New Zealand Army

TheRedDwarf said:
Hello all.

'Australian and New Zealand defender magazine' appear to have evidence that would confirm our suspicions.

Follow the link, fifth item down. Behind a pay-wall, as you might expect, so might be a maliciously disguised press release.

On the off chance that a subscriber to the publication resides on this thread, perhaps they might care to furnish us with any details?

Regards,

Red.
Click to expand...

Yep... that seals it. Govt announcements suggest up to 43 in number...replacing the armoured Pinzgauer primarily. First Phase of Protected Mobility Project BeginsFirst Phase of Protected Mobility Project Begins
 
The acquisition of Bushmaster for use by units of the NZ Army provides an armoured vehicle that is once again able to be moved by C130 tactical aircraft if needed. The Bushmaster will allow a significant level of protection to soldiers and it is more than a match for anything in the SP when providing stabilization forces during times of unrest.

If the Bendigo line is closed and existing hulls are acquired from OZ army stocks delivery could happen quickly. What is the likely destination for these? Will both Burnham and Linton based units get these or will they be concentrated at one base to minimise support costs?

With casualty evacuation variants noted in the official release what would the likely number of ambulances be? No more than 4 I would guess. Still a useful resource to aid the wounded with dedicated advanced life support capabilities.

With other nations buying new build GDLS LAVs I find it odd that there have been no takers for the parked up NZLAVs? Are they still being actively marketed?
 
Novascotiaboy said:
The acquisition of Bushmaster for use by units of the NZ Army provides an armoured vehicle that is once again able to be moved by C130 tactical aircraft if needed.
Click to expand...

The Bushmaster isn’t really transportable by C130, at least not in any practical sense. You have to partially disassemble the vehicle to reduce the height and ground pressure.
 
Raven 22 virtually every reference to the Bushmaster says that it is C130 transportable. Is it the addition of RWS, aerials and other annicliaries that prevent roro of the aircraft? Is there not a central tire deflation system to allow lowering the height?

I assume you have direct knowledge so I am not disputing your claim just wondering why the claim of C130 transportability would be so widely noted.
 
Novascotiaboy said:
Raven 22 virtually every reference to the Bushmaster says that it is C130 transportable. Is it the addition of RWS, aerials and other annicliaries that prevent roro of the aircraft? Is there not a central tire deflation system to allow lowering the height?

I assume you have direct knowledge so I am not disputing your claim just wondering why the claim of C130 transportability would be so widely noted.
Click to expand...

The literature isn’t wrong - you can get a Bushmaster into a C-130, it’s just not very practical. There are two issues - the vehicle is too high to fit and the ground pressure exceeds the rating of the cargo floor. The first can be fixed relatively easily by just stripping everything off the top of the vehicle and putting the CTIS into kneeling mode. To reduce the ground pressure, though, you have to take a lot of weight off the vehicle and that is not as easy. Essentially everything that is not integral to the vehicle gets taken off including, for example, the ballistic windscreen. To do all this needs a special tools, a trained crew and a crane, which also need to be at the other end to put everything back together again. My unit trialled this and it took four hours to take apart and even longer to put together again, and they were specially trained spanners with everything to hand in their own workshop. All this is also only for a basic, vanilla PMV straight from the factory. If you took an operationally specced one, with added armour, spall liners, ECM, RWS etc, I’m not sure you could do it all.

Saying it is transportable by C-130 is something that Thales can get away with on their advertising literature, but I would be flabbergasted if the NZDF did it even once, outside of a trial. I dare say any time they need to move a Bushmaster by air they will just borrow a C-17.
 
Thanks Raven22 for the inside track.

Is it likely that the NZ units will come from existing stocks? I wonder if NZ will have non Australian kit installed or if they will just take them as per Australian Army specs?
 
I don’t know, but my guess would be that Thales won’t manufacture new vehicles, but will recondition/upgrade existing vehicles to whatever standard the Kiwi’s are after.
 
Kind of. There is a mortar variant, but the only difference between that and a normal vehicle is that some of the seats in the back are replaced by racks to hold the mortar and ammunition. You still have to dismount the mortar to use it. With the exception of the ambulance variant, all PMV variants are identical on the outside, and only differ on the inside based on what seats and equipment racks are installed in the back. That is for the Australian Army specced vehicles anyway - Thales will build you whatever you like, but you’ll have to pay a premium for it.
 
Novascotiaboy said:
Thanks Raven22 for the inside track.

Is it likely that the NZ units will come from existing stocks? I wonder if NZ will have non Australian kit installed or if they will just take them as per Australian Army specs?
Click to expand...

It is highly unlikely that NZDF will branch to far away from the ADF spec vehicles, one slight difference will be our comms fit, weapon racks etc pretty minor internal changes everything else will be stock standard.
 
Novascotiaboy said:
Is there a mortar carrier variant?
Click to expand...
Raven22 said:
Kind of. There is a mortar variant, but the only difference between that and a normal vehicle is that some of the seats in the back are replaced by racks to hold the mortar and ammunition. You still have to dismount the mortar to use it. With the exception of the ambulance variant, all PMV variants are identical on the outside, and only differ on the inside based on what seats and equipment racks are installed in the back. That is for the Australian Army specced vehicles anyway - Thales will build you whatever you like, but you’ll have to pay a premium for it.
Click to expand...

The answer is No. There is no mortar variant. "Mortar variant" identifies a vehicle from which a mortar is fired. Labeling as a such a vehicle in which a mortar system is "transported" is like calling a vehicle in which a Javelin gunner rides and "anti-tank variant"
 
FormerDirtDart said:
The answer is No. There is no mortar variant. "Mortar variant" identifies a vehicle from which a mortar is fired. Labeling as a such a vehicle in which a mortar system is "transported" is like calling a vehicle in which a Javelin gunner rides and "anti-tank variant"
Click to expand...

I would argue that though. The deployment usage Raven22 describes sounds somewhat similar to how the British 8th Army deployed some of their 2-pdr AT portee guns during the campaign in North Africa. I suspect though that what Raven22 described for Australian Bushmaster mortar carriers required more modification/rearrangement to carry and support a mortar team than the Desert Rats did with their Morris 15 cwt trucks.
 
On a different topic, noticed a couple of recent news stories from the other side of the Tasman.

Defence Technology Review : DTR AUG 2019, Page 1

Firstly, Defence Technology Review announced the arrival of new 81mm mortars for ADF. The new M252 A1 is a lightweight version of the existing 81mm mortar made in the US - the Wikipedia (sorry) description is as follows:
A much lighter version, the M252A1, was fielded for the first time in late 2014. By reducing the number of parts and using lightweight materials, the total weight was reduced by 9.4 kg (20.8 pounds) to 35.8 kg (79 pounds). In the next two years, all U.S. Army M252s will be replaced by the M252A1. As part of the same program, a lightweight version of the M224 60mm mortar was also developed.
Click to expand...

https://venturaapdr.partica.online/apdr/apdr-julyaugust-2019/flipbook/52/
Secondly, the regular 'Across the Tasman' column in APDR features news that NZ has awarded a contract for replacement 81mm mortars to Hirtenberger Defence Systems of Austria.

GETS | Ministry of Defence - Contract Award 81MM Mortar
Sure enough, a bit of googling throw up info on a contact signing in May 2019. It appears Hirtenberger has been supplying NZ with 81mm ammunition since at least 2015, and also supplied the 60mm system in service.

81MM SYSTEM | Hirtenberger Defense Systems
Comany promotional site here.

I'm intrigued that NZ and Australia, despite replacing the same weapon system with a lighter-weight updated version at the same time, have settled on different suppliers. It would be interesting to know what the selection critieria was for each country, and why they ended up making different choices.

One possibility is that NZ simply found it more convenient to work with a single supplier across their entire mortar range, and that was the decisive factor? Or are their performance differences between the two systems that influenced the decision?
 
Was yarning to a tanky over a few ales on the weekend and he seemed to think we are in fact not getting more bushmasters which got me thinking since it has already been stated to be an Au option that perhaps we could be going for the hawkei instead for the A pinz replacement? Possible since they are 2 different classes and the pinz leaning more towards the lighter side after all but I sincerely hope he is wrong.
 
A Hawkei purchase would be bad why RegR?

These vehicles seem to offer a wide range of capabilities none the least of which is the ability to be carried on a C130.

If these are the preferred option I am sure they will be a welcome addition to the NZDF as they will provide a level of interoperability with Australia and improved protection for those operating it.
 
Novascotiaboy said:
A Hawkei purchase would be bad why RegR?

These vehicles seem to offer a wide range of capabilities none the least of which is the ability to be carried on a C130.

If these are the preferred option I am sure they will be a welcome addition to the NZDF as they will provide a level of interoperability with Australia and improved protection for those operating it.
Click to expand...

I never said they were bad, I just rather we get bushmasters, always have, even when we had/have A pinz and I have made no secret of this. I actually see them as filling different roles not a case of either either as I would ultimately like to see us get both ie a hawkei type to replace A pinz and a bushmaster type to go between the A pinz and NZLAV. Hopefully we get both for max options.

TBH I'm not too fussed if the C130s can move our armour for the amount of times we actually would need to otherwise we would have just got C17 if it was that big of a deal, nice to have but obviously not need to have, we would have more requirement to move the 90s than any armour in small number (s).
 
Some guy on youtube was slagging off the MARS rifle the NZDF brought he said we got ripped off there are cheaper weapon systems and he claimed they are twice as heavy as a Steyr.

He also went on about the firing pins breaking and cracker uppers and bolt carriers.

I was wondering how things are going with the weapon now have they solved the problems with breakages and what do the soldiers think of the weapon is it better than the Steyr and do they find it to heavy.

Cheers
 
steve33 said:
Some guy on youtube was slagging off the MARS rifle the NZDF brought he said we got ripped off there are cheaper weapon systems and he claimed they are twice as heavy as a Steyr.

He also went on about the firing pins breaking and cracker uppers and bolt carriers.

I was wondering how things are going with the weapon now have they solved the problems with breakages and what do the soldiers think of the weapon is it better than the Steyr and do they find it to heavy.

Cheers
Click to expand...
Probably some keyboard warrior who's never been near a MARS rifle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top