRV
6x Bushmasters
3x Commando / SOF support
3x SPGs
2x HIMARs
1x NASAMS
2x NSMs

So ignoring the composition of what would be seconded(?) to the LWB, on paper we’d have a Bde level formation. New units being an armoured regt, an additional RNZIR battalion (commando/SOF support I.e. between infantry and the group), and 1-2 RNZA regs.

Can we achieve this for $10-15b in capex across 5-10 years and another $1b in opex per year in addition to the current? Man power would go past 6,000 and infrastructure requirements aside woukd generally be palatable. Issues other than $$$ and political (lack of) will, I’d see is a) interservice rivalry, b) utility of some capabilities the expense of other NZDF assets, and c) some capabilities are hard to market to certain parts of society (ie Rocket Artillery or Tanks, even SPGs aren’t exactly peacekeeping friendly. While the first two aren’t unique to the NZDF, the latter definitely does seem to be our Achilles heel.
 
Last edited:

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
That would be one potent fighting force in the field. Agree with the structure, alignment to Australia and what the mission is. Couple of practicalities to clarify.

M-10 - Do we need to go ‘light’? Why not a MBT (if we want tracked) or an a assault gun use the Boxer platform (if wheeled is okay) with a 105mm similar to the Strkyers? Appreciate the new M1s are both expensive and heavy but given a realistic order of 20-30 to operate alongside ~60-80(?) Redbacks in a regt (I’m guessing (1x Tank, 2 Inf)… why not just get M1s..

Would the structure be something along the lines of units in squadron/battery/company size.

1x Tank
2x Redbacks
3x Boxer CRV
6x Bushmasters
3x Commando / SOF support
3x SPGs
2x HIMARs
1x NASAMS
2x NSMs

So ignoring the composition of what would be seconded(?) to the LWB, on paper we’d have a Bde level formation. New units being an armoured regt, an additional RNZIR battalion (commando/SOF support I.e. between infantry and the group), and 1-2 RNZA regs.

Can we achieve this for $10-15b in capex across 5-10 years and another $1b in opex per year in addition to the current? Man power would go past 6,000 and infrastructure requirements aside woukd generally be palatable. Issues other than $$$ and political (lack of) will, I’d see is a) interservice rivalry, b) utility of some capabilities the expense of other NZDF assets, and c) some capabilities are hard to market to certain parts of society (ie Rocket Artillery or Tanks, even SPGs aren’t exactly peacekeeping friendly. While the first two aren’t unique to the NZDF, the latter definitely does seem to be our Achilles heel.
I purposely avoided the NZ army acquiring main battle tanks because of cost and politics. I actually don't see a requirement for NZ to have MBTs. If we were to think such things, I would probably go Leopard II because of its power unit being diesel rather than gas turbine. Apparently, the gas turbine powered M1 is a real thirsty hog.

Secondly, we can acquire, and do have, other capabilities to deal with enemy heavy armour. The Javelin is one such capability and IIRC we have the Carl Gustav as well. Since Australia is going Spike 2, that's where we should go as well. The M-10 is designed for tank on tank combat; it is a direct fire support vehicle for infantry support. That is what we require, something to kick down the walls after the doo has been knocked on. The thing that i rally like about the M-10 is that it has sensor, fire control and driving commonality with the M-10. This means that we can initially train our guys with the Aussie tankies and there is a larger pool of people able to operate both platforms.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The development of an Australian Army provided Littoral Combat capability is the number strategic requirement laid down for the Australian Army by the Defence Strategic Review and we are meeting this requirement by developing 1 Brigade into our littoral operations brigade.

This strategic requirement is not going to be tossed aside in favour of ‘giving’ the job to NZ…

IMG_0439.png
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The development of an Australian Army provided Littoral Combat capability is the number strategic requirement laid down for the Australian Army by the Defence Strategic Review and we are meeting this requirement by developing 1 Brigade into our littoral operations brigade.

This strategic requirement is not going to be tossed aside in favour of ‘giving’ the job to NZ…
Ah but are they seriously doing anything about it?
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Ah but are they seriously doing anything about it?
Developing the littoral combat regiment from the water transport squadrons.

Acquiring 18x littoral combat vessel- medium built by Birdon and Austral.

Acquiring LARC-V replacements reputedly from Birdon / Supercat.

Acquiring a new fleet of LCM-H replacements.

Converting and training 1 Brigade units into littoral operations capable units and eventually the brigade as a whole, building upon and expanding from the base that the 2RAR PLF has already established.

So yes, quite a lot more than the NZDF is contemplating in it’s development.
 

RegR

Well-Known Member
I note Austria is replacing it's own pinzgauer fleet with ivecos on a like for like basis and just by reading the NZ requirements of which there now seem to be at least a couple of versions (in terms of overall numbers at least) could be an option for NZ. Specifically the mention of vans (both off road and on) as essentially these are what the ivecos effectively are (based on ruggedised civilian dailys) is what caught my eye. Iveco actually have quite a large military representation with over 18,000 produced so they definately have the track record to back them and we also recently have some examples within defence in the form of the recently aqquired garrison ambos and a few group support examples.

With the savings angle now being pushed and one of the main requirements being a common VFM COTS soloution where possible this could prove a cost effective option as perhaps a g wagon fleet for commonality with AUS (this being a capability we would be more inclined to "share use" rather than say a helo or frigate) or MAN TG (for logistics saving with the in service HX) may well be deemed too expensive. The proposed remaining pinzgauer and unimog fleet replacements are already slated as being nowhere near 1 for 1 so in a way the accountants have seemingly already got the pitchforks and slashers out as is so any other potential savings measures can not be ruled out.

Would still be a capable vehicle either way imo just another orphan fleet in our neck of the seas but then I guess that has never stopped our decision making process before and it has eventually worked after a few blood, sweat and teary eyes...mostly...
 

kiwi in exile

Active Member
Previously there has been commentry on this thread about acquiring self propelled artillery. What about rocket artillery? here are some developments in this area that may be of interest.

Australia is planning to acquire HIMARS (in line with a broader shift to loinger range strike and deterrance). HIMARs has shown its capabilities in Ukraine. There is discussion about manufacturing HIMARs rounds in Australian and also the next gen round Precision Strike missile

Germany and Lockheed Martin are working together to replace Germanys MLRS with a MAN HX based MRLS called GMARS.

If we acquired GMARS we would have HIMARS like abilities, with hopefully Australian based ammunition manufacture, mounted on a plafrom that we allready have, and have in commom with our allies (Australia, UK and maybe the US army). FMTV based HIMARS are smaller, lighter and fit in a C130, and I like the look of the armoured cab.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
NZ might be better off waiting to see how developments on long range 155 mm canons and shells progresses. A smart 155 mm shell is much less expensive than a missile. Boils done to range I guess, is a 100 km gun good enough?
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
NZ might be better off waiting to see how developments on long range 155 mm canons and shells progresses. A smart 155 mm shell is much less expensive than a missile. Boils done to range I guess, is a 100 km gun good enough?
Cost of ordnance is not the only issue, but also the amount of space and weight/mass needed. Rocket artillery can deliver a larger amount of ordnance onto a target within a short amount of time than tube artillery, but once the onboard rockets are expended, it takes time to reload the launcher and of course the rockets themselves which also take up space and weight when the are not in a launcher. The weight of some of the MRLS rockets approaches 10x that of 155 mm artillery rounds like the M107.

Therefore the question which needs to also get asked is what type of fires missions might the NZ Army need to meet. Are these missions where a large amount of ordnance is required to be delivered in a very short period of time (or even all at once), or is there more of a requirement for a sustained delivery of ordnance?
 

Nighthawk.NZ

Well-Known Member
Therefore the question which needs to also get asked is what type of fires missions might the NZ Army need to meet. Are these missions where a large amount of ordnance is required to be delivered in a very short period of time (or even all at once), or is there more of a requirement for a sustained delivery of ordnance?
You will never be able to answer that as the theater of war can change on a dime or a split second and the fire team need to be able to adapt as quickly as possible to the changing situation on the front and no two situations will be the same...
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
You will never be able to answer that as the theater of war can change on a dime or a split second and the fire team need to be able to adapt as quickly as possible to the changing situation on the front and no two situations will be the same...
The NZDF should be able to determine which doctrine they will use, which will determine whether rocket artillery or tube artillery is most appropriate. Of course some of the larger militaries field both as they can be complimentary capabilities since they are not exactly the same. From a realistic standpoint, I just do not foresee the NZ Army's artillery forces being large enough to support both rocket and tube artillery.
 

kiwi in exile

Active Member
Therefore the question which needs to also get asked is what type of fires missions might the NZ Army need to meet. Are these missions where a large amount of ordnance is required to be delivered in a very short period of time (or even all at once), or is there more of a requirement for a sustained delivery of ordnance?
The NZDF should be able to determine which doctrine they will use, which will determine whether rocket artillery or tube artillery is most appropriate... From a realistic standpoint, I just do not foresee the NZ Army's artillery forces being large enough to support both rocket and tube artillery.
Agreed. Good points. I'm just sick of nothing progressing. Our existing capability (to me at least) starts to seem less and less relevant with changing geostrategic reality and warfare. And there doesn't seem to be any plan or discussion about evolving our capabilities (re fire support). I feel like we use a platform till way past its use by date then aim for like-for-like ish platform replacement, rather that ongoing capability evaluation and evolution.

This is the latest I can find on UAS in NZDF which is positive at least.

CUAS- cheap, deployable systems are available right across the tasman. Would be great to see this battle labed on a Hilux or NZ Bushmaster. Finger crossed that we get some RWS at some stage.
 
Top