New Zealand Army

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
With National having a brain fart and picking Crusher Collins as leader the chances for Ron keeping his job improved significantly, so long as NZ First remains in Parliament.
We will see Rob come this September. I have a different take on the ascent of Crusher but that is straying into too much off-topic ....
 

40 deg south

Well-Known Member
Your right but the mogs are becoming unserviceable and the pods need to be transferred to the new selected vehicle. That requires a new deck to accommodate them.
We've just been referring to them as the fire pods when it's actually the deck design and the power feed.
Vehicle is chosen but it's the manner of delivery and lease versus owning that us being worked through now.
Interesting news.
If you can provide more detail, is it a single model that has been selected or a family available in different sizes?
I had assumed the latter, given the range of garrison duties they will be expected to perform.
 

40 deg south

Well-Known Member

An Aussie media report on the Bushmaster sale - apologies if someone has already posted it.

Seems very clear on the vehicles being built over the next two years, which would seem to rule out them being second-hand stock being upgraded. The NZ5.5 designation is a mystery though - presumably some hybrid between the previous standard and the new 6.0 model. But if they are new-builds, why not build to the latest 6.0 standard, unless there has been some typically kiwi penny-pinching with the fit-out? Hopefully NZDF will clarify sooner rather than later.
 

RegR

Well-Known Member
Yes to twist locks and self powered pump. But the new trucks are just cab and chassis. But the lights and siren cables apparently need some modification on the truck side of things aswell as getting onto the pod from side of truck. So they need a suitable deck and it's a project that keeps being started and back burnered for some reason so I'm half expecting some complications.

We haven't been given a pod yet to go over and the trucks are still on the assembly line. We're just clearing our existing facilities soon to make way for them. But theres been some new, ahemmmm, additions to our workload last week.
You do understand these are already in use and working, have been for awhile now. They do not need a specialised truck as that is the whole point of them, to be easily swapped between any suitable standard truck deck just like the shelters, water pods etc. These are essentially just fire versions of the fuel UBRE pods and the actual pods are standalone from the truck, which is merely a means of transport, you can literally put them on a mog, a MHOV or even a 2228 if you get desperate as well as a standalone ground mount unit option.


 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro

An Aussie media report on the Bushmaster sale - apologies if someone has already posted it.

Seems very clear on the vehicles being built over the next two years, which would seem to rule out them being second-hand stock being upgraded. The NZ5.5 designation is a mystery though - presumably some hybrid between the previous standard and the new 6.0 model. But if they are new-builds, why not build to the latest 6.0 standard, unless there has been some typically kiwi penny-pinching with the fit-out? Hopefully NZDF will clarify sooner rather than later.
The rendering attached to the article shows a Bushmaster with what appears to be the PR6 mods. That is the spare removed from the rear of the drivers side (increasing internal capacity) and the addition of front crew side doors on the cab. The storage boxes also appear to be similar to the PR5 and PR6.

Here is the PR6 Janes video


And the rendering from the ABC article



1595487334089.png
 

Shanesworld

Active Member
You do understand these are already in use and working, have been for awhile now. They do not need a specialised truck as that is the whole point of them, to be easily swapped between any suitable standard truck deck just like the shelters, water pods etc. These are essentially just fire versions of the fuel UBRE pods and the actual pods are standalone from the truck, which is merely a means of transport, you can literally put them on a mog, a MHOV or even a 2228 if you get desperate as well as a standalone ground mount unit option.


I know reg. That's been in the brief we were given. And I had the honour of seeing them work after and little incident in TAD with some dry grass.
But theres three cables that connect to the top of the mog cab which I imagine Is for lights and siren. They may be needed to be lengthened for the new trucks. And suitable wiring installed on the trucks.
The pods themselves require no or minimal work. Maybe a refurb here and there.
The problem I have been told is when loaded with I think 2000 litres is that with that the front axle is overloaded and is no longer road legal. Given the front axle issues with mhiv they could well be the same.
Our trucks for the rural fire service tries to put the tank centre close to the centre of the rear axle. So as I understand it army has gone for a bigger civi truck that will better manage this. And will come with vendor support thru life.
Regardless I don't think I am working on this anymore as it seems the manufacturer has changed their minds and reckon they can make this now. Which makes my year easier.
As to who the supplier is-it's commercially sensitive at the moment as there are like 12 more parts to gats which may not all go the same supplier or require the same kinds of vehicles.
 

RegR

Well-Known Member
I have always liked the archer system/concept and it has just got a little better IMO...I just feel the time of towed artillery has changed somewhat with it's strengths and weaknesses and more importantly for us vulnerabilities, relevance and application.

 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I have always liked the archer system/concept and it has just got a little better IMO...I just feel the time of towed artillery has changed somewhat with it's strengths and weaknesses and more importantly for us vulnerabilities, relevance and application.
Yep it's not bad and the fact that it now is integrated with the MAN trucks is a plus for us. However whether it would be the right platform is another story. I tend to agree that towed arty is on the way out and in a NZ context the vulnerabilities, application and relevance may place it in the obsolete category because of it's vulnerability to counter battery fire due to time to break down and move after firing. It's time consuming to set up, fire and then break down for bugging out, plus it requires a lot more personnel than a SPG. Yes you can drop a M119 105 mm into a location with a NH90 but you still have the same problem.

That brings me to the next issue. Do we need to go to 155 mm? The Aussies have 155 mm as do the US, but I do note the US also has some 105 mm towed guns still in service. I did think that there might be a place on the battlefield for them and that we could fill a niche, but apparently not because the US Army are looking to standardise on a single howitzer and that will be a 155 mm howitzer. Interestingly the new howitzers are to be more mobile so I would presumed that towed guns are to be retired. If that's the case then we might as well follow suit.
 

RegR

Well-Known Member
Yep it's not bad and the fact that it now is integrated with the MAN trucks is a plus for us. However whether it would be the right platform is another story. I tend to agree that towed arty is on the way out and in a NZ context the vulnerabilities, application and relevance may place it in the obsolete category because of it's vulnerability to counter battery fire due to time to break down and move after firing. It's time consuming to set up, fire and then break down for bugging out, plus it requires a lot more personnel than a SPG. Yes you can drop a M119 105 mm into a location with a NH90 but you still have the same problem.

That brings me to the next issue. Do we need to go to 155 mm? The Aussies have 155 mm as do the US, but I do note the US also has some 105 mm towed guns still in service. I did think that there might be a place on the battlefield for them and that we could fill a niche, but apparently not because the US Army are looking to standardise on a single howitzer and that will be a 155 mm howitzer. Interestingly the new howitzers are to be more mobile so I would presumed that towed guns are to be retired. If that's the case then we might as well follow suit.
Exactly, time, exposure and response are vital on todays modern fluid battlefield as well as great mobility factor. I'm sure a static gun line or light air transportable option would still have it's purpose but then can/could we afford both or would we go for a more whole of life system if given a choice? Greater distance and damage radius can only be a bonus as like the great Levi of M10 fame says "Big is good!". Works for me haha.
 

40 deg south

Well-Known Member

Saw a short item on the TV news yesterday - NZDF playing around with a NZ-built electric off-road bike. Can't find the videa link, but the info is above. For reasons of range, I suspect it might be more at home tootling around a base than on operations.

Update

Army Recognition has picked up the media release, and note that Russia and the USA are also experimenting with electric bikes.

Also in the news, defence recruitment has boomed in the face of COVID. No great surprise - it is always easier for the government to hire when the private sector is firing.
 

Toptob

Active Member
Yep it's not bad and the fact that it now is integrated with the MAN trucks is a plus for us. However whether it would be the right platform is another story. I tend to agree that towed arty is on the way out and in a NZ context the vulnerabilities, application and relevance may place it in the obsolete category because of it's vulnerability to counter battery fire due to time to break down and move after firing. It's time consuming to set up, fire and then break down for bugging out, plus it requires a lot more personnel than a SPG. Yes you can drop a M119 105 mm into a location with a NH90 but you still have the same problem.

That brings me to the next issue. Do we need to go to 155 mm? The Aussies have 155 mm as do the US, but I do note the US also has some 105 mm towed guns still in service. I did think that there might be a place on the battlefield for them and that we could fill a niche, but apparently not because the US Army are looking to standardise on a single howitzer and that will be a 155 mm howitzer. Interestingly the new howitzers are to be more mobile so I would presumed that towed guns are to be retired. If that's the case then we might as well follow suit.
Interesting! You're certainly right that the 155mm is becoming the standard within most of NATO (the Russian analog being the 152mm?). And most forces are doing away with towed guns. Here's the first in a series of blog articles about Finnish artillery and how they can't seem to find a replacement for the buttload of D-30's they still have in service.

Nenonen’s heritage, pt 1: The Mission

And while the Finnish army is particularly artillery heavy, a lot of European armies seem a little light on the heavy firepower side. I think the whole 155mm as standard thing is one of the reasons for this, as they are expensive to operate. And especially in towed form, the 155mm is less versatile than guns in lighter calibers. And I do think that for an army with limited means towed guns are still a powerful option for fire support. And in difficult terrain and time to dig in something like a pack howitzer is a welcome reinforcement. I think there's still a lot of situations where intelligently deployed "towed" guns can play an important role in modern warfare.

But in mechanized or maneuver warfare towed guns haven't been relevant for a long time. And with the expeditionary nature of the NZDF you'd want something that's more mobile and able to move together with allied forces. HOWEVER!!!

Unlike the West and the Russians with their propensity for heavier guns, the Chinese seem to bolt guns of any old caliber to whatever platform they can get their hands on! I believe they have guns in the 110, 120, 130 and 150mm ranges mounted on everything from heavy armor to ATV like chassis'. So why don't we in the West have nice toys like that?

I've seen that American project with a hummer mounting a howitzer. But if they where serious they would base it on the JLTV platform or something even heavier. Is there really no market for something like a small-ish truck with a 110 or 120mm gun? Maybe something air portable? It would seem to me that something like that, say an unimog with an 105mm gun would be ideal for the NZDF.
 

chis73

Active Member
Another artillery option could be to follow the Americans. They are currently investigating (link) the feasibility of fitting Patria's NEMO 120mm remotely-operated turreted mortar to their Stryker fleet (which are very similar to NZ Army LAVs). Seeing as NZ has perhaps 30 LAV3 vehicles in excess of its current requirement (link) and supposedly up for sale (but seemingly unlikely to find a buyer), would re-fitting some as self-propelled mortars be a clever idea? The armour on the LAV (14.5mm-proof on the front, 7.62mm on the sides) would seem adequate for such a role (where shell fragments from counter-battery fire would be a major threat). The weakness of the LAV (no V-shaped hull) wouldn't be as big a problem in a mortar carrier as it is in a troop carrier (the mortar variant should be further back behind the front line)

I figure you would perhaps want 1 (or maybe 2) other LAVs converted to serve as ammo carriers for every mortar-equipped variant. Preferably those may be able to keep the 25mm turret (to save on conversion cost) and you could just repurpose the troop compartment for 120mm ammo carriage. Maybe you may need a fire-direction-centre vehicle as a battery leader as well. So, you could make a fair dent in those surplus vehicles fairly quickly by fielding a battery or two. NZ would gain a motorized fire support capability that could keep up with its motorized infantry, with commonality in vehicle logistics.

In a similar vein - as the Army's 81mm mortars are now an Artillery asset - would replacement of the 81mm with a towed 120mm then also be feasible. The 81mm is heavy enough to be not really man-portable (you are reliant on vehicles to provide enough ammunition in my view), so going to 120mm doesn't make things too much worse logistics-wise, but gives the opportunity to share a common calibre for your motorized and towed artillery. A 120mm these days could be a feasible replacement for a 105mm howitzer as well (especially for helicopter lift).
----------
Finally, the report on the Operation Burnham SAS incident in Afghanistan is now out (link). Seems we weren't getting the whole truth after all from the top brass or the politicians (which seems to be a common trend these days). Not surprised at all. Accountability - what's that?
 

RegR

Well-Known Member
Another artillery option could be to follow the Americans. They are currently investigating (link) the feasibility of fitting Patria's NEMO 120mm remotely-operated turreted mortar to their Stryker fleet (which are very similar to NZ Army LAVs). Seeing as NZ has perhaps 30 LAV3 vehicles in excess of its current requirement (link) and supposedly up for sale (but seemingly unlikely to find a buyer), would re-fitting some as self-propelled mortars be a clever idea? The armour on the LAV (14.5mm-proof on the front, 7.62mm on the sides) would seem adequate for such a role (where shell fragments from counter-battery fire would be a major threat). The weakness of the LAV (no V-shaped hull) wouldn't be as big a problem in a mortar carrier as it is in a troop carrier (the mortar variant should be further back behind the front line)

I figure you would perhaps want 1 (or maybe 2) other LAVs converted to serve as ammo carriers for every mortar-equipped variant. Preferably those may be able to keep the 25mm turret (to save on conversion cost) and you could just repurpose the troop compartment for 120mm ammo carriage. Maybe you may need a fire-direction-centre vehicle as a battery leader as well. So, you could make a fair dent in those surplus vehicles fairly quickly by fielding a battery or two. NZ would gain a motorized fire support capability that could keep up with its motorized infantry, with commonality in vehicle logistics.

In a similar vein - as the Army's 81mm mortars are now an Artillery asset - would replacement of the 81mm with a towed 120mm then also be feasible. The 81mm is heavy enough to be not really man-portable (you are reliant on vehicles to provide enough ammunition in my view), so going to 120mm doesn't make things too much worse logistics-wise, but gives the opportunity to share a common calibre for your motorized and towed artillery. A 120mm these days could be a feasible replacement for a 105mm howitzer as well (especially for helicopter lift).
----------
Finally, the report on the Operation Burnham SAS incident in Afghanistan is now out (link). Seems we weren't getting the whole truth after all from the top brass or the politicians (which seems to be a common trend these days). Not surprised at all. Accountability - what's that?
You would think they would have converted 4 or so of the spares into 81mm carriers already and go from there as lead in to eventual bigger and better options considering it is kinda obvious countries are not exactly chomping at the bit for 30 NZLAV. Mortar carriers are not new to NZ so this should have been one of the earlier considerations/conversions/complements tbh alongside the obvious HQs, ambos etc, guess the idea of flicking a bulk lot of LAV seemed more attractive.
 

chis73

Active Member

Saw a short item on the TV news yesterday - NZDF playing around with a NZ-built electric off-road bike. Can't find the videa link, but the info is above. For reasons of range, I suspect it might be more at home tootling around a base than on operations.

Very glad to see this (looks awesome in green!). I think the UBCO bike would be a great addition to the NZDF. These are already being used in NZ by Posties and Pizza delivery outfits. Biggest plus - it's nearly silent. Range is probably 100km or so, so I figure it would be best used as a recon vehicle carried strapped to a larger recon vehicle. That gives it something to be charged from, and allows your recon people to dismount and get to places to observe from (like the top of that hill) much quicker. Not to mention as a messenger vehicle to use if your main ride conks out (or gets hit) and you need to get the information back as quickly as possible.

Can't see it being used with dismounted infantry all that much (ala Swiss Bicycle Infantry - google them (link)! They even had MG & Panzerfaust carrier bikes). Insufficient range / battery recharge capability in the field. Useful as a base vehicle as you note (suitable for RNZAF too?)

Good work NZDF Battle Labs.
 

Gibbo

Active Member
NZ Army getting 2(?) 'Beach Recovery Vehicles' based on the Cat 555D log skidder...for a bunch of photos check out facebook page for 'Total Sheetmetals Limited' (March 7th posting) for some excellent photos.
 
Top