New Zealand Army

Not going to quote your entire text Tod, because I don’t intend to address it all, but I will suggest that anyone who has ever heard someone screaming and bleeding out while friendly forces are unable to reach them, due to incoming fires or the threat of incoming fires and a lack of armoured vehicle based protection being available, probably wouldn’t be arguing about the ‘need’ for a protected recovery capability...

A few un-armoured Pinzgauer Ambulance variants in my opinion does not a sufficient protected recovery capability make.

Nor is a helicopter casevac capability the panacea it seems to be. There are any number of situations a helicopter cannot fly into. If a situation is too ‘hot’ for an armoured vehicle to go into, a helicopter will not be within any useful distance of the place. Recovery and effective medical treatment is often time critical I understand, but we are talking about military situations where incoming fires are expected and are the ‘norm’ not a civilian environment or even a ‘secured’ battlespace.

This is especially relevant in NZ’s case when on another thread discussions are arguing for a chartered civilian helicopter service should be implemented simply to give NZ additional helicopter capability it is currently lacking...

It’s probably worth pointing out that no one is going to be taking an ambulance, armoured or not, anywhere they expect it to be shot at (ie, the point of contact where some other vehicle/soldier/whatever just got blown up). All that is going to do is get you a blown up ambulance as well. In instance like that where the enemy can’t be immediately cleared, the F ech takes the casualties rearward to an ambulance, not the other way around. Either that or the casualties wait until battlefield clearance after you’ve (hopefully) won the fight.

The reason why there are ambulance versions of M113/LAV etc isn’t so much for the armour, it’s for the mobility. If you don’t have the same mobility as the F ech then you can’t possibly get to where the casualties will be created. It’s the same reason there are recovery versions and fitter versions and command versions of A vehicles - so they have the same mobility as the vehicles they support. The armour is just a bonus, and reducing the risk of unintended contact. A pinzgauer based ambo is a poor option for a LAV based unit due to the mismatch in mobility. The lack of armour is a secondary concern.

Well the New Zealand Army does have a small pool of Bushmasters now, so perhaps they are (or could) trial them in an Ambulance role.

MARKMILES77 said:

Well the New Zealand Army does have a small pool of Bushmasters now, so perhaps they are (or could) trial them in an Ambulance role.

Click to expand...

Are you sure about this? There are some Supacats for SF but Bushmasters being introduced into NZ Army service .....

MrConservative said:

Are you sure about this? There are some Supacats for SF but Bushmasters being introduced into NZ Army service .....

Click to expand...

Ex Australian Army Bushmasters.

MARKMILES77 said:

Ex Australian Army Bushmasters.

Click to expand...

But they were only talking of a memorandum of 4 or 5 transferred. I am not sure where they were with that other than evaluation.

MrConservative said:

But we are only talking of 4 or 5 transferred are you suggesting that they could be the Ambulances?

Click to expand...

4 or 5 vehicles for SOF don't mean a lot to wider Army, these would be for the second part of the contract to purchase Supacats which is still ongoing and has not been confirmed as of today. If the Group do have them it would not surprise me one bit at all.

Cadredave said:

4 or 5 vehicles for SOF don't mean a lot to wider Army, these would be for the second part of the contract to purchase Supacats which is still ongoing and has not been confirmed as of today. If the Group do have them it would not surprise me one bit at all.

Click to expand...

There was a memorandum along with the Supacat acquisition but I kind of thought that has gone into the ether or flown under the radar. Such a small purchase would be a smaller proportion of the CA's discretionary budget limit of iirc $7m per annum anyway - just like the conversion of three existing LAV's into medical evacuation variants would be well under the CA's spending remit - in which NZDIA members or manufacturers like Wades or Action could happily do as they do plenty of project work for FENZ and St John.

MrConservative said:

There was a memorandum along with the Supacat acquisition but I kind of thought that has gone into the ether or flown under the radar. Such a small purchase would be a smaller proportion of the CA's discretionary budget limit of iirc $7m per annum anyway - just like the conversion of three existing LAV's into medical evacuation variants would be well under the CA's spending remit - in which NZDIA members or manufacturers like Wades or Action could happily do as they do plenty of project work for FENZ and St John.

Click to expand...

To true Mr C totally forgot about CA discretionary budget and as you have pointed out 4 or 5 vehicles would be well within his spending remit. My bet is that we will see some new versions of the LAV during the MLU as Raven has pointed out it is all about mobility.

These targets i.e. Waioru, I was under the impression she was to be sold??? Because it seems like planners are building up training capacity there. Anyway these short term targets should not be substituted, or replaced, or synthetic replacements for privatisation. Over reliance on wonderful private sector technological solutions of the future could be the ruin of NZDF not its salvation. While reserves are being reorganised to pick up the slack after years of technological integration and re-organisation, the benefits to NZDFs bottom line is yet to be proven. As an example of what could be done, a medical student could get a free ride if that person decides to join the reserves, go through basic, ect, the private sector gets a disciplined worker, possibly even tax breaks, the employees get to enjoy private sector wages for a time, and the army has access to a skilled workforce on a potential emergency response bases. And every one gets to enjoy the year on year economic benefits of 3% GDP growth (give or take) in the private sector with those fresh skills been made available to NZDF in certain circumstances. I'v seen this style of employment work on a limited bases with volunteer fire fighters out of National Park, as soon as the sirens go off volunteers would drop what they are doing and jump straight into action and employers where ok with that in fact it is encouraged. Also mines-rescue is another area where emergency services get the benefits of private sector developments with out compromising core frontline roles because coal-face workers are essentially operating with the same machines. With the exception of frontline combat roles I believe the private sector can be integrated into NZDF more effectively than outsourcing those outputs at vastly inflated prices.

Cadredave said:

4 or 5 vehicles for SOF don't mean a lot to wider Army, these would be for the second part of the contract to purchase Supacats which is still ongoing and has not been confirmed as of today. If the Group do have them it would not surprise me one bit at all.

Click to expand...

Are the Bushmasters specifically for special forces or for trials in Army more generally?

Ok

MARKMILES77 said:

Are the Bushmasters specifically for special forces or for trials in Army more generally?

Click to expand...

Two parts to the SOV replacement with HMT winning the SOV-MH which has been delivered and the Bushmaster to be a new capability for NZSAS, Big Army has no plans at this point of time to bring the Bushmaster into service or for trials.

MrConservative said:

http://www.army.mil.nz/downloads/pd...170626-future-land-operating-concept-2035.pdf

Discussion of any future NZ Army kit has to be filtered through the lens of the above FLOC document.

FLOC recognises that the NZ Army will be operating increasingly urbanised environments and amongst the littorals and needs to be shaped accordingly. It reinforces the Light multi-role forces concept.

What is very apparent is that the brains trust within the NZ Army is dramatically much more muscular and innovative that 20 years ago.

Click to expand...

Hand in hand with what Mr C has posted the article from CA in the Army news gives a little bit more information and possible direction Army is heading too. Any new capability must be in line with FLOC document and CA direction for a future force that quite possibly look nothing like what we have had in the last 100+ years, as CA states if Corps or trades cannot justify a operational role they will dissapear.

Cadredave said:

My bet is that we will see some new versions of the LAV during the MLU as Raven has pointed out it is all about mobility.

Click to expand...

Spot on Dave. With FLOC there is a realisation that the more homogeneous fleet approach per the original LAV and LOV purchase nearly 15 years ago will no longer cut it as we enter the 3rd and 4th decade of the 21st century. FLOC states that a range of protected mobility platforms will be required.

That actually raises a significant point about the NZDF in general in terms of acquisition policy that begat alleged fiscal and efficiency advantages of rationalised fleet uniformity. Take the FAMC as the prime example - trying to do the impossible by having a disparate range of roles compromised on just two platforms. LAV and Pinzer as well as Project Protector could be added to this.

At what point does the alleged efficiency of platform rationalisation become counter-productive in that the parts will never equal the sum of required and effective capability outputs? My view is that if we (the NZDF) should at times take on the additional ownership cost of an additional platform when it is found that the rationalised fleet based on one or two platforms falls short in achieving the baseline spectrum of capabilities required. Of the 320 odd Pinzers across 8 variants and 105 LAV's acquired one wonders what may have eventuated if the capability outputs had greater primacy than the alleged rationalised cost efficiency of having the eggs in just two baskets. But that is in hindsight now and it is good to see that the pallet of tools is being widened.

An actual public interest piece on the NZ Army and NZDF as a whole. Quite a turn around to the constant NZDF bashing that's coming to out of stuff for the last few months.
Behind the wire: What goes on inside Burnham Military Camp?

On this note the NZDF really needs to work on its PR and social media engagement the ADF has made some great bounds in this in the last few years.

robsta83 said:

On this note the NZDF really needs to work on its PR and social media engagement the ADF has made some great bounds in this in the last few years.

Click to expand...

I don't think it would make any difference what the NZDF did there has been an element in NZ since the 1930's who have had a disdain for the military and that was why the military was allowed to crumble in the 1930's to such an extent when WW2 broke out we barely had an army.

That ilk still exits to this day they will never except that military spending is needed and if our soldiers ever get deployed for anything more than peace keeping and reconstruction they claim we are involved in an illegal war doing the bidding of the USA and need to withdraw.

Cadredave said:

4 or 5 vehicles for SOF don't mean a lot to wider Army, these would be for the second part of the contract to purchase Supacats which is still ongoing and has not been confirmed as of today. If the Group do have them it would not surprise me one bit at all.

Click to expand...

Hi cadre bit off topic but i was wondering do you know if we have ever sent any of our special ops to enter the Annual Warrior competition that is held in Jordon every year.?

steve33 said:

I don't think it would make any difference what the NZDF did there has been an element in NZ since the 1930's who have had a disdain for the military and that was why the military was allowed to crumble in the 1930's to such an extent when WW2 broke out we barely had an army.

That ilk still exits to this day they will never except that military spending is needed and if our soldiers ever get deployed for anything more than peace keeping and reconstruction they claim we are involved in an illegal war doing the bidding of the USA and need to withdraw.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately NZ is not alone when it comes to the brain-dead element of its population. The same applies to Canada. What's different is NZ is much better in managing its fiscal affairs. The combination of massive deficit spending by both our federal government and several provinces (most notably Ontario) is partly responsible for many of our delayed defence recapitalization projects. This will only get worse with rising interest rates and inflation, not to mention the inevitable fall of our dollar. Even the "Donald" can't threaten a bankrupt ally to do more on defence and bankruptcy is Canada's current course. Course correction is unlikely as long as junior is around.

TASK GROUP BLACK ~ Kiwis on TS17 - Joint Forces News

Write-up on NZ army's participation in Talisman Sabre 2017.

From Gordon Arthur, who more usually writes for Shephard Media.

Looks like the days of the Pinzgauer, or the armoured variant at least, may be numbered.

Defence Force trucks to find peace in pieces

Maybe this will lead to a Hawkei purchase or possibly a Bushmaster buy.