New Zealand Gets Super Stryker

StrategyPage.com ^ | August 31, 2001 | Bay & Dunnigan

[Cannoneer No. 4]

New Zealand Gets Super Stryker

August 31, 2003: The New Zealand army is buying 105 LAVs (Light Armored Vehicles) from General Dynamics Land Systems. This wheeled armored vehicle is based on the Piranha III LAV long used by the U.S. Marines, and later adopted by the US Army as the Stryker. This vehicle was designed Mowag of Switzerland, a company now owned by General Dynamics. In some ways the New Zealand LAV is an improvement on the Stryker LAV, with many small, but important, improvements. All 105 of the New Zealand vehicles will have a turret with a 25mm automatic cannon and have room in the back for ten troops. Seven LAVs will be equipped for engineer work and three used as recovery vehicles. The 14 ton, 8x8 vehicle has a maximum road speed of 100 kilometers an hour.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Do any Kiwi Freepers have info on this? Are the New Zealanders getting in to the peacekeeping business in a bigger way? Do any Freepers up in Michigan have any unclassified knowledge of other potential customers? And in what ways is the NZ version an improvement, besides the armament? What are the other differences between the Kiwi variant and the version our first Stryker Brigade Combat Team takes to Iraq next month?

[Cannoneer No. 4]

They are still working the bugs out of Stryker and there is already a SuperStryker, and the New Zealanders are buying it?

I know it will not take long for y'all to sort this story out.

Freepmail me to get on my Stryker Brigade Combat Team bump list.

[Consort]

New Zealand Army

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Thanks. Good stuff here.

NZLAV - THE LAVIII IN NEW ZEALAND

[jriemer]

When you consider that the NZAF doesn't have a single combat jet (the last squadron was decomissioned on May 8, 2001 ), the Kiwis are well known for their stategic military vision.

[RicocheT]

Here is how it compares to the M113 Armoured Personnel Carrier (APC:

For those of you who believe thinned skinned armor can replace the main battle tank, the Super Stryker interior sports burial coffins for crew fatalites:

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Not every Kiwi is a sheep. Look at The RNZAF Is All But Gone

[.cnI redruM]

I honestly know what the New Zealanders have now. It may be worth their while. Also, the Super-Stryker may learn a lot of lessons from the failures of the first model..

[Cannoneer No. 4]

April 28, 2002; In a related story, the Royal New Zealand Navy had to request help from the New Zealand Warbird Association to conduct an air defense exercise for two of its frigates. The Navy requested they fly mock attack missions against the frigates HMNZS Canterbury and HMNZS Te Kaha on exercise in the Bay of Plenty. The Warbird Association provided a Hawker Hunter, a Fouga Magister and an A37B Dragonfly for a two-day exercise in March.

The Navy paid for the flight hours for the aircraft, and the pilots donated their time. A spokesman for the Warbird Association said they expected that similar requests would be made in the future due to the scrapping of the Air Combat Force.

Maybe New Zealand should contract out what the NZAF used to do to AirScan.

[Travis McGee]

What are they going to transport it in? Ships are too slow, and C-130s can't carry it in one go. Or is it for homeland defense, (of a nation with no air force! Har!)

[shaggy eel]

,,, I'll just ping someone who may want to comment further on this one.

[Travis McGee]

The Kiwis only need one general and one telephone, to accept the surrender terms.

[shaggy eel]

,,, sounds good.

[varon]

And in what ways is the NZ version an improvement, besides the armament? What are the other differences between the Kiwi variant and the version our first Stryker Brigade Combat Team takes to Iraq next month?

If vee tell you, vee vill haf to kill you ;-)

[Cannoneer No. 4]

C-130s can't carry it in one go

There seems to be some disagreement over just how transportable a Stryker actually is. I am pretty much convinced it will fit. What I don't know is how far the C-130 can fly with one and how much of a Charlie Foxtrot it is to get the vehicle off the aircraft and ready to fight.

[Michael121]

It is not a vehicle to fight against tanks. It is for fast mobile infantry support. It replaces the M113 which has thin aluminum armor and tracks. I was licensed for an M113 and they are slow and all they do is carry troops and M-60 or 50 cal MG's or mortars. The Stryker can do all that and move faster.

It is also amphibious the M113 was supposed to be but some sank when the bildge pumps could not keep up.

It also sports the turrent and with a high velocity round could take out a tank (??) but it is for fast assualts.

Tanks take on tanks, A-10's kill tanks, CAS (Close Air Support) hunt tanks, infantry with TOWS or LAWS or Dragons hunt tanks. The Stryker is not a death trap anymore than the M113.

[KiaKaha]

In my opinion the whole question the LAV being C130 transportable is a red herring

The RNZAF has only 5 C130 so even if they could go the whole distance non-stop, to deliver 20 LAV’s to say Fiji would take aprox 3 times as long as hiring a Roll on roll off ferry and delivering the whole 20 in one go.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

NZ to Fiji is 1265 miles. At 45 knots, a vessel like HMAS Jervis Bay would take 24 hours, which is pretty close to the time it would take to generate 20 sorties over that same distance with 5 aircraft. As far as the Kiwis are concerned, C-130 transportability may not be a big deal. They do, however, have C-130's. The Australians found it worth their while to fly M-113's to East Timor on C-130's.

The big deal about C-130 transportability for the Americans is that, if it can't go by C-130, the next step up is C-17 or C-5, and those can carry Bradleys, which is a much more potent machine. If you were an airborne task force commander, and you got to choose between having a platoon of Bradleys or a platoon of Strykers, which would you choose?

[Cannoneer No. 4]

According to this, they only have 4 C-130's, and they can't keep them flying.

[Travis McGee]

A fast logistical catamaran has the added advantage of being able to loiter in an operational area off shore. With air transport, you send them or you don't. There is no holding them in internaional water, but ready and close by.

Of course, that presupposes the Kiwis had a navy to protect that fast logistics ship....