New Zealand Army
- Thread starter Whiskyjack
- Start date
-
- Tags
- army artilery gunner new zealand sas
It’s interesting they went for new builds in the end. I thought used vehicles were a done deal. In fact, last year I received orders to be prepared to hand over some of my unit’s vehicles to give to NZ.
Also interesting that they note the new vehicles have the ‘advantage’ of eliminating the spare wheel. The dubious justification is that all the tyres have run flats. While that is true, the run flats are only good for 40km at 40km/h, and still need to be changed pretty quickly if they are flat. I reckon I’ve probably changed about a dozen tyres on my own vehicle over the years, and I’m pretty lazy so I don’t do that unless I have to. I hope there aren’t too many rocks at Waiouru, otherwise the A echelon is going to be kept very busy supplying spare tyres.
Also interesting that they note the new vehicles have the ‘advantage’ of eliminating the spare wheel. The dubious justification is that all the tyres have run flats. While that is true, the run flats are only good for 40km at 40km/h, and still need to be changed pretty quickly if they are flat. I reckon I’ve probably changed about a dozen tyres on my own vehicle over the years, and I’m pretty lazy so I don’t do that unless I have to. I hope there aren’t too many rocks at Waiouru, otherwise the A echelon is going to be kept very busy supplying spare tyres.
Nighthawk.NZ
Well-Known Member
I think the justification... the run flats will get the troops out of sticky situation, and 40km is well and truly enough for that even if it is not enough to get them back to FOB etc meeting at a cleared point to change tyre... it will get them out of the situation that may have caused the flat or if they are in a fire fight etc. If that makes sense.
To be honest I am only guessing...
It’s certainly not the end of the world, but it will be inconvenient for the crews. The run flat is designed to do exactly what you said - get the vehicle out of danger if it is damaged in combat or whatever - not as a replacement for carrying spares. A flat tyre for a vehicle carrying a spare is a small inconvenience. It takes about 15 minutes to change the tyre and then you crack on with the mission, and simply swap the tyre over for a new one at your next routine replen. Without a spare though, you can’t crack on with the mission - you have to wait for someone to bring a tyre to you before you can do anything else. Plus, I’m sure NZ law is the same as Australian law - you can’t drive on public roads on run flats. I can see a lot of bored drivers sitting on the side of the road waiting for a new tyre before they can drive home.
It’s the future though. Australia’s new Boxer won’t come with any spare tyres, although that is mainly because the wheel assembly is so heavy there is no practical way for the crew to change it without additional support (it’s hard enough with the 224kg wheel assembly on the Bushmaster). For an AFV with eight wheels it is less of an issue than for a vehicle like the Bushmaster though.
t68
Well-Known Member
The bushies were being trials just as I was leaving, to this day I’ve never seen inside one and have always wondered how the spare was mounted. Is it only a fixed hinges mount similar to the Mack 6x6 that can be lowered or raised with a bottle jack?
t68
Well-Known Member
I didn’t really like being right.
kiwi in exile
Well-Known Member
What do we loose and what do we gain frrom going 5.5 rather than MR6 (aside from saving some cash-I wonder how much).
I thought the "missing" spare wheel was how the MR6 gained the extra internal space (and seating) so I guess it all comes down to what is more important, a spare wheel or a spare bod?
I'm sure on ops a wheel will be mounted on the roof or other such suitable space if deemed nescessary. Perhaps the 5.5 title is merely the term for the nz MR6 variant (ala NZLAV) as since they are new build I cannot see them veering too much off the baseline build line other than perhaps any nation specific add ons such as a nice shade of bronze green, a beefed up heater for Waiouru and some plus size cup holders for brew gears.
t68
Well-Known Member
I think the main thing was drivers doors, someone put a brochure up sometime ago about MR6 and how it differs
Not sure if this was it can’t remember
Thales’s new Bushmaster MR6 to protect soldiers’ lives | Thales Group
To meet the challenge of evolving battlefield threats Thales has launched its new protected vehicle, the Bushmaster Multi Role 6 (MR6) at the International Armoured Vehicles Conference in London.
Nighthawk.NZ
Well-Known Member
To the best of my knowledge... the are not needing to be replaced at this stage... it was just the armoured variant... the axles and diff have issues... too lightly armoured and a variety of other things... The main service pinzgauer is ... is... meh working... I would say they are ok but they are working... lol
Considering we have 60 armoured pinz and the bushies are taking on added roles such as ambo and the like I would hope we would also be getting something smaller (bushmaster is 11t) such as hawkei or LMV to fill the gap(s). The brits have just retired their LMV fleet so we could pick up some relatively cheap otherwise build on the bushmaster deal and aqquire hawkeis as a package.
I don't see GS pinz being replaced for awhile yet as they do not suffer the same problems as the armoured variants, also we still have unimogs and 2228s yet to be replaced, but if I was a betting man than the g wagons like those from across the ditch are looking good. The armoured pinz are only gone now because they are totally inadequate and infact literally breaking in their current roles.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Don't think anyone has posted this yet. The Dec/Jan edition of Defence Technology Review has a two-page spread on the "NZ 5.5" model. Confirms deletion of the spare, higher gross weight axles and a surprising number of other tweaks. What I'm not clear on is how this varies from the MR6?
Nice, at least that explains the 5.5 designation and its origin but yes, sounds like an MR6 so why not just call a spade a spade?
I do see the engines are different so perhaps that could be the reason? The 5.5 has the same engine as the current model while the 6 has a 330hp euro rated version, strange since this govt is all about lowering the carbon footprint any chance it gets. Must be to keep the engines inline with the Aussies or perhaps the LAVs otherwise don't really see the benefit.
Last edited:
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
How do these bushmasters compare in protection and troop mobility to say, the LAV 3? Will the LAV 3 not be getting a refresh or upgrade in light of this purchase? Are they still looking at selling those disused LAV 3 or keeping them? Up to thirty were mentioned here
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Not quite sure why you are comparing LAVs and Bushmasters, different Vehicles for different jobs. The main roles of the LAV is Recce, Fire Support, Escort, the Bushmasters job is basically as a Battlefield Taxi, replacing carrying Soldiers in the back of Trucks, delivering logistics to the frontlines. etc.
Nighthawk.NZ
Well-Known Member
Well the Aussies have had a good run with them in Afghanistan where they showed their worth and have proven themself... The V bottom is a major thing the LAV's don't have that directs the any blase away which protects the crew and passengers more.
Man I would have hated it if the NZDF sent a armoured Pinzgauer
They are as useless as tits on a bull. And from memory the Bushmaster was what the Army wanted in the first place. (only taken 5 years but ok)In a urban gorilla warfare I think the Bushmaster might have an edge... in open country probably the NZLAV is more useful... all comes down to what size hammer the enemy have to use... They are different vehicles for different jobs.
While it suggests replace with the line "a project will be initiated to consider how best to replace the NZLAV" my guess is with that budget it is more an upgrade program.From DCP-2019 page 37 said:
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
Some mentioned here possibly upgrading the disused LAVs to ambulance and other roles, thats why i mentioned it, it seems Bushmaster will be taking some of those roles then?Would I be correct in assuming this vehicle provides better protection and would of been a better, cheaper option to converting some of the lavs?
Going by the last post, can I assume that another similar vehicle again to the LAV then will be chosen?
Going by the last post, can I assume that another similar vehicle again to the LAV then will be chosen?