New Zealand Army

[chis73]

Can anyone explain how the number 81 was derived in the video? I thought there were only 60 armoured Pinz (37 Weapon carriers, 23 C2 variants).

If it is the armoured variants that they are talking about I would suggest that repairing those variants is not worthwhile (seeing as they are seriously underpowered & have completely inadequate mine/IED protection to ever be put into real operational use). Better to bin them now and go buy something more suitable. There are many options out there to choose from. One I quite like is the one the Irish Army picked - BAE's RG32 Outrider (known as the LTAV in Irish service). A nice 4-5 seater 4x4 with reasonable mine protection. Fairly heavy at 9.5 tonnes though. Would have been quite nice to have for Afghanistan.

Chis73

 

[Cadredave]

Can anyone explain how the number 81 was derived in the video? I thought there were only 60 armoured Pinz (37 Weapon carriers, 23 C2 variants).

If it is the armoured variants that they are talking about I would suggest that repairing those variants is not worthwhile (seeing as they are seriously underpowered & have completely inadequate mine/IED protection to ever be put into real operational use). Better to bin them now and go buy something more suitable. There are many options out there to choose from. One I quite like is the one the Irish Army picked - BAE's RG32 Outrider (known as the LTAV in Irish service). A nice 4-5 seater 4x4 with reasonable mine protection. Fairly heavy at 9.5 tonnes though. Would have been quite nice to have for Afghanistan.

Chis73

Your numbers are correct Chris and they are only talking about the Armoured Lov variants, its our news organisations M.S.U again to provide there slant to the story. Army known for a while that the Armoured Pinz is a lemon but the point is the whole fleet is vulnerable to mines/IED's and we don't have the money to replace the whole or even part of the fleet.

CD

 

[MrConservative]

Your numbers are correct Chris and they are only talking about the Armoured Lov variants, its our news organisations M.S.U again to provide there slant to the story. Army known for a while that the Armoured Pinz is a lemon but the point is the whole fleet is vulnerable to mines/IED's and we don't have the money to replace the whole or even part of the fleet.

CD

Dave. You would be better placed to answer this than anyone else - With respect to our whole "Armoured Warfare" capability - What has to be done to put it right? Yes I know money but if we park that thorny issue for a moment - what is the appropriate force structure and capability elements that we require post 2020 and the networked army and the JATF? How SHOULD it be done?

Cheers MrC

 

[t68]

Dave. You would be better placed to answer this than anyone else - With respect to our whole "Armoured Warfare" capability - What has to be done to put it right? Yes I know money but if we park that thorny issue for a moment - what is the appropriate force structure and capability elements that we require post 2020 and the networked army and the JATF? How SHOULD it be done?

Cheers MrC

Not sure if it’s the right direction for NZ but in my mind you have the basic building blocks with NZLAV. The two current light Infantry Regiments should move to motorized infantry with the Bushmaster Protected Mobility Vehicle and possibly if the ADF go with the Hawkei PMV these may be suitable as replacements for armoured pinz as it also comes in a ute variant that can move a tricon container (one-third ISO 20 ft)

As noted before the building blocks are there with NZLAV and the Queen Alexandra's Mounted Rifles (QAMR), Waikato Mounted Rifles should de-link with QAMR and 3 Squadron strength Auckland Mounted Rifles Regiment raised again with either the Singapore Bionix II or the Swedish CB-90.

Then this comes down to Artillery, RNZA should retire the L119 and replace it with the M777A2 for commonality with RAA and if Australia ever gets its act together in regards to an SPG and have an additional Battery of Artillery under Armour
.
But all that comes down to money and having the best of both worlds in wheeled and tracked IFV and all your combat weight under Armour protection.

 

[kiwi in exile]

I thought I had read/heard that the entire Pinz fleet had acknowledged parts/reliability issues for a while. I'm not a fan after learning of their vulnerabilty to IEDs, and the Brits stopped using them in Afghanistan.

Coleman's quote in the linked TVNZ piece:
"And, you know, I trust Defence that they wouldn't put our people in a situation where the equipment wasn't up to the job they require them to do." Makes me think of the three nz service personel who died in Afghanistan and the whole debate about 2nd hand cast off Humvees not being the right tool for the job.

If we managed to sell off 20 or so LAVs, that would generate funds to purchase a small fleet of vehicles (MRAPs, Bushmasters, ST Kinetics Bronco) that would improve JATF capability. What would be the right mix of vehicles for the NZDF into the future. Does NZDF have a plan regarding this? There is nothing in the docs I have seen. The lack of a clear plan going forward is a bit concerning, might lead to the wrong purchasing decisions.

My two cents: a mix of wheeled and tracked; smaller fleets (IE don't by 105 armoured vehicle, how many are we ever likely to deploy), some basic amphib capability, RWS (cheaper and lighter than turrets). We also need a plan regarding indirect fire support beyond 105mm.

 

[t68]

I thought I had read/heard that the entire Pinz fleet had acknowledged parts/reliability issues for a while. I'm not a fan after learning of their vulnerabilty to IEDs, and the Brits stopped using them in Afghanistan.

Coleman's quote in the linked TVNZ piece:
"And, you know, I trust Defence that they wouldn't put our people in a situation where the equipment wasn't up to the job they require them to do." Makes me think of the three nz service personel who died in Afghanistan and the whole debate about 2nd hand cast off Humvees not being the right tool for the job.

If we managed to sell off 20 or so LAVs, that would generate funds to purchase a small fleet of vehicles (MRAPs, Bushmasters, ST Kinetics Bronco) that would improve JATF capability. What would be the right mix of vehicles for the NZDF into the future. Does NZDF have a plan regarding this? There is nothing in the docs I have seen. The lack of a clear plan going forward is a bit concerning, might lead to the wrong purchasing decisions.

My two cents: a mix of wheeled and tracked; smaller fleets (IE don't by 105 armoured vehicle, how many are we ever likely to deploy), some basic amphib capability, RWS (cheaper and lighter than turrets). We also need a plan regarding indirect fire support beyond 105mm.

The capability doesn’t come down to what you would deploy initially; it’s what can be sustained over the long term, the way its set at the moment you can deploy anywhere from troop to Squadron strength and sustain many rotations.

No matter if your trade your NZLAV for Bushmaster if you do not get them in numbers they will only be a training allotment

 

[RegR]

Can anyone explain how the number 81 was derived in the video? I thought there were only 60 armoured Pinz (37 Weapon carriers, 23 C2 variants).

If it is the armoured variants that they are talking about I would suggest that repairing those variants is not worthwhile (seeing as they are seriously underpowered & have completely inadequate mine/IED protection to ever be put into real operational use). Better to bin them now and go buy something more suitable. There are many options out there to choose from. One I quite like is the one the Irish Army picked - BAE's RG32 Outrider (known as the LTAV in Irish service). A nice 4-5 seater 4x4 with reasonable mine protection. Fairly heavy at 9.5 tonnes though. Would have been quite nice to have for Afghanistan.

Chis73

The heavier pinnys apart from the GP/GS versions (other than the obvious armoured variants) are the 13 SOVs(SF) and 8 ambulances(box body) so I think these are included in the 81. The armoured problems have been known from early on and have been discussed on here before, same drivetrain, axles and engine as their lighter general softskin stablemates therefore not a big surprise there was going to be issues as they were already at a weight disadvantage from stock before any kits even added and therefore have to labour more to get the same result resulting in greater wear and tear quicker.

So apart from their unsuitability to mitigate modern IED threats or lack of power and under carriage robustness they are pretty much limited to certain lower risk ops such as 'Timor' vs likely higher risk such as 'Afghan' which pretty much dictates their deployment/employment, not ideal when we need options.

The general version is good at what it does and the other issues such as trans (NZ went auto over usual manual causing overheating) has been addressed through the manufacturer, who also incidently stopped making this model not long after our purchase (which will undoubtedly cause a parts supply problem eventually if not already).

I say sell off the armoured versions (would make good police riot control vehicle, AOS, lower level peace keeping etc) to whoever routinely needs 'up-armour' but not nesscessarily 'under-armour' and start armoured requirements fresh now we have lessons learnt to gauge off.

Give the SOVs to recon elements and SAS go supacat/jackell(proven, commonality in SF circles), supplement pinz ambos(NZ based) with bushmaster ambos (as well as other spt roles) and replace armoured weapons carriers with panther (IVECO). Also trade excess NZLAV with more suitable stryker variants (mortar, eng, C+C etc) for better operational use and trade dispertion. This will not only provide better suited purpose built platforms but also provide us with a better mix to cover more varying scenarios when considerations such as size, weight limitations, roles, intensity etc come into play as in this game one size definitely does not fit all.

 

[ngatimozart]

I thought I had read/heard that the entire Pinz fleet had acknowledged parts/reliability issues for a while. I'm not a fan after learning of their vulnerabilty to IEDs, and the Brits stopped using them in Afghanistan.

Coleman's quote in the linked TVNZ piece:
"And, you know, I trust Defence that they wouldn't put our people in a situation where the equipment wasn't up to the job they require them to do." Makes me think of the three nz service personel who died in Afghanistan and the whole debate about 2nd hand cast off Humvees not being the right tool for the job.

And the leased Toyota vans that the Bamiyan PRT had to use. That really stuck in my craw and still does. Our present GG and the then Labour Govt should be hung drawn and quartered for sending our people into harms way in Toyota Hiace vans - not proper military vehicles. That is unforgivable. They were in charge the and fully responsible.

If we managed to sell off 20 or so LAVs, that would generate funds to purchase a small fleet of vehicles (MRAPs, Bushmasters, ST Kinetics Bronco) that would improve JATF capability. What would be the right mix of vehicles for the NZDF into the future. Does NZDF have a plan regarding this? There is nothing in the docs I have seen. The lack of a clear plan going forward is a bit concerning, might lead to the wrong purchasing decisions.

My two cents: a mix of wheeled and tracked; smaller fleets (IE don't by 105 armoured vehicle, how many are we ever likely to deploy), some basic amphib capability, RWS (cheaper and lighter than turrets). We also need a plan regarding indirect fire support beyond 105mm.

There is nothing wrong with the Pinzgauers per se. It is when you modify them to do something outside what they are designed for that can create problems. What you suggest selling of LAVs would create long term issues reducing capability when in fact we should be increasing it, not decreasing. Also we need to remember that what we did in Afghan was only one particular mission and not the overall mission requirements of the Army. If anything NZDF is hampered by the politicisation of Defence by the pollies and the lack of resourcing given to Defence by successive governments, since 1990. Vote: Defence has gone from 2% GDP and bipartisan agreement on Defence since 1945 to 1% - 1.3%GDP and politicisation since 1990. Like I said elsewhere, between 1990 and 1994, 23% of funding was stripped from Vote: Defence and has never been replaced. This is why we have the situation we are in now. Hence attempting to sheet home blame on NZDF for others errors is wrong.

 

[Cadredave]

Dave. You would be better placed to answer this than anyone else - With respect to our whole "Armoured Warfare" capability - What has to be done to put it right?

Phase one has already been implemented with the Current Force structure in place with 1 Bde and the forming of QAMR as the third manoeuvre Unit with the sole responsibility of conducting mounted ops either by itself or as part of a coalition.

Hand in hand with this Mounted wing of the Combat School has a truly AFV focus with its own CI (Chief Instructor) who works to CO QAMR developing SLT (Senior Leadership team) direction in regards to the JTF & Ops in the Pacific & Asian AOR.

These small steps from my POV were badly needed to arrest some of the institutional knowledge being lost due to the compromises being made during the experiment of 1 Cav between ironside & foxhound.

What happens beyond that I cant answer even the short time I have left Regular Force the future capability has moved on contact with my friends in both units has lapsed for obvious reasons even though im now a reserve.

Yes I know money but if we park that thorny issue for a moment - what is the appropriate force structure and capability elements that we require post 2020 and the networked army and the JATF? How SHOULD it be done?
Cheers MrC

IMHO it has been my belief that we should have gone with tracks due to the better mobility etc and we should tie in with our near neighbours with a replacement AFV both from doctrinal, logistical & training requirements. Im currently happy with the new force structure in place as it gives pretty clear direction for 1 Bde, both the dismounted and mounted units are bedding down well with the new direction and are working hard to provide the meat that the vision of Force 2035 provides. All things Armoured are now back with the Unit that it belongs to QAMR there is no longer any compromise in how QAMR is to be used.

Not sure if it answered your question MrC..

Regards Dave

 

[ngatimozart]

Then this comes down to Artillery, RNZA should retire the L119 and replace it with the M777A2 for commonality with RAA and if Australia ever gets its act together in regards to an SPG and have an additional Battery of Artillery under Armour
.
But all that comes down to money and having the best of both worlds in wheeled and tracked IFV and all your combat weight under Armour protection.

The Army now is structured around a Light infantry force and I wonder if the M777 is the ideal solution. Maybe to much bang. The 155mm round causes 3 times the damage and casualties than the 105mm round, however for effects and suppression the 105mm is more efficient than the 155mm. Generally twice the 105mm ammo can be carted than 155m ammo but if the packaging is stripped from the 105mm ammo then the ration of ammo carried increases in favour of the 105mm. This is quite an interesting post over at Think Defence.

The big question for me is whether of not the M777A2 could be lifted by our NH90s. According to Army Technology it has a production weight of 3,745kg which is inside the url[=http://www.agustawestland.com/product/nh90-0]NH90s usable load envelope[/url] of 4200kg so in theory yes. With regard to a 155mm SPG, if ever the NZDF were to go down that track maybe the PzH 2000. The SPGs do give a far better rate of fire than a towed gun, at least 5 times with an automatic loader.

 

[MrConservative]

Phase one has already been implemented with the Current Force structure in place with 1 Bde and the forming of QAMR as the third manoeuvre Unit with the sole responsibility of conducting mounted ops either by itself or as part of a coalition.

Hand in hand with this Mounted wing of the Combat School has a truly AFV focus with its own CI (Chief Instructor) who works to CO QAMR developing SLT (Senior Leadership team) direction in regards to the JTF & Ops in the Pacific & Asian AOR.

These small steps from my POV were badly needed to arrest some of the institutional knowledge being lost due to the compromises being made during the experiment of 1 Cav between ironside & foxhound.

What happens beyond that I cant answer even the short time I have left Regular Force the future capability has moved on contact with my friends in both units has lapsed for obvious reasons even though im now a reserve.


IMHO it has been my belief that we should have gone with tracks due to the better mobility etc and we should tie in with our near neighbours with a replacement AFV both from doctrinal, logistical & training requirements. Im currently happy with the new force structure in place as it gives pretty clear direction for 1 Bde, both the dismounted and mounted units are bedding down well with the new direction and are working hard to provide the meat that the vision of Force 2035 provides. All things Armoured are now back with the Unit that it belongs to QAMR there is no longer any compromise in how QAMR is to be used.

Not sure if it answered your question MrC..

Regards Dave

Thanks for those comments Dave.

Tracked? That is the elephant still in the room.

I have not been able to establish which of the arnoured Pinny variants are having the most trouble. Is it the C2 or the Carrier? Or both?

 

[MrConservative]

And the leased Toyota vans that the Bamiyan PRT had to use. That really stuck in my craw and still does. Our present GG and the then Labour Govt should be hung drawn and quartered for sending our people into harms way in Toyota Hiace vans - not proper military vehicles. That is unforgivable. They were in charge the and fully responsible.
.

The present GG (who I very much admire and respect) in his then role acted professionally. It was the Land Component Commanders decision at the time to make as an operational level and he would of course be making decsions based on what the SNO on the spot felt. It was not the job of the CDF to second guess what the SNO and LCC felt was in there view correct. So I think that you are being too harsh on Jerry about that NG. Frankly Jerry was the glue that kept the NZDF from been completely stuffed from the civilian amateurs in charge.

 

[kiwi in exile]

With regard to a 155mm SPG, if ever the NZDF were to go down that track maybe the PzH 2000. The SPGs do give a far better rate of fire than a towed gun, at least 5 times with an automatic loader.

rather than a big, heavy Pzh2000, if we were to get some form of SPG, why not go for a (MAN) truck mounted version, or if feasable, MGS type thing fitted to a LAV/LAV replacement. Simpler logistically.

 

[ngatimozart]

rather than a big, heavy Pzh2000, if we were to get some form of SPG, why not go for a (MAN) truck mounted version, or if feasable, MGS type thing fitted to a LAV/LAV replacement. Simpler logistically.

Because a truck mounted gun or howitzer would be limited to roads. A tracked 155mm is not and a turreted one can traverse which again on a truck they would have issues. A LAV type vehicle wouldn't take a 155mm gun or howitzer. 105mm is about the max and it is not turreted so to traverse the gun you have to move the whole vehicle. It's limitations that create problems in the field.

 

[Cadredave]

Thanks for those comments Dave.

Tracked? That is the elephant still in the room.

I have not been able to establish which of the arnoured Pinny variants are having the most trouble. Is it the C2 or the Carrier? Or both?

Both variants of Pinny plus the ambo & apparently the SOV all have axial problems due to weight.

 

[Gracie1234]

Since we are talking artillery have you guys seen this?
Combat Systems - FLCS Projects - Future Indirect Fire Capability - FIFC - Artillery Projects - CASR Background - LAV III-based 105mm Systems - Future Vehicles - FIFS - Future Indirect Fire System - Government Military Sales - Canadian Forces - Depart
It is something i remember seeing on a Canadian site.

 

[RegR]

Thanks for those comments Dave.

Tracked? That is the elephant still in the room.

I have not been able to establish which of the arnoured Pinny variants are having the most trouble. Is it the C2 or the Carrier? Or both?

The armoured C2 and weapons carrier are essentially the same vehicle bar the gunners station in the roof as is their soft skin counterparts. It's all in that extra weight where the issues lie but anythings bound to break if you add above and beyond recommended limits and do not counter effectively or use 'softly'.

 

[RegR]

Because a truck mounted gun or howitzer would be limited to roads. A tracked 155mm is not and a turreted one can traverse which again on a truck they would have issues. A LAV type vehicle wouldn't take a 155mm gun or howitzer. 105mm is about the max and it is not turreted so to traverse the gun you have to move the whole vehicle. It's limitations that create problems in the field.

The same reasons/arguments we went wheeled vs tracks for APC/LAV would no doubt come into play regarding SP guns. Personally I don't see them happening and in fact I'm waiting for the next defence cull and govt brain bleed when some genius with an office view asks "When was the last time we actually used artillery in combat?", pray our economy gets over this re-curring virus it seems to have.......

 

[MrConservative]

The armoured C2 and weapons carrier are essentially the same vehicle bar the gunners station in the roof as is their soft skin counterparts. It's all in that extra weight where the issues lie but anythings bound to break if you add above and beyond recommended limits and do not counter effectively or use 'softly'.

Thanks for the clarification RegR. I was under a "self assumed" assumption (though logical due to its greater weight and likely operational environment) that the Carrier version at least had a heavy duty undercarriage due to the extra weight. Sadly not it seems.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

Upgrades to Nz Lav

Phase one has already been implemented with the Current Force structure in place with 1 Bde and the forming of QAMR as the third manoeuvre Unit with the sole responsibility of conducting mounted ops either by itself or as part of a coalition.

Hand in hand with this Mounted wing of the Combat School has a truly AFV focus with its own CI (Chief Instructor) who works to CO QAMR developing SLT (Senior Leadership team) direction in regards to the JTF & Ops in the Pacific & Asian AOR.

These small steps from my POV were badly needed to arrest some of the institutional knowledge being lost due to the compromises being made during the experiment of 1 Cav between ironside & foxhound.

What happens beyond that I cant answer even the short time I have left Regular Force the future capability has moved on contact with my friends in both units has lapsed for obvious reasons even though im now a reserve.


IMHO it has been my belief that we should have gone with tracks due to the better mobility etc and we should tie in with our near neighbours with a replacement AFV both from doctrinal, logistical & training requirements. Im currently happy with the new force structure in place as it gives pretty clear direction for 1 Bde, both the dismounted and mounted units are bedding down well with the new direction and are working hard to provide the meat that the vision of Force 2035 provides. All things Armoured are now back with the Unit that it belongs to QAMR there is no longer any compromise in how QAMR is to be used.

Not sure if it answered your question MrC..

Regards Dave

Seeing that Canada has undergone upgrades to their Lav 3 vehicles in protection and horsepower ect in recent yrs, does QAMR have any similar plans in the near future? Or has the Lav been been exempt from any problems the armour the Canadain Army have had with theirs, or the issues of our pinzguars?