New Zealand Army

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff 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?
The MRZR D4 fleet rollout and the Tactical Mobility further tranche for the NZSAS is balancing that back up though.
 

Lucasnz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Plus if you looked at some of the Unimog's that were sold at Trentham a couple of years ago some had less then 10k on the clock, we were probably carrying to many vehicles, but I acknowledge its a balancing act.
 

RegR

Well-Known Member
The MRZR D4 fleet rollout and the Tactical Mobility further tranche for the NZSAS is balancing that back up though.
To a degree, the MRZRs are more upgrades to quads and MCs in their roles (light) not really a replacement for a 6x6 pinzgauer. A mitsi triton would be better in the full transport role and be more useful. Even the armoured replacements have dropped in overall numbers from 60 to 43 and SAS variants were over and above as they never had armoured pins in the first place although I do admit bushmasters will be far more effective and capable than their predecessors we also need to take into account the now added roles such as ambulance further diluting the numbers.
 

RegR

Well-Known Member
Plus if you looked at some of the Unimog's that were sold at Trentham a couple of years ago some had less then 10k on the clock, we were probably carrying to many vehicles, but I acknowledge its a balancing act.
Haha if they were anything like the rovers that was probably the second go around the clock or probably spent it's life shuttling troops and stores around the Waiouru training area. Military vehicles do not generally clock up anywhere near as many Ks as their commercial counterparts but that does not diminish the role or requirement ie 1 unimog cannot be doing 2 jobs in 3 places on 4 deployments so to speak. I remember when I was in we had the bare minimum of vehicles to do the job so anything like a breakdown or deployment really affected outputs noticeably and compromises would need to be made. The pool fleet concept MFU in Trentham has somewhat addressed this but then obviously if something big was going on then it was still a case of first in first served or paper scissors rank for priority.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Haha if they were anything like the rovers that was probably the second go around the clock or probably spent it's life shuttling troops and stores around the Waiouru training area. Military vehicles do not generally clock up anywhere near as many Ks as their commercial counterparts but that does not diminish the role or requirement ie 1 unimog cannot be doing 2 jobs in 3 places on 4 deployments so to speak. I remember when I was in we had the bare minimum of vehicles to do the job so anything like a breakdown or deployment really affected outputs noticeably and compromises would need to be made. The pool fleet concept MFU in Trentham has somewhat addressed this but then obviously if something big was going on then it was still a case of first in first served or paper scissors rank for priority.
I remember when I was in and it got to the point with the RLs, if they had to buy a new tyre for the vehicle they would write the RL off. I was at Def HQ when they had made the decision to buy the Unimogs and showed us the promotional film one arvo.
 

RegR

Well-Known Member
I remember when I was in and it got to the point with the RLs, if they had to buy a new tyre for the vehicle they would write the RL off. I was at Def HQ when they had made the decision to buy the Unimogs and showed us the promotional film one arvo.
Yea I think all the fleets get to that point near the end of their lives, usually because we keep them for so long that all they end up being good for is museum pieces haha. Rovers were not fixed once the BER threshold was met and just parked up to await their fate and we left the mogs in Timor on the last mission as it was not worth the time or effort to bring them home same as the rodeos from the first Timor.

Geez a unimog would have been like jumping into a spaceship back then compared to a RL and 170hp would have seemed like 1000 haha!
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
Quite a few of those old RL's ended up with a second life as yellow "Mountain Goats" with RAL taking skiers up the old Bruce Rd from the Chateau to the Whakapapa skifield. They must have done well over 30 winters after their NZ Army service.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Yea I think all the fleets get to that point near the end of their lives, usually because we keep them for so long that all they end up being good for is museum pieces haha. Rovers were not fixed once the BER threshold was met and just parked up to await their fate and we left the mogs in Timor on the last mission as it was not worth the time or effort to bring them home same as the rodeos from the first Timor.

Geez a unimog would have been like jumping into a spaceship back then compared to a RL and 170hp would have seemed like 1000 haha!
When I joined the RNZAF in 1974 they were still using Thames trucks that looked like they came from the WW2 era. They still had WW2 Queen Mary's as well. The No 4 Battle Dress uniforms were WW2 pattern and my dad said scratched much the same. He reckoned the one I had was probably in stores when he left in December 1945.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
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.
Boxer is turning out to be hideously expensive. Great capability no doubt, but Boxer CRV for Australia is more expensive than our LAND 400 Ph.3 vehicles are going to be…
 

Bob53

Active Member
Boxer is turning out to be hideously expensive. Great capability no doubt, but Boxer CRV for Australia is more expensive than our LAND 400 Ph.3 vehicles are going to be…
I know the mods don’t like short posts but really? Where did that info come from?
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I know the mods don’t like short posts but really? Where did that info come from?
LAND 400 - Phase 2 - 211 vehicles and supporting elements for $5.6b - $26.5m each.


LAND 400 - Phase 3 - ‘up to’ 450 vehicles, 17 maneuver support vehicles for $15b. $33m ‘each’. (Original project plan). No proof there I guess…

However the 2 phases of project are scoped vastly differently. Phase 3 includes options for armoured mortar systems, significant infrastructure including training ranges and vastly increased initial sustainment, spare parts, munitions and so forth that Phase 2 simply doesn’t have.

The overall cost is such, that Boxer is actually dearer…
 

danonz

New Member
Bit of topic and back to the current NZ LAV - from what I can tell it doesn't have any active / passive protection system- does anyone know if it will one be included in any of future upgrades. Seems almost reckless to deploy them with out one these days.

"Future upgrades for NZLAV will include upgraded mobility and payload/storage capacity; enhanced power generation and management; optimised ergonomics for crew and dismounts, and improved tactical utility and versatility through the provision of NZLAV variants. "
 

Shanesworld

Active Member
Just canvassing some opinions but say hypothetically-given the increasing tensions in the pacific would it be a good idea for nz to reduce its lav fleet by 20 or so? Hypothetically speaking?
 

Stuart M

New Member
Just canvassing some opinions but say hypothetically-given the increasing tensions in the pacific would it be a good idea for nz to reduce its lav fleet by 20 or so? Hypothetically speaking?
If we accept the premise that a nation's armed forces exist for warlike purposes, and that in war equipment is invariably destroyed or rendered unserviceable, and takes time to replace without warfare ceasing, what advantage is there in reducing stocks of equipment when war looks like erupting?

I am of the view that all of NZ's LAVs should be retained, even if some are 'mothballed', or better yet replaced at a minimum of one for one with better vehicles.
 

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
Just canvassing some opinions but say hypothetically-given the increasing tensions in the pacific would it be a good idea for nz to reduce its lav fleet by 20 or so? Hypothetically speaking?
Are you envisioning the status quo, with most of the (operational) LAV's still under the Armoured Corps (RNZAC)?
(And do we know whether 1st Battalion RNZIR at Linton still operate them)?

And what context are you envisaging?

Eg worse-case scenarios, like protecting Taiwan?? Or more likely under FPDA circumstances eg to booster Singapore and Malaysia's defences? If so, with these locations being awash with vast amounts of their own vastly superior firepower I doubt 3 NZ (LAV) squadrons (and infantry) would make much difference, plus our assets would probably be one of the coalition lowest-priorities for deployment (as coalition taskings would be occupied with many other priority demands, distance/time considerations, and maintaining attrition due to likely losses etc).

But history shows NZ's Armoured Corps fought in Europe and the Pacific in WW2, Korea (personnel embedded with UK tank regiments), then later using M113's assisted NATO efforts in Europe (Bosnia) in the 1990's and East Timor (UN), then deployed LAV's to Afghanistan .... so from that we can only but predict one day NZ's armoured assets will be in action again!

I think the question should be, what armoured force structure does NZ need? How will it be deployed (and where)? And will it be affordable, to be able to offer a credible capability?

And then there are other questions.

Planning wise, does the NZ Army need dedicated fire support vehicles again (with a greater caliber weaponry)?

In terms of the existing LAV's, why not store (eg) 1-2 dozen "surplus" vehicles in Queensland (or the Northern Territory) so that they are in-situ with ADF (and USMC) assets, for ease of joint deployments into the wider Indo-Pacific etc? (Presumably the NZ Army would have a small number of LAV maintainers based there to run and maintain the vehicles. Then fly additional specialist personnel when required for readying the vehicles for training exercises or operations etc).

Would NZ Army be better to advocate for a smaller number of LAV (wheeled) replacements for QAMR, so that funding could be directed to also obtain 1-2 dozen FSV's? Perhaps 2-3 dozen heavy MRAP vehicles etc? Additional Bushmasters? Is there a need for a small number (1-2 dozen) tracked APC/IFV vehicles so Army has options to deploy anywhere the government would expect it to (and like how the ADF have these options)?

And will NZ Army advocate for amphibious vehicles, perhaps 1-2 dozen (like the LARC-V replacements that the Australian Army are obtaining) for operations on HMNZS Canterbury currently, or the future LPH's? They could also be used for routine/HADR deployments, so would be a handy but relatively low cost acquisition.

I don't think this is primarily a RNZN project, apart from being jointly supported, it is primarily Army as they are the endusers, so they need to advocate for it ... like how they need to advocate for maritime troop helo capabilities for Canterbury/future LPH's (jointly with RNZAF/RNZN). But how realistic, as they seem to be focused on building up infantry numbers at the moment, not so much specialist or niche "high-tech" capabilities (which wouldn't be suprsing as there would likely be technical challenges to overcome, as in needing specialised personnel that just aren't there in great numbers, so perhaps "nice to have" unless time and govt funding was willing)? Then to add, any new capabilities needs logistical support, meaning additional resources, costs, time and effort etc. Unless the Govt re-prioritises defence (funding), expect to see only but incremental change!
 
Last edited:

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Are you envisioning the status quo, with most of the (operational) LAV's still under the Armoured Corps (RNZAC)?
(And do we know whether 1st Battalion RNZIR at Linton still operate them)?

And what context are you envisaging?

Eg worse-case scenarios, like protecting Taiwan?? Or more likely under FPDA circumstances eg to booster Singapore and Malaysia's defences? If so, with these locations being awash with vast amounts of their own vastly superior firepower I doubt 3 NZ (LAV) squadrons (and infantry) would make much difference, plus our assets would probably be one of the coalition lowest-priorities for deployment (as coalition taskings would be occupied with many other priority demands, distance/time considerations, and maintaining attrition due to likely losses etc).

But history shows NZ's Armoured Corps fought in Europe and the Pacific in WW2, Korea (personnel embedded with UK tank regiments), then later using M113's assisted NATO efforts in Europe (Bosnia) in the 1990's and East Timor (UN), then deployed LAV's to Afghanistan .... so from that we can only but predict one day NZ's armoured assets will be in action again!

I think the question should be, what armoured force structure does NZ need? How will it be deployed (and where)? And will it be affordable, to be able to offer a credible capability?

And then there are other questions.

Planning wise, does the NZ Army need dedicated fire support vehicles again (with a greater caliber weaponry)?

In terms of the existing LAV's, why not store (eg) 1-2 dozen "surplus" vehicles in Queensland (or the Northern Territory) so that they are in-situ with ADF (and USMC) assets, for ease of joint deployments into the wider Indo-Pacific etc? (Presumably the NZ Army would have a small number of LAV maintainers based there to run and maintain the vehicles. Then fly additional specialist personnel when required for readying the vehicles for training exercises or operations etc).

Would NZ Army be better to advocate for a smaller number of LAV (wheeled) replacements for QAMR, so that funding could be directed to also obtain 1-2 dozen FSV's? Perhaps 2-3 dozen heavy MRAP vehicles etc? Additional Bushmasters? Is there a need for a small number (1-2 dozen) tracked APC/IFV vehicles so Army has options to deploy anywhere the government would expect it to (and like how the ADF have these options)?

And will NZ Army advocate for amphibious vehicles, perhaps 1-2 dozen (like the LARC-V replacements that the Australian Army are obtaining) for operations on HMNZS Canterbury currently, or the future LPH's? They could also be used for routine/HADR deployments, so would be a handy but relatively low cost acquisition.

I don't think this is primarily a RNZN project, apart from being jointly supported, it is primarily Army as they are the endusers, so they need to advocate for it ... like how they need to advocate for maritime troop helo capabilities for Canterbury/future LPH's (jointly with RNZAF/RNZN). But how realistic, as they seem to be focused on building up infantry numbers at the moment, not so much specialist or niche "high-tech" capabilities (which wouldn't be suprsing as there would likely be technical challenges to overcome, as in needing specialised personnel that just aren't there in great numbers, so perhaps "nice to have" unless time and govt funding was willing)? Then to add, any new capabilities needs logistical support, meaning additional resources, costs, time and effort etc. Unless the Govt re-prioritises defence (funding), expect to see only but incremental change!
I actually think that the Army would be better to retain the LAVIII and use them for training etc., and acquire maybe the ACV as used by the USMC. The ACV will be for combat frontline vehicles with enough to equip to battalions of mounted infantry, plus ACV fitted out for VSHORAD and others as SPG. Yes it's expensive, but the money devoted to ACV will ensure that we are able to field a full battalion including air defence, SPG, logistics etc., at short notice, and the second battalion can be surged quickly. That would mean that the Army would have to have a strength of three regular battalions and three reserve battalions, plus the equivalent air defence, SPG, logistics etc., trained troops and capability to support the two front line battalions.

I believe that the army has 10 soldier platoons and the USMC cram 13 dismounts plus a crew of 2 into their ACV which it's not actually designed for. It's designed for 2 crew + 11 dismounts. But there should be enough room with 10 dismounts for platoon weapons such as extra LMG, couple of ATGM, MANPAD etc., that can be stowed in the vehicle and used when required. The vehicle crew should be included as part of the section so that they all stay together during the posting to the battalion. The vehicle crew can be specialists but they are key members of the section. The vehicle commander could be the section commander or assistant section commander. The whole section would live out of the vehicle.

It's just something to think about.
 

htbrst

Active Member
Speaking of which there are a few MRAP (or similar) vehicles parked on Rangitikei Street in Palmerston North at the moment ( not far from Linton Army base). These are definitely not the standand NZ army truck or LAVs as I could have identified those - 99% sure they are not bushmasters either.

I only caught a fleeting look passing through yesterday - presumably these are privately owned. They are stored in the same yard as the windfarm blades have been for the past few years immediately beside the road if anyone is local.
 

jbc388

New Member
Evening all I don't post very often but enjoy all the comments on here.

I read on facebook yesterday a message from the current Sergeant Major of the New Zealand Army | Facebook page regarding the state of manning at the moment!! copied from the SMA's post.


Holding the Line!
It's time to pause the comments on this thread, given some are veering way off track.
I appreciate the honest lines of feedback and debate that have come through. In the weeks ahead, I will triage the themes and our peoples' concerns with what we know from PULSE 21. Thanks, SMA
--------------------------------------------------------------
It's disappointing to acknowledge the increasing number of people leaving our Army. Regardless of the reasons, private or professional, we are a military capability comprised of people and their skills.
While a single soldier or officer can mean a loss of charachter, en mass its a big impact on competence and our collective ability as a Land and Special Force. As the December period closes, I ask you and your whanau to carefully consider any decision to release prematurely.
You are valued by Army and your team mates, and there is change in the wind. 2022 will be a revived year focussed on training, travel and regeneration. Hold the line. SMA


I also see by his answers to some comments that Pers are not being replaced so reading into that the minister of defence Who is always MIA I won't name him as he is useless along, with the current goverment are not even interested in the state of the overall defence force that now is actually lacking any type of "Force"


I cannot see that in the forseable future any extra ships, aircraft, other needed equipment and personal increases happening I think they are going to "run down" the defence force to below a minimum standard which with the state of world affairs is criminal!
One day in the near future the defence force is going to be called on for the following but not limited to the following another large earthquake in NZ, protecting merchant ships in the pacific and asia, patroling NZ's EEZ etc and having to do more tasks with less personal and assets and other equipment.
The Kaikoura earthquake is a prime example with the RNZAF's lack of rotary aircraft... we were lucky our international friends were here at the time.

I can recall a time when I was doing some recruiting at the Christchurch A and P show in I think 1997? election where the candidates for labour, national, act etc were there doing the rounds I asked those candidates at the time "what is your partys policy on New Zealands defence? the answer from that labour candidate was the following "we don't need a defence for combat anymore!"
This comment has stuck in my mind and now it is starting to ring true.

I now think the NZDF is just a shadow of it's former self and will never recover and at some point this will cost NZ lives!!
 
Top