New Zealand Army

Shanesworld

Active Member
Have to say I am getting sceptical of the 2nd Tranche of 15 being ordered whilst Mr Henare is in charge (well is he?)

BTW any surplus U1300L Ambo's would make for great Expedition Campers to take the rod and rifle for a few days sport in the backcountry! :)
1300s were notoriously underpowered. But if your not in a rush still make an amazing camper once you got to where your going. 5 or 6 already laid up in Trentham.
 

Shanesworld

Active Member
Industry engagement starts 2024, with RFI in 2025 and IOC in 2033. Boxer new build or LAV-6 upgrade would be my bet with the Bookies.
Spoke to some canadians when they were over. They werent fans of the 6 upgrade. Turret speed increase but fineness was lost and on road and off road comfort deteriorated. But they loved the bms
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
One would have to figure out a way to put in a big block Chev ZZ 572ci 720hp crate motor. That would solve the lack of grunt issue. :D
Used to love big block Chev engines before gas hit $1.00 per litre (it is now $1.35 in Toronto). For auto use, still sort of viable. Marinas charge close to $2.00 and high octane blends reach $3.00. Why anyone would choose monster outboard engines over diesel stern drive or IPS for boats amazes me.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
One would have to figure out a way to put in a big block Chev ZZ 572ci 720hp crate motor. That would solve the lack of grunt issue. :D
The paperwork to get it certified in order for it to to be road legal would be horrendous and expensive. You know what NZTA are like - a bureaucratic nightmare.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Used to love big block Chev engines before gas hit $1.00 per litre (it is now $1.35 in Toronto). For auto use, still sort of viable. Marinas charge close to $2.00 and high octane blends reach $3.00. Why anyone would choose monster outboard engines over diesel stern drive or IPS for boats amazes me.
Unleaded 91 octane is NZ$2.22 / lt at my local servo Christchurch at the moment. At other places across the city it can be up to about NZ$2.30+ / lt. Where Mr C is it's probably at least 15 to 20 cents / lt more expensive, but he's only about 150 - 200km from the refinery. I am probably 1200 km from the refinery. They also have a 10 cents / lt regional fuel tax there, which he's a real fan of. It's supposed to go towards regional transport initiatives such as reducing congestion in Auckland. The muppets in government in Wellington decided to spend NZ$700 million on building a bicycle bridge over the Auckland harbour next to the Auckland Harbour Bridge. The rest of the country had been volunteered to pay for it. Go figure.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Auckland and Vancouver seem to have a lot in common. Haven’t been to Vancouver since COVID but Vancouver prices were 15 cents higher than up in the lower Fraser valley, same phony excuse. Probably higher now.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Unleaded 91 octane is NZ$2.22 / lt at my local servo Christchurch at the moment. At other places across the city it can be up to about NZ$2.30+ / lt. Where Mr C is it's probably at least 15 to 20 cents / lt more expensive, but he's only about 150 - 200km from the refinery. I am probably 1200 km from the refinery. They also have a 10 cents / lt regional fuel tax there, which he's a real fan of. It's supposed to go towards regional transport initiatives such as reducing congestion in Auckland. The muppets in government in Wellington decided to spend NZ$700 million on building a bicycle bridge over the Auckland harbour next to the Auckland Harbour Bridge. The rest of the country had been volunteered to pay for it. Go figure.
I suppose I will get smacked down for being unhappy that 87-octane petrol available near me has now risen to the equivalent price of NZD$1.12/ltr once conversions for currency and units of measure are accounted for, or USD$2.89/gal. I do miss the prices I was paying between April and June of last year, when the regular price had dropped down to USD$1.24/gal for 87-octane at regular (non-discount) petrol stations. For those Kiwis who are interested in maths, when was the last time you paid NZD$0.48/ltr for petrol?
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
I suppose I will get smacked down for being unhappy that 87-octane petrol available near me has now risen to the equivalent price of NZD$1.12/ltr once conversions for currency and units of measure are accounted for, or USD$2.89/gal. I do miss the prices I was paying between April and June of last year, when the regular price had dropped down to USD$1.24/gal for 87-octane at regular (non-discount) petrol stations. For those Kiwis who are interested in maths, when was the last time you paid NZD$0.48/ltr for petrol?
Yes I recall the huge drop in pricing in April 2020 here, down to 65 cents per litre, still considerably higher than the US April 2020 bottom though.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Yes I recall the huge drop in pricing in April 2020 here, down to 65 cents per litre, still considerably higher than the US April 2020 bottom though.
On the flip side though, I live near a portion of the Colonial Pipeline, and there is a fuel terminal in the area which I believe is used to resupply petrol stations in the region. When the pipeline was hacked back in early May, the price of fuel quickly shot up to over USD$3/gal for regular fuel, when it was even available which it often was not at least for a few weeks. I am trying to remember how much of a price increase it was, but I would guess that it was a 30% to 40% increase before emergency price controls were imposed. Since then there have been a few days were the day to day price can change by nearly 10% in a day.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
On the flip side though, I live near a portion of the Colonial Pipeline, and there is a fuel terminal in the area which I believe is used to resupply petrol stations in the region. When the pipeline was hacked back in early May, the price of fuel quickly shot up to over USD$3/gal for regular fuel, when it was even available which it often was not at least for a few weeks. I am trying to remember how much of a price increase it was, but I would guess that it was a 30% to 40% increase before emergency price controls were imposed. Since then there have been a few days were the day to day price can change by nearly 10% in a day.
Just one further OT comment on gas. I believe there is considerable pressure to decommission the pipeline that runs across the Mackinac strait which would likely result in higher Canadian gas prices.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I suppose I will get smacked down for being unhappy that 87-octane petrol available near me has now risen to the equivalent price of NZD$1.12/ltr once conversions for currency and units of measure are accounted for, or USD$2.89/gal. I do miss the prices I was paying between April and June of last year, when the regular price had dropped down to USD$1.24/gal for 87-octane at regular (non-discount) petrol stations. For those Kiwis who are interested in maths, when was the last time you paid NZD$0.48/ltr for petrol?
A significant amount of our fuel cost is comprised of taxes, something like 60% I think. We have a situation where we pay a tax on taxes. We pay GST on the price at the pump which includes all government taxes and levies.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Same here in the UK. The treasury gives money to the Ministry of Defence, which pays VAT on most of what it buys, which goes straight back to the treasury.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Industry engagement starts 2024, with RFI in 2025 and IOC in 2033. Boxer new build or LAV-6 upgrade would be my bet with the Bookies.
If I would chuck my 1 cents worth in, the ACV as used by the USMC could be a possibility. Probably cheaper than the Boxer and capable of transporting a complete section in a single vehicle.
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
If I would chuck my 1 cents worth in, the ACV as used by the USMC could be a possibility. Probably cheaper than the Boxer and capable of transporting a complete section in a single vehicle.
Isn't it having a few issues though? Cramped, ingress-egress tricky, reliability so-so?
 

RegR

Well-Known Member
A few more GATS projects signing off and coming online in the next couple of years for NZDF fireys, 11 volvo RFAs for the in service fire pods, 2 Oshkosh fire tenders to replace the remaining Woodbourne trucks and 6 new type 3s for army to replace the old Scanias. Some more decent kit for the guys to do their jobs finally.
 

OldTex

Active Member
I will have to check. I thought that was the old one.
A report on the DOT&E testing of the ACV 1.1 mentions the following:

"The ACV threshold requirement for quantity of personnel carried is 3 crewmen and 10 embarked infantry with full combat loads, including 2 days of supply and combat essential equipment. The ACV accommodated 3 crew and 13 embarked infantry, but accommodations were cramped, which made it difficult for infantry to egress from the vehicle.", and

"Infantry troop commanders had difficulty moving between the hatch and their seat. Aligning the hatch with the seat could allow the commanders to stand up with their heads out of the hatch, but then drop down inside the vehicle to operate the troop commander’s video display screen, talk to their marines, and prevent exposure to incoming fire."

This suggests that, IMHO, the interior was designed to meet the requirement (3+10) but was tested with the AAV extant manning (3+13), hence the difficulty with egress (and presumably ingress) which is not good on a 2 way firing range.

Perhaps the biggest issue with the ACV 1.1, under testing at the time was "during the OA (operational evaluation/assessment), the BAE vehicles demonstrated an MTBOMF of 24.9 hours (50 OMFs during 1,242.6 hours of mission time), which was less than the 58-hour MTBOMF growth curve point estimate. The RWS, which is government-furnished equipment, was the source of the largest number of OMFs (operational mission failures)".
 

RegR

Well-Known Member
A report on the DOT&E testing of the ACV 1.1 mentions the following:

"The ACV threshold requirement for quantity of personnel carried is 3 crewmen and 10 embarked infantry with full combat loads, including 2 days of supply and combat essential equipment. The ACV accommodated 3 crew and 13 embarked infantry, but accommodations were cramped, which made it difficult for infantry to egress from the vehicle.", and

"Infantry troop commanders had difficulty moving between the hatch and their seat. Aligning the hatch with the seat could allow the commanders to stand up with their heads out of the hatch, but then drop down inside the vehicle to operate the troop commander’s video display screen, talk to their marines, and prevent exposure to incoming fire."

This suggests that, IMHO, the interior was designed to meet the requirement (3+10) but was tested with the AAV extant manning (3+13), hence the difficulty with egress (and presumably ingress) which is not good on a 2 way firing range.

Perhaps the biggest issue with the ACV 1.1, under testing at the time was "during the OA (operational evaluation/assessment), the BAE vehicles demonstrated an MTBOMF of 24.9 hours (50 OMFs during 1,242.6 hours of mission time), which was less than the 58-hour MTBOMF growth curve point estimate. The RWS, which is government-furnished equipment, was the source of the largest number of OMFs (operational mission failures)".
An obvious soloution would be to drop the 3 extra pers and make it less cramped? I'm sure even NZLAV does not generally embark the full 7 dismounts due to space constraints especially with full kit and has even changed from 4 LAV per troop concept to 6 to better accomodate a platoon more readily. I hear they have a few spares so a relatively easy fix in this regard.

It's abit like anything, what it says in the sales brochure does not always reflect on reality as generally those are written by the company vying to win the contract and are under optimal and predefined conditions and parameters usually not taking into account any operational requirements other than purely transport of X amount of pers to B place. It also looks much better on paper but I'm even sceptical when they quote the term "fully equipped soldier" when referencing capability these days never mind other factors such as your average sized kiwi soldier...
 

RegR

Well-Known Member
RFI out for the remaining pinzgauers replacement, 205 vehicles, 99 light and 106 medium, to replace the current fleet of 261. Seems the worrying trend of not replacing equipment, vehicles etc on at least a 1 for 1 basis continues. Seemingly strange concept for this particular capability considering the envisaged army expansion plans?

I would assume the g wagons in 4x4 and 6x6 versions would be a good bet as likely contenders.
 
Top