Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Zealand Defence Force

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Possibly related, recent US mechanised doctrine is moving away from combat against insurgents and more towards "near peer". So maybe there is already a ready market for what is a LAV at a time when more LAVs are needed by others? (Trade in?)
    For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
      They are not scrapping the LAV's, they are for sale as they do not get used.
      If anyone wants to make ANY offer I am sure the NZ DoD would bite your arm off.
      Scrapping means remove from service.
      If they have no use for them then why spend $75 million on a fleet of an inferior class of vehicles that are designed for the same role?
      They've been for sale for several years and nobody wants them.

      Comment


      • The Bushie isn't replacing the NZLAV, its replacing the Pinz.
        For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
          The Bushie isn't replacing the NZLAV, its replacing the Pinz.
          I know what its meant to be a direct replacement for but they still wadied 30 perfectly good LAV's and now spending $75 million on a fleet of vehicles which are an inferior class.
          This will be added to the very long list of NZ DF white elephants.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Rhodes View Post
            I know what its meant to be a direct replacement for but they still wadied 30 perfectly good LAV's and now spending $75 million on a fleet of vehicles which are an inferior class.
            This will be added to the very long list of NZ DF white elephants.
            But the NZLAV wouldnt be able to do the job the Pinz was doing?
            For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Rhodes View Post
              I know what its meant to be a direct replacement for but they still wadied 30 perfectly good LAV's and now spending $75 million on a fleet of vehicles which are an inferior class.
              This will be added to the very long list of NZ DF white elephants.
              The LAV's were ordered 18 years ago. The requirement set out in the DWP97 was for 72 LAV's to replace the M-113's. Due to a massive inter-service war (which I have neither the time or patience to go into detail) between 1999 and 2002, the Army ended up with 105 LAV's (around 30 too many) and 60 Armoured Pinzers.

              I agree that back in the early to mid 2000's everything was cut price and substandard and they bought White Elephants. However, since the DWP15 I cannot fault the quality of military acquisitions, the P-8A, C-130J-30, T-6C's, the KA-350, the new Dive Ship and the AOR. Much of that and what will be acquired in the years ahead is to rectify a decade of poor decisions. The Bushmaster is way more capable than the armoured Pinzer, which it is replacing in the Medium Protected Mobility Capability. It certainly is not a white elephant - they will be used much more widely unlike the unsafe and unreliable Pinzers. They are also in the market for a Light Protected Mobility Capability of which the Hawkei seems to be in the frame. And they are buying MRZR-D's for rapid light mobility and have bought the HMT Supacat. The one or two sizes fits all approach does not work.

              The NZDF is rebuilding and equipping a coherent force structure, with a range of equipment to suit the different kinds of operations from HADR and SASO through to combat operations and special operations. Each of those involve having different tools. The NZ Army has had to go into the Pacific for SASO and HADR operations on ocassion. Using a LAV to get around in those circumstances is a really dumb idea when a Bushie or a Hawkei is much more appropriate. If the Army were sent back to Timor with a rerun of Interfet then yes you'd take some LAV's with you and 75 in the fleet is certainly more than enough to support a CATG of 800 personnel.
              Last edited by Anzac; 12 July 2020, 15:27.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
                But the NZLAV wouldnt be able to do the job the Pinz was doing?
                Which is what?
                What can the Pinzgauer or Bushmaster do that the wadied LAV's cant do a lot better?

                Originally posted by Anzac View Post
                The LAV's were ordered 18 years ago. The requirement set out in the DWP97 was for 72 LAV's to replace the M-113's. Due to a massive inter-service war (which I have neither the time or patience to go into detail) between 1999 and 2002, the Army ended up with 105 LAV's (around 30 too many) and 60 Armoured Pinzers.

                I agree that back in the early to mid 2000's everything was cut price and substandard and they bought White Elephants. However, since the DWP15 I cannot fault the quality of military acquisitions, the P-8A, C-130J-30, T-6C's, the KA-350, the new Dive Ship and the AOR. Much of that and what will be acquired in the years ahead is to rectify a decade of poor decisions. The Bushmaster is way more capable than the armoured Pinzer, which it is replacing in the Medium Protected Mobility Capability. It certainly is not a white elephant - they will be used much more widely unlike the unsafe and unreliable Pinzers. They are also in the market for a Light Protected Mobility Capability of which the Hawkei seems to be in the frame. And they are buying MRZR-D's for rapid light mobility and have bought the HMT Supacat. The one or two sizes fits all approach does not work.

                The NZDF is rebuilding and equipping a coherent force structure, with a range of equipment to suit the different kinds of operations from HADR and SASO through to combat operations and special operations. Each of those involve having different tools. The NZ Army has had to go into the Pacific for SASO and HADR operations on ocassion. Using a LAV to get around in those circumstances is a really dumb idea when a Bushie or a Hawkei is much more appropriate. If the Army were sent back to Timor with a rerun of Interfet then yes you'd take some LAV's with you and 75 in the fleet is certainly more than enough to support a CATG of 800 personnel.
                The Bushmaster is a huge vehicle, it's just as big as a LAV if not bigger, but has inferior mobility, firepower and protection. There is nowhere a Bushmaster will be able to go that the LAV's cant.

                Comment


                • when i think of the adulation that the Pinzgauer is held in in Europe?! Is it really that bad or it this just Not invented here syndrome?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
                    when i think of the adulation that the Pinzgauer is held in in Europe?! Is it really that bad or it this just Not invented here syndrome?
                    The NZ army uses an armoured version of the Pinzgauer, 23 are used as command vehicles and 37 for crew served versions.
                    There are then 261 unarmoured vehicles which are more like those used in Europe.

                    The British Army tried an armoured Pinzgauer but quickly withdrew it due to reliability and protection issues.
                    Last edited by EUFighter; 12 July 2020, 17:36.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
                      when i think of the adulation that the Pinzgauer is held in in Europe?! Is it really that bad or it this just Not invented here syndrome?
                      The Pinz is the last proper tactically useful 4x4 or 6x6 since the landy 110/defender became a chelsea tractor.
                      For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                        The NZ army uses an armoured version of the Pinzgauer, 23 are used as command vehicles and 37 for crew served versions.
                        There are then 261 unarmoured vehicles which are more like those used in Europe.

                        The British Army tried an armoured Pinzgauer but quickly withdrew it due to reliability and protection issues.
                        Yes that is right. They are holding onto the General Service variant. The problem has been with the Armoured variant.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Rhodes View Post
                          Which is what?
                          What can the Pinzgauer or Bushmaster do that the wadied LAV's cant do a lot better?

                          The Bushmaster is a huge vehicle, it's just as big as a LAV if not bigger, but has inferior mobility, firepower and protection. There is nowhere a Bushmaster will be able to go that the LAV's cant.
                          One thing a 17 tonne NZLAV cannot do is be air deployed intact with the logistics required to support it by C-130 noting the huge distances the NZ Army has to travel and the time, equipment and support personnel to re-instal the turret. We can only deploy the NZLAV by sealift. Where as you can send on the same flight an 11 tonne Bushmaster command and control variant and six MRMZ-D's with all they need to immediately operate and sustain themselves. The other point is, and there has been considerable research into this by the NZDF and ADF and has a pronounced political imperative - that it is not a good look for Kiwi troops to roll around the villages in the Pacific Islands, that only gained independence from either NZ or Australia over the last few decades, with something that looks like a LAV or in local eyes "a tank" during the vastly more common a SASO or HADR type operations that the NZ Army is more likely to be involved in, in which the LAV is overkill and significantly more intimidating to the local population you need to build trust and confidence with, even in small numbers. Finally, the LAV is also a greater burden on the logistics train in which an economies of scale are required for deployment, appropriate for a Task Group or Task Force sized operation, but inefficient when piecemeal with smaller Task Units or Task Elements deployments.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Rhodes View Post
                            Which is what?
                            What can the Pinzgauer or Bushmaster do that the wadied LAV's cant do a lot better?
                            The Bushmaster is a huge vehicle, it's just as big as a LAV if not bigger, but has inferior mobility, firepower and protection. There is nowhere a Bushmaster will be able to go that the LAV's cant.
                            Don't forget that the Netherlands purchased around 100 Bushmasters for use in Afghanistan because for many roles it was superior to their CV90 IFV. The UK also bought them for use in Iraq before joining the US MRAP. One area where a vehicle like the Bushmaster is superior to a LAV type is blast protection, particularly protecting occupants from mine blasts.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Anzac View Post
                              One thing a 17 tonne NZLAV cannot do is be air deployed intact with the logistics required to support it by C-130 noting the huge distances the NZ Army has to travel and the time, equipment and support personnel to re-instal the turret. We can only deploy the NZLAV by sealift. Where as you can send on the same flight an 11 tonne Bushmaster command and control variant and six MRMZ-D's with all they need to immediately operate and sustain themselves. The other point is, and there has been considerable research into this by the NZDF and ADF and has a pronounced political imperative - that it is not a good look for Kiwi troops to roll around the villages in the Pacific Islands, that only gained independence from either NZ or Australia over the last few decades, with something that looks like a LAV or in local eyes "a tank" during the vastly more common a SASO or HADR type operations that the NZ Army is more likely to be involved in, in which the LAV is overkill and significantly more intimidating to the local population you need to build trust and confidence with, even in small numbers. Finally, the LAV is also a greater burden on the logistics train in which an economies of scale are required for deployment, appropriate for a Task Group or Task Force sized operation, but inefficient when piecemeal with smaller Task Units or Task Elements deployments.
                              The NZ LAV's can be transported in a C-130, the NZ air force has already done that without having to remove the turret.
                              If the turret is somehow an issue the 30 wadied LAV's could easily be modified to take a RWS at a fraction of the cost of buying new inferior vehicles and still offer greater protection and firepower than a completely exposed Minimi gunner.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Rhodes View Post
                                The NZ LAV's can be transported in a C-130, the NZ air force has already done that without having to remove the turret.
                                They did load it into the C-130 with the turret once as a media stunt in 2004 for the Minister but they had to bleed the hydropneumatic suspension to lower it. They never flew it as the aircraft was now overweight as a 16000kg weight restriction was already on the then 40 year old RNZAF C-130's. To fly it operationally with a LAV the weight of the turret assembly had to be removed. Even then with a full fuel load flying a LAV in the NZ context was pointless anyway due to range and safety considerations.

                                Originally posted by Rhodes View Post
                                If the turret is somehow an issue the 30 wadied LAV's could easily be modified to take a RWS at a fraction of the cost of buying new inferior vehicles and still offer greater protection and firepower than a completely exposed Minimi gunner.
                                OK. I get it. You know more than the NZDF from the comfort of your comfy chair. Good for you.
                                Last edited by Anzac; 13 July 2020, 13:16.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X