40 deg south
Well-Known Member
No idea sorry. I never even saw the tender request.
New Zealand Army
- Thread starter Whiskyjack
- Start date
-
- Tags
- army artilery gunner new zealand sas
No idea sorry. I never even saw the tender request.
kiwi in exile
Well-Known Member
New vehicles for NZ Special Forces | Scoop News
We are planning on acquiring four types of spec ops vehicles (so bushmaster is still possible). This was all outlined a few months back in an issue of Defence Technology Review, which i Think i posted a link to. But I'm to lazy to look at present.
Current SF fleet is Pinzgauer based. Other than museum pieces, I wouldn't want them to be redistribed within NZDF.
Yes but the 28 million dollar question is what mix and type? I think bushmaster is another front runner but don't know for sure until they hit the ports with this govt, luckily SF are alittle more independant on the decision making front.
Pinzgauers are actually very capable vehicles (now), some units would be chomping to get their hands on the SOVs. It's the fully armoured versions that are pigs so hopefully if SAS gets a version of this we can gain an idea of a possible (if any) replacement for these.
kiwi in exile
Well-Known Member
Pinzgauers have known vulnerability to IEDs. By using them we would be failing to learn the lessons of 15 years of the War on Terror. Supacats, bushmasters, LAV 6.0s etc all have built in IED survivability features. No vehicle is totally bomb proof, but Pinzgaures are so poor that the Brits withdrew them. Whatever equipment we buy, we need to be equiped and prepared for as wide a range of scenarios as possible. Its all very well saying "optimised for south west pacific ops", "low intensity" etc, but right now we have 100 people in the middle east, we had to borrow other peoples dumped Humvees in Afghanistan.
Unarmoured, open top vehicles are also vulnerable in urban terrain. A molotov from a high window....
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/...orces-2016-polaris-attracts-australian-atten/
An article about Australia evaluating Polaris off-road vehicles ends with this snippet:
That presumably explains the Polaris at Linton that has been discussed here.
An article about Australia evaluating Polaris off-road vehicles ends with this snippet:
That presumably explains the Polaris at Linton that has been discussed here.
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
Could these pinzgauers be sold off to to the public, would there be any issues doing so, being a military vehicle? They are only what, ten yrs old, so id imagine in good condition.
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
A quick search revealed a total of 60 armoured Pinz in two variants were initially purchased; C&C and crew served weapon carrier.
Of these 60 vehicles I would think that not all went to the SAS and from various reads the vehicle has not been a success as witnessed by the UK withdrawing their Vector vehicles. If they are not suitable for medium or high threat situations would it not be wise to transfer some to city and national police forces for use in weapons calls as the armour protection would be more than a match for civilian ammo. I would hope that the NZ Police forces are not dealing with IED threats. By distributing these vehicles across the nation the potential to intervene rapidly will be very welcome by responding officers. Given the vehicles boxy appearance they should not be subjected to media reference as "tanks" as was done here with former Canadian Army first generation Pirranha AVGP wheeled 6x6's that were transferred to many PDs.
In their replacement the Hawkei and Bushmaster would be very proven options. New technology and better protection combined with commonality with OZ are all pluses.
Given the $26 million budget there will not likely be a large fleet of SOF vehicles but future purchases for use by regular army battalions can follow as the integration in the SAS matures.
The Supacat HMT is not designed for urban ops for the reasons noted. It is supposed to provide superior situational awareness and extreme mobility for SOF and recce units. Heavily armed if needed but not intended for direct fire operations due to its lack of top protection. Speed and mobility are its safety.
Good to see the SAS get such a good piece of kit to integrate seamlessly with allied forces.
Of these 60 vehicles I would think that not all went to the SAS and from various reads the vehicle has not been a success as witnessed by the UK withdrawing their Vector vehicles. If they are not suitable for medium or high threat situations would it not be wise to transfer some to city and national police forces for use in weapons calls as the armour protection would be more than a match for civilian ammo. I would hope that the NZ Police forces are not dealing with IED threats. By distributing these vehicles across the nation the potential to intervene rapidly will be very welcome by responding officers. Given the vehicles boxy appearance they should not be subjected to media reference as "tanks" as was done here with former Canadian Army first generation Pirranha AVGP wheeled 6x6's that were transferred to many PDs.
In their replacement the Hawkei and Bushmaster would be very proven options. New technology and better protection combined with commonality with OZ are all pluses.
Given the $26 million budget there will not likely be a large fleet of SOF vehicles but future purchases for use by regular army battalions can follow as the integration in the SAS matures.
The Supacat HMT is not designed for urban ops for the reasons noted. It is supposed to provide superior situational awareness and extreme mobility for SOF and recce units. Heavily armed if needed but not intended for direct fire operations due to its lack of top protection. Speed and mobility are its safety.
Good to see the SAS get such a good piece of kit to integrate seamlessly with allied forces.
There shouldn't be any issues as long as they are demilitarized. Unlike US gear they won't be covered by the US ITAR, so don't have to get US State Dept approval for disposal.
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
I was just reading the NZ Army website and noted a few items that I was hoping better informed here could provide info on.
The L16 81 mm mortars were acquired in 1980 making them 36 years old. Is this an issue with a mortar or are they too in need of replacement? If they are would moving to a 120 mm mortar be a better decision and mount some of them in re-roled LAV's?
The site lists a total of six wheeled armoured engineering backhoes and talks of the gap crossing capability. But how many gap systems were acquired?
Finally, what other heavy engineering equipment does the NZ Army maintain. Not interested in numbers but types and approximate vintage. Is there a plan in place to regenerate this fleet if it too is long in the tooth?
The L16 81 mm mortars were acquired in 1980 making them 36 years old. Is this an issue with a mortar or are they too in need of replacement? If they are would moving to a 120 mm mortar be a better decision and mount some of them in re-roled LAV's?
The site lists a total of six wheeled armoured engineering backhoes and talks of the gap crossing capability. But how many gap systems were acquired?
Finally, what other heavy engineering equipment does the NZ Army maintain. Not interested in numbers but types and approximate vintage. Is there a plan in place to regenerate this fleet if it too is long in the tooth?
You just answered your own question, we need to be equipped and prepared for as wide a range of scenarios as possible. Not everything we do is based in the middle east, fighting insurgents or exposed to IED otherwise every vehicle in the army would be armoured but not only is it not practical, it's not required or warranted. The SOVs would still have a use in our military just as a GS pinzgauer does or a crew served soft skin variant does.
We seem to focus on Afghan alot but forget missions like Bougainville, Timor and the solomans where the majority of our current armoured vehicles IMO would be A. overkill, B. inappropriate and C. unsuited.
The brit vectors that were reffered to as coffins and withdrawn/replaced are more like our current armoured pinz while our SOVs are more akin to their defender WMIKs so actually different roles, much like Afghan and East Timor were different missions.
Actually the SAS got none of those armoured variants and they have their own. 13 SOVs (special operations vehicles) were purchased as well, alongside ambos, shelters, workshop variants in limited numbers. They are completely different to the C2 and crew served versions, most notably open top, but based on the same chassis and drivetrain. No other unit in the army got these variants (QAMR recon now use crew served A/pinz) so as we already have them in service along with the rest of the pinzgauer fleet then we may as well utilise them as light recon, escort, QRF etc and redistribute them to either QAMR, infantry recon or the like. I see no reason to sell them as they still have a use with another large pinzgauer fleet user, namely us.
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
RegR so does the SAS have armour now or do they prefer the open type recce style vehicles? If they don't have armour is it likely that some type of armoured 4x4 will be acquired in limited quantities for them?
I do like the idea of mortars under armour, protection and quicker shoot and scoots. Surely a definate option for re-roleing in small numbers alongside ambos, C2 etc for other corps such as artillery, medics, sigs etc.
I'm pretty sure 4 bridging systems were aqquired based on MAN 8x8 platforms same as our current fleet (technically the first since they were aqquired prior and still in brit paint scheme even).
I remember the vast bulk of engineering plant in the nz army was actually sold a few years back to an australian dealer and a lesser number of new kit was aqquired. Due to the age of the equipment the deal was for something like 40 pieces of plant and in return we got 4 new ones as trade (couple of loaders, dozer etc), can't remember the exact numbers now as it was a few years ago but remember thinking at the time that surely we got ripped off. Reasoning for the dramatic shedding of bulk equipment was cost of ownership, upkeep etc and defence found it was easier to hire equipment from civilian companies when required for particular tasks. Another cost cutting excersise no doubt but seemingly makes sense in this day and age I suppose.
Not organic, they did use NZLAV in Kabul but these were from QAMR and from what I hear they did not use them as much as they probably could have for various reasons. Not sure if something as big as a LAV is really what they are thinking regardless of how many spares we have and either way they know where they can borrow some again C/W crew just up the road in Linton if they ever require a bigger stick to whack the bushes with. I think they will aqquire a fully armoured version as well as the supacats to fully exploit their options and has been mentioned officially as a range of vehicles.
Does make sense as even their different tours to the same country showed the variance of mission from desert patrolling to urban response and everything in between. A good gauge of options to consider would be our allies in the same theatre ie SASR and commandos as no doubt they would have been taking notes, gleaning ideas and following results closely. Bushmaster as well as a smaller armoured vehicle for a "range" of options would be a good start and could be done in smaller numbers to cater for a typical deployment (say 30-50 pers) and provide a patrol org ie mothership, patrol, armour, recon etc.
A fleet of say 8 supacats, 5 LMT ivecos and 4 bushmasters plus polaris, quads and outriders would provide a pretty decent option for response/contingancy/pool for a major NZSF deployment. Other vehicles to consider are the national fleet such as the CT nissan patrols, transits etc they could be up for replacement (or upgrade) as well to come from the 26m.
I also think govt will eventually look to the rest of the army and any synergies that could be acheived in at least some if not most possible choices as a litmus for further aqquisitions so this has to be taken into account as well. Whilst not a given surely still beneficial.
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
RegR I am dumbfounded by your statement that the majority of the engineering equipment was sold off and civilian gear hired as needed. That truly stuns me. In the event of a need to deploy you are saying that the 6 wheeled combat tractors is all there is?
That truly limits the ability of the combat engineers to construct revetments and other forward facilities as the sizer blades on the few LAV's can't do a great deal. I would have thought that there would be a mix of heavy CAT style dozers and excavators to support operations.
I remember seeing that when the M113's were in operation there were dedicated mortar carriers, M125 I think was the designation. If 120 mm mortars were acquired their ability to keep up with the rest of the wheeled armour forces would allow heavy indirect fire support immediately. The extra bulls are available and I am certain that the infrastructure exists within NZ to be able to complete the conversion in country to avoid the costs of shipping overseas. I watched the LAV's initially ship from Halifax enroute from London Ontario where they were built. I was able to walk out into the rail yard and inspect the LAV's two to a rail car. Also got to see the Saudi LAV's as they came in by both rail and truck. Lots of interesting stuff travels via Halifax.
That truly limits the ability of the combat engineers to construct revetments and other forward facilities as the sizer blades on the few LAV's can't do a great deal. I would have thought that there would be a mix of heavy CAT style dozers and excavators to support operations.
I remember seeing that when the M113's were in operation there were dedicated mortar carriers, M125 I think was the designation. If 120 mm mortars were acquired their ability to keep up with the rest of the wheeled armour forces would allow heavy indirect fire support immediately. The extra bulls are available and I am certain that the infrastructure exists within NZ to be able to complete the conversion in country to avoid the costs of shipping overseas. I watched the LAV's initially ship from Halifax enroute from London Ontario where they were built. I was able to walk out into the rail yard and inspect the LAV's two to a rail car. Also got to see the Saudi LAV's as they came in by both rail and truck. Lots of interesting stuff travels via Halifax.
Nova our heavy engineer equipment was out of step with the NZ Army Con-ops we have re-orientated back to a light Infantry orientated Army. In the late 90 we had enough heavy engineer equipment to build airports & roads which sat in NZ never used or deployed 2ER could not justify why they required that equipment. NZ Army has enough CATs and other equipment for deployments but hires civilian equipment for training & jobs here in NZ.
It all goes back to our Con-ops do we require 120mm mortars mounted to support our two Dismounted Light Infantry battalions answer is no 81mm like the GMG & M2QCB have to be carried by those who will be using them to provide support. LAV like NH-90 is just another tool for the Infantry to get where they need to be they (QAMR) are no longer a integrated force both Corps have gone back to what they know best.
There are the 6 armoured JCBs and 4 stock JCBs available or deployment and ops and do have a limited number of CAT types (unarmoured) available for the bigger jobs. The JCBs seem to do a good job for what is requiered ie route clearance, defensive positions, minor earthworks etc and as CD says we are more mobile and constantly moving, larger equipment requires logistics, transport, support etc and is just slower and more of a chain. A more permanent posture requiring large scale building up would be a different story.
Most (if not all) of these bigger tasks needing the heavier equipment is conducted in NZ such as maintaining the Waiouru training area, some defence projects, training to upskill etc and the majority of the plant was well past its used by date anyway and sat idle most of the time in between jobs (money drain) so going to a civilian focussed initiative is financially beneficial. Equipment could if required be leased overseas as well as has been proven over time even using local contractors in some instances, helps with interaction, provides jobs (hearts and minds) and extra hands.
Smaller, leaner, faster and more agile is the mantra that springs to mind. Days of digging in for the longhaul is another consideration handled differently.
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
Thank you for the insight on the engineering equipment. I realize the limitations and added logistics that tracked support equipment brings but would have thought there would have been the kit for rapid deployment besides the wheeled JCB.
I was looking last night at the US Stryker with a 120 mm mortar, 10 per battalion, with a rate of fire of 16 rpm. These vehicles also carry an 81 mm for dismounted use. This was the type of retrofit I was considering for underutilized LAV's. There is also the single or twin barrelled AMOS turret that can also provide direct fire capability out to 1500 m but this would require a significant retrofit.
Without its turret the LAV mortar carrier would be C130 transportable.
Thanks again to all those with more in depth knowledge. Very appreciated.
I was looking last night at the US Stryker with a 120 mm mortar, 10 per battalion, with a rate of fire of 16 rpm. These vehicles also carry an 81 mm for dismounted use. This was the type of retrofit I was considering for underutilized LAV's. There is also the single or twin barrelled AMOS turret that can also provide direct fire capability out to 1500 m but this would require a significant retrofit.
Without its turret the LAV mortar carrier would be C130 transportable.
Thanks again to all those with more in depth knowledge. Very appreciated.
A RFI (Market Research) has been issued for a Protected Mobility Capability.
At present this in itself does not signify that the current NZLAVs and Pinzgauers are going to be replaced, however it as an option that is apparently being considered with the NZLAV MLU due in the near to medium term.
This RFI appears to be a request to see what is available and who is interested. They state that they are not interested in turrets, however the vehicles must fit within the confines of a C130H and on the HMNZS Canterbury, as well as comply with NZ road regulations. The suggested timeline is between 2018 and delivery of the final vehicle in 2025.
At present this in itself does not signify that the current NZLAVs and Pinzgauers are going to be replaced, however it as an option that is apparently being considered with the NZLAV MLU due in the near to medium term.