Army LAVs off to Afghanistan

[30sqnatc]

Nov 27, 2009 13:33:25 GMT 12 corsair67 said:

While we're about it, do you know what the Ockers did in Iraq?

Well, according to someone who heard something through the grapevine from his uncle's next-door neighbour's brother-in-law's best mate; the Australians murdered heaps of civilians, raped women and children, shot cats and dogs, and broke every rule in the Geneva Convention.

Plus, some boring stuff, like built a few schools, hospitals and civil infrastructure..............

And all that in Australia during pre dpeloyment training Seriously according to the ADF website www.defence.gov.au/opEx/global/opcatalyst/index.htm more than 20000 ADF personnel served in Iraq in a variety of roles. The size of the commitment is one that many (in NZ) are unaware of.

[briandooley]

Do you mean 2000?

[briandooley]

The Ockers main task in Iraq was to keep the main road open, which is why they didn't lose any of their guys.

The NZ troops in Iraq were Sappers repairing bridges. When it became too difficult to work because of mortar fire they were pulled out.

A Sapper captain was very seriously wounded by an IED in an incident where an Iraqi engineer was killed and a Pom engineer was badly wounded.

[briandooley]

Just as well.

[yak2]

And the point you are trying to make is......

[corsair67]

And the point you are trying to make is......

That NZ carried Australia - again? ;D ;D ;D

[briandooley]

Nov 27, 2009 16:40:16 GMT 12 corsair67 said:

And the point you are trying to make is......

That NZ carried Australia - again? ;D ;D ;D

[briandooley]

[glow=red,2,300][/glow]I wouldn't go so far as to say that.

But I think it's fair to point out that Skyhawkdon is probably an ex-member of 75 squadron RNZAF which consisted of the Skyhawks which fell out of the sky at the same time as NZ bought the NZLAVs for the NZ Army, so it's perhaps understandable that he's pretty choked , but that's no excuse for getting his facts wrong and getting all bitter and twisted about it.

The NZLAVs weren't bought to replace the Skyhawks, they were bought to replace the ancient M113s, which were actually falling to pieces - so much so that half of them had been cannibalised to keep the rest more or less mobile. The Army originally had 105 armoured vehicles which over the years fell over and which were replaced by 105 LAVs.

The decision to can the air strike wing was taken because it was an enormous expense bearing in mind that it only once fired in anger and that was at an illegal fishing vessel which refused to turn itself in. To be quite fair the fisher bloody soon put the brakes on when it got a few rounds of cannon fire across its bows.

To sum up, the LAV purchase had nothing to do with the demise of the Skyhawks.

[30sqnatc]

Nov 27, 2009 15:41:40 GMT 12 briandooley said:

Do you mean 2000?

The ADF website says 20,000. Remember they were there for 7 years with two rotations each year for the long standing Task Groups. Naturally this would probably include lots who returned mulitiple times.

[Barnsey]

Read it and ponder....

New Zealand Labour's Minister of Defence, Mark Burton, has finally conceded that a Parliamentary enquiry will be held into claims that the Army organised a covert political strategy to increase its share of defence funding and lobbied to end the Royal NZ Air Force's combat arm, the A4 Skyhawks.

In Parliament on August 30, Opposition Leader and former Prime Minister Jenny Shipley stated: "We believe there is mounting evidence that covert and seditious behaviour was going on within the Army from early 1997, through to the end of 1999 and possibly beyond then."

Earlier that week the Nationals released a nine-page letter, written in March 1997, by Lieutenant Colonel Ian Gordon (then with the NZ Defence Staff in London) to the Deputy Chief of General Staff in Wellington. The letter outlines a detailed strategy to insert selected army officers into key positions where they could subtly influence senior politicians.

The National Party defence spokesman, Max Bradford, claimed the Gordon letter spoke of "destroying" any organisation or individual who took a different view from the Army's.

All this came in the same month that the Auditor-General, David Macdonald, released a scathing report on how Defence staff bungled the Army's largest re-equipment project since 1945: the purchasing of 105 General Motors armoured personnel carriers, the LAV 111. The project has ballooned from an initial allocation of NZ$212 million to $677 million, and is still climbing to almost $7 million a vehicle.

He condemned the bitter power struggle between the Army's Chief of Defence Staff, Major-General Maurice Dodson, and the Chief of Defence Force, Air Marshal Carey Adamson. The working atmosphere and practice at Defence Headquarters were described as "dysfunctional".

Meanwhile, Dr David Dickens, Director of the Centre for Strategic Studies at Victoria University in Wellington, and a critic of recent defence policy decisions, suddenly found his Government funding withdrawn. Prime Minister Helen Clark denied any responsibility.

So what is going on? The root cause is the lack of money spent on defence by two successive governments, Labour from 1984 to 1990 and the incoming Nationals under Jim Bolger (Prime Minister 1990-97). The UN deployment to Bosnia involved working with British forces, and brought home to the Kiwis the woeful state of their equipment.

The 1997 Defence Assessment White Paper envisaged the Army rapidly deploying lightly equipped forces: "but it must have sufficient firepower, mobility and protection to cope with the type of warfare that could occur within the Asia-Pacific region, as well as the changing spectrum of peace support operations."

The Army considered that future forces would be engaged in "manoeuvre warfare" (alongside more heavily equipped allies) and that fast, agile light armoured vehicles would be required not only to carry the infantry, but to provide effective firepower in support. This led to an internal debate on "wheels versus tracks".

Wheeled vehicles might be more suitable for operating in Australia, or in a repeat of the Gulf War, but the other view was that "manoeuvre warfare" was unlikely in the jungles of the South West Pacific and Asia. However, the "wheels versus tracks" review completed in September 1998 recommended "wheels".

Which brings us to the March 1997 letter of Lieutenant-General Ian Gordon. With hindsight it is clear that the Army was deeply concerned that they would get the crumbs after the Air Force and the Navy had been fed. In the opening paragraph of his letter, Gordon wrote:

"Funding allocated by NZ Defence Force [representing the three services - Ed] has been to Navy and Air at the expense of Army. Army appears to lack influence in the centre (NZDF) and a different approach is required to regain this influence. It is contended that to gain the requisite influence, Army must now open a ‘second front' in its war with the centre."

Army had to identify and control the pathways to the making of defence policy and then "gain the requisite degree of control over the policy-making process; co-ordinated at the highest level to ensure each campaign advances the strategic purpose".

East Timor was a godsend for the Army, enabling it to cultivate deep links with the incoming Labour Government and provide behind-the-scenes support for cancelling the American F-16 Lease-Buy deal. A peacekeeping Army is more acceptable to Labour's coalition partners, the Greens and the Alliance Party.

Now, with Ian Gordon's letter in his hands, and the RNZAF's fighter pilots and support staff handed their notice, you can imagine how Air Marshal Adamson regards his Army colleague. For the record, Major-General Dodson denies any knowledge of the Gordon letter.

The Auditor General's report confirms that the Army wanted the state-of-the-art LAV 111, and essentially the tender specifications were determined to achieve that end. It was bad luck for the competitors, and a German subsidiary of Daimler is threatening to sue the NZ Government for NZ$2 million on the grounds that their time and money was wasted.

Not mentioned in the Auditor General's report is a meeting on October 12, 1998, in the Conference Room of the NZ Embassy in Washington DC. Major-General Dodson was on a routine visit as Chief of the General Staff to Australia, Hawaii and Washington. Also present in the Conference Room was James Armour, President of AM General Motors, Dr Kent Stephens and Lt Gen (retd) James Hughes of Litton Industries, the manufacturer of the LAV 111. Jim Bolger was the NZ ambassador at the time, and presumably the meeting was first cleared with Wellington.

Registrations for the tender process were called in June 1999. Earlier, a British consulting firm had recommended that there was no need for tenders, as the LAV 111 was clearly the best vehicle. The contract was signed in January 2001, and the 105 vehicles will be delivered over the next three years.

NZ First MP Ron Mark has been a persistent critic of both the tendering process and the LAV 111. Of all the MPs in the NZ Parliament, Mark has the necessary credentials. He first served as a diesel mechanic with the NZ Armoured Corps, working on the Vietnam-era M113s, and then joined the British SAS, serving mainly in the Middle East. On his return to the NZ Armoured Corps, he rose through the ranks to Major.

Mark maintains that his contacts in the Army tell of deep discontent over the choice of vehicle. Incredibly (as the Auditor General points out), the mistrust and lack of communication between the Ministry of Defence, the NZ Defence Force and the Army, resulted in no one being responsible for maintenance evaluation. The skilled technicians required to maintain the sophisticated LAVs are not currently available, and will have to be recruited at a time when such skills are greatly in demand in the civilian sector.

Nor was Litton Industries required to bring an LAV 111 to New Zealand for field testing in the rugged, tussock country around the Waiouru training ground. Based on reports coming out of Canada, there are concerns about the vehicle's stability.

Investigate magazine has run letters from anonymous NZ servicemen. One reports covertly attending a lecture last year by two Canadian warrant officers, who showed slides of the LAV's alleged handling difficulties on sloping ground.

They detailed mechanical problems such as occur when the 24mm cannon is fired; the ejected casings fall and tend to jam the driver's hatch and the turret. The gun can fire 200 rounds, but takes 23 minutes to refill. The battery-powered turret often loses power, and when this happens the gun stands up in neutral. The turret is computer-operated, and there are a whole range of "no-fire zones" installed on the gun that cannot be manually overridden.

The LAV 111s cannot be used in East Timor because of the narrow unstable roads; nor are they amphibious, presumably an essential capability for operations in this part of the world.

It is now acknowledged by the Ministry of Defence that the gun needs to be upgraded to 30mm, and there is the vexed problem of fitting the LAV into an Air Force Hercules C130. This rather crucial requirement was termed "desirable" by the Ministry of Defence, and the Army and Mark Burton have obtained a video that shows a LAV being squeezed into a C130 by deflating the tyres.

However, according to a Pentagon report on weight limits, the C130 can fly a 42,000 lb payload about 560 nautical miles. As the LAV 111 weighs 41,942 lbs, the RNZAF will be able to fly one nearly half way across the Tasman Sea to Sydney!

Tibor Banfy, a Hungarian businessman in New Zealand, arranges barter deals and had been encouraged by Jim Bolger to advise him on any potential defence purchases. Banfy discovered that the Hungarian Border Guard had 68 unused Russian-built BTR-80s, with more available at a landed price in New Zealand of NZ$230,000 per vehicle. 105 BTR-80s would cost NZ$24 million compared with NZ$677 million for the LAVs.

Rugged and battle-tested, the BTR-80 can be "retrofitted" to NATO standards by Vickers and Bofors. A 30mm "drop in turret" can be fitted and the series offers a range of armoured vehicles based on the same chassis, ambulances, cargo carriers and even mobile howitzers. The vehicle is amphibious and capable of crossing 106 kilometres of lake or sea at a stretch.

Currently used by the Turkish and South Korean armies, the BTR-80 had the best serviceability in Bosnia out of 16 contenders. Radios can be made compatible with it and a US Cummins diesel engine can be fitted, although the Russian-designed one meets requirement. The BTR-80 can be carried by the RNZAF's C130s.

Helen Clark wrote to Banfy listing the reasons why the BTR-80 would be unsuitable. It was clear that she had been misinformed by her advisers.

Appearing on TVNZ's Face the Nation on September 6, the Nationals' Max Bradford was interviewed with Defence Minister Mark Burton.

Bradford brought up his July 19 letter to the Minister, in which he expressed his concerns and suggested the need for a bipartisan enquiry. Incredibly, Bradford had still received no response to his letter.

However, Burton has agreed to an enquiry, but is arguing for time to weigh up legal advice. Naturally there are fears that the terms of reference will limit full disclosure. Former Deputy Secretary of Defence Robin Johansen was on the program and stated that he was eager to appear before any enquiry. He said that the Army really had no clear idea of why they needed such an expensive and sophisticated vehicle as the LAV 111. He was astonished at Army's inability to provide any doctrinal or operational justification.

www.newsweekly.com.au/articles/2001sep22_nzarmy.html

[30sqnatc]

Nov 27, 2009 20:18:39 GMT 12 briandooley said:

The NZLAVs weren't bought to replace the Skyhawks, they were bought to replace the ancient M113s, which were actually falling to pieces - so much so that half of them had been cannibalised to keep the rest more or less mobile. The Army originally had 105 armoured vehicles which over the years fell over and which were replaced by 105 LAVs.

Actually 70 M113 family and 26 Scorpion = 96 (although back in 1980s there were also 8 Ferret scout cars as well). To me the description cannibalisation suggests they could not be maintained. This is not correct rather the fleet was progressively drawn down as their final withdrawal approached. Having said that those what were cannibalised in East Timor were never refurbished when withdrawn to New Zealand but this was a policy decision rather than an engineering necessity.

[Barnsey]

executive.govt.nz/MINISTER/burton/ssc/intro.htm

[nige]

So, the billion dollar question is, did AM Ferguson actually manage to clean up Defence as tasked thus will there be no repeat catastrophic lobbying by one of the services, come this change in Govt and impending Whitepaper?

Clearly times have changed, better long term development planning put in place etc. But even the Labour Govt's LTDP was underfunded when everything was added up. Come new National Govt there will be openings for new thinking and new priorities. Clearly the new Govt needs to increase defence spending, over time, to ensure all 3 services can function effectively with adequate logistics, support and self-protection, in a variety of locations/environments etc. That won't be easy, no doubt. But it has to happen as we see the NZDF stretched with deployments, acquiring new capabilities and much change occurring around them etc. Otherwise to not plan for increased sending to cover operational and technological advances can surely only mean a return to the dark past of plotting and scheming, and disfunction etc?

BTW - thanks for the answer 30SqnATC!

[briandooley]

Some of this last is true, if irrelevant, and some is self-contradictory, however the post which I was concerned to rebut was the one which criticised the numbers of LAVs and their distribution.

IMO it is entirely sensible to operate as many as possible of the minimum number of types of equipment, and this I think has been achieved with the combination of NZLAVs and Pinzgauer LOVs (and one or two Toyota utes in Bamyan). Whether it will remain so under the new broom remains to be seen.

[caromeg]

The LAVs were purchased to motorise the army due to the following reasons:

The NZ Army and its 113 performed poorly in Bosnia spurning a desire to catch up with the big boys with better equipment. - The army leadership failed to admit to itself that it was a Pacific Light Infantry Army not a Central Europe NATO Force.

Dodson went to Harvard and in the US got caught up with the then thinking of Stryker and more mobile strategic forces. An idea that has been found wanting in the current environment.

The official INTERNAL recommendation for 113 replacement were:
Option 1 a $220 Mill M113 Upgrade!! .
Option 2 was if we had to go wheels then the LAV 2 due to ANZAC interoperability and amphibious capability suitable to our region, and multi variant fleet ie C2 Ambulance, mortar etc. Also AFVs have to be treated as fleet (Tactics for Beginners - Logistics for Winners) and fleet interoperability with ADF should be but isn't a high priority.

This was all run roughshod over by the CGS at the time and it was LAV3 - a better LAV than Aussies - of course. NZ Army Staff we forbidden and I mean exactly that, to talk to the ADF LAV team and their lesson learned teams.

IMHO
We ended up sacrificing a specialist and good quality light infantry Army to motorisation. A process that will take 10 -15 yrs to complete as it is a fundamental shift in capability.
Not withstanding that if you look at our region and current deployments they are light infantry based so I do question if the decision was well thought through.

I also recall that the official request to MOD was for something like one Battalions worth of LAV - about 50 and an off-the-cuff Political decision was made to acquire 105 . Quite cleverly committed funds that could have been justified in other capabilities.

In summary a light infantry general buying AFVs is always risky.

[skyhawkdon]

Nov 27, 2009 20:18:39 GMT 12 briandooley said:

I wouldn't go so far as to say that.

But I think it's fair to point out that Skyhawkdon is probably an ex-member of 75 squadron RNZAF which consisted of the Skyhawks which fell out of the sky at the same time as NZ bought the NZLAVs for the NZ Army, so it's perhaps understandable that he's pretty choked , but that's no excuse for getting his facts wrong and getting all bitter and twisted about it.

The NZLAVs weren't bought to replace the Skyhawks, they were bought to replace the ancient M113s, which were actually falling to pieces - so much so that half of them had been cannibalised to keep the rest more or less mobile. The Army originally had 105 armoured vehicles which over the years fell over and which were replaced by 105 LAVs.

The decision to can the air strike wing was taken because it was an enormous expense bearing in mind that it only once fired in anger and that was at an illegal fishing vessel which refused to turn itself in. To be quite fair the fisher bloody soon put the brakes on when it got a few rounds of cannon fire across its bows.

To sum up, the LAV purchase had nothing to do with the demise of the Skyhawks.

Ake ake kia kaha.

Which roughly means 'Hang loose, guys'.

Brian as I previously pointed out to you (quite politely I thought) your ramblings about LAVs and other random subjects on this thread are difficult to follow and frankly aren't worth commenting on any more. Everyone is entitled to their opinion on the demise of the Air Combat Force and there are many threads on this subject on this forum which you are welcome to contribute to. However your comments above about me, Skyhawks and 75 Squadron are getting a little personal which is not appropriate. I particularly take offense to your "rough" translation of the 75 Squadron Motto.

Last week I attended the funeral of a former 75 Squadron colleague who was killed in the service of his country. The hundreds of former members of 75 Squadron who attended understand the true meaning of that Motto. Your flippant use of it here is inappropriate - please remove it.

[caromeg]

Oh - and... - I also bailed up Carey Adamson (nicely) going into Timor on the LAV issue - he confessed he had been trying to get Army to engage the other two services who had far greater experience in large platform base hi-tech acquisitions but Army just wasn't listening (it refused help). I raised my concerns at the cost of sustaining LAV 3 on deployments and he agreed.
If you look at defence planning now - they talk of Platoons and Companies. if they Talk Battalions then it always has heavy caveats of short term and its light infantry not MOT BN etc.
The reason being we just can't afford it.

So lets look at LAV objectively:
Its an outstanding piece of kit - don't get caught into armchair nonsense. I have seen it fire on the move at night doing stuff that knocks your socks off.
But, the NZ Army cannot sustain a reasonably large fleet for very long in regional engagement.
It wheels not tracks - both good and bad. Largely Bad in SWP
We cant man them (50% manning on a good day).
In the big - come as you are very one hundred year war -ADF will not be able to fix our wagons.
They cost a Billion bucks
In nearly 10 yrs we have had a LAV support the police a few time and three are going to go as armoured paddy wagons.

Doesn't this smack into those people who used the argument that the A-4 was never deployed?

Now I put to you this:

If we had a specialist light infantry brigade with adequate helo support and STANO, wouldn't that be a capability people would take notice of and provide far greater options for our government?

[caromeg]

Skyhawkdon

Mate, Ignore it, I posted the truth on LAV .
Keep playing the ball and not the man.

[Dave Homewood]

Nov 28, 2009 7:57:41 GMT 12 skyhawkdon said:

Brian as I previously pointed out to you (quite politely I thought) your ramblings about LAVs and other random subjects on this thread are difficult to follow and frankly aren't worth commenting on any more.

Agreed. Brian, please make your posts more concise, on track, and on topic (or at least related to the topic in some way). The multiple posts that bounce around as if you're having a one-sided argument with yourself are very difficult to follow. We want to read your input and opinion but please make it more clear and condense it into one post at a time. If you have something to add you can hit "Modify" on your previous post and add it in.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion on the demise of the Air Combat Force and there are many threads on this subject on this forum which you are welcome to contribute to. However your comments above about me, Skyhawks and 75 Squadron are getting a little personal which is not appropriate.

Also agreed. You are new to this forum Brian so perhaps you're not aware that this is a very friendly place, where a lot of VERY knowledgable people contribute, who are often specialists in their field and generally do know a lot about what they talk about. Please do not start insulting people's intelligence simply because something is said you don't agree with. Construct a better debate if you can, but personal attack is not welcome.

I particularly take offense to your "rough" translation of the 75 Squadron Motto.

Last week I attended the funeral of a former 75 Squadron colleague who was killed in the service of his country. The hundreds of former members of 75 Squadron who attended understand the true meaning of that Motto. Your flippant use of it here is inappropriate - please remove it.

Whether Brian intended to remove it or not, I have deemed it offensive and I have removed it.

[phil]

Nov 27, 2009 20:18:39 GMT 12 briandooley said:

[glow=red,2,300][/glow]I wouldn't go so far as to say that.

But I think it's fair to point out that Skyhawkdon is probably an ex-member of 75 squadron RNZAF which consisted of the Skyhawks which fell out of the sky at the same time as NZ bought the NZLAVs for the NZ Army, so it's perhaps understandable that he's pretty choked , but that's no excuse for getting his facts wrong and getting all bitter and twisted about it.

Don's facts are not wrong. And yes, Don is an ex member of 75 SQN, as am I and a number of others on this board. Hence we have a lot of real world experience of what we speak.

The NZLAVs weren't bought to replace the Skyhawks, they were bought to replace the ancient M113s, which were actually falling to pieces - so much so that half of them had been cannibalised to keep the rest more or less mobile. The Army originally had 105 armoured vehicles which over the years fell over and which were replaced by 105 LAVs.

...

To sum up, the LAV purchase had nothing to do with the demise of the Skyhawks.

Clearly you are not aware of the political interference from a number of senior army officers, that eventually cost them their careers and caused a fundamental change in the way defence chiefs are appointed. Refer Barnsey's posts for the details, no point in me reiterating it here.