|
|
Post by briandooley on Nov 25, 2009 14:56:44 GMT 12
What price would you put on them?
And what experience do you have to support your assessment?
|
|
|
|
Post by caromeg on Nov 25, 2009 20:39:45 GMT 12
I find the arguments of deploying APCs by herc on this thread interesting. Ever since NZ Army has operated Armoured Vehicles there has never been any real plan to storm troop the skies with PCs in Hercs. Armoured fleets are generally treated as that - a fleet.
These three lavs are ideally deployed by air as its practical time wise, and there's only three, not thirteen or thirty which would change the plan considerably. I know many US commanders don't like moving stryker around in c-130 as they don't have the legs and there's a config burden at departure to prepare for ops. C-17 is a better option as its roll on roll off for most vehicles. Thats not to deride the Herc its just that there are limits to capabilities.
I saw a 113 in a herc and it worked fine and it was done for Timor via herc, but we would not and in the end did not deploy all of Wai Wec or QAMR Sqn via herc - it would just take too much time. (In theory 60+ APCs! ie the fleet - we deployed a PC troop of about 20 from memory - will stand corrected)
Sealift / Rail is the way fleets have mainly been moved strategically.
|
|
|
|
Post by briandooley on Nov 26, 2009 8:20:46 GMT 12
At last a sensible reply from someone who seems to know. I guess I ought to tear off my false whiskers and reveal that s well as spending some years in the RNZAF I also did my UK National Service in the Royal Artillery, and once a gunner, always a gunner.
I have found that things don't change much over the years and I haven't had much trouble following the reports from eg Afghanistan, which I have been particularly interested in because my old regiment (40 Field) has only just returned to the UK from Helmand.
More later.
|
|
|
|
Post by caromeg on Nov 26, 2009 9:35:31 GMT 12
dont you mean once a gun monkey always a gun money
or
once a drop short
or
notice the yellow in your corps belt say the cheeky sapper
|
|
|
|
Post by briandooley on Nov 26, 2009 11:54:10 GMT 12
We were far too busy watching the Russians on the other side of the Westphalian Gap to worry about that kind of nonsense, and now I'm too old.
|
|
|
|
Post by briandooley on Nov 26, 2009 12:29:11 GMT 12
What would you do with one if you had one?
This was in reply to a moan about a strike wing.
|
|
|
|
Post by briandooley on Nov 26, 2009 12:52:23 GMT 12
The purchase of the NZLAVs was certainly justified, no matterr who signed the cheque.
|
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Nov 26, 2009 14:20:36 GMT 12
But we didn't need so many. The money wasted on the extra 40 or so that we don't need would have been better spent on other capital equipment.
Personnaly I'm glad they are going to be used operationally at last. Give them a chance to prove their worth (or not). Sending them into a combat zone is one way to find out!
|
|
|
|
Post by briandooley on Nov 26, 2009 14:52:08 GMT 12
I'm pretty sure that Wiki has an article for the NZ Army which gives a rundown of the current distribution of all the NZLAVs and it shows that they are all commited to particular tasks. Before you (notionally)change that you need to show why, and to do that you need to show what is wrong with the current tasking. Try: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Army#Major_equipmentAlso: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NZLAV |
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Nov 26, 2009 18:44:56 GMT 12
Allocation to a unit does not mean they are actually using them. My understanding (as reported in the media over the years, including recent comments made by the current Minister of Defence) is we only have enough qualified crews for half of them and many vehicles are inactive and in storage (some are brand new still and have only delivery miles on the clock). That is why a number will likely be sold next year.
We never needed 105 of them. The capital cost of the extra 40 over and above what we actually needed, plus the ongoing capital charge/depreciation and maintenance cost is not insignificant. It is money that could be better spent. And I'm not having a go at the Army here, the sorry saga of the Skyhawk and Macchi disposal is a similarly huge waste of taxpayer dollars ($30M+ to date by my estimate).
|
|
|
|
Post by briandooley on Nov 26, 2009 18:46:18 GMT 12
I was part of a crew which did a full refurbishment on a Bristol Freighter at Woodbourne.
|
|
|
|
Post by briandooley on Nov 26, 2009 18:57:23 GMT 12
First of all read my last and then decide whether you actually know enough about the international situation as it was then and now. Bear in mind that Defence has no idea what some stupid government might commit to eg Don Brash would almost certainly have gone along with the Ockers in Iraq.
While we're about it, do you know what the Ockers did in Iraq?
|
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Nov 27, 2009 6:45:04 GMT 12
I was part of a crew which did a full refurbishment on a Bristol Freighter at Woodbourne. And that has what to do with this thread??  |
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Nov 27, 2009 6:53:21 GMT 12
First of all read my last and then decide whether you actually know enough about the international situation as it was then and now. Bear in mind that Defence has no idea what some stupid government might commit to eg Don Brash would almost certainly have gone along with the Ockers in Iraq. While we're about it, do you know what the Ockers did in Iraq? You still haven't explained why we need 105 of them. I'm not sure what you mean about Ockers in Iraq? Labour also sent NZDF personnel there which they seemed to convieniently forgot once the war started going wrong. I know about the Aussies experience with their LAVs in East Timor. |
|
|
|
Post by shorty on Nov 27, 2009 8:07:10 GMT 12
I was part of a crew which did a full refurbishment on a Bristol Freighter at Woodbourne. And that has what to do with this thread?? I was wondering exactly the same thing. |
|
|
|
Post by briandooley on Nov 27, 2009 8:20:30 GMT 12
Follow up to another post which got lost.
|
|
|
|
Post by briandooley on Nov 27, 2009 8:38:05 GMT 12
I *have* explained why 105 LAVs by posting the present distribution of them. If you have any problems with that you can post exactly how many we should have and where they should go - and why. The fact that we can't currently fully crew them isn't particularly relevant because it would only take about three months to train new crews from scratch - what has been missing in recent years is the wages to attract new recruits.
At the moment I guess I'm not terribly clever with the way this board works - it's just a wee bit different to what I'm used to.
|
|
|
|
Post by briandooley on Nov 27, 2009 10:23:34 GMT 12
Just pointing out that I used to know a bit about transport aircraft. I used to know a bit about strike aircraft too, but we called them Vampires and Canberras.
Apart from the names things don't change much.
|
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Nov 27, 2009 11:15:42 GMT 12
Follow up to another post which got lost. Brian to be frank your posts here have totally lost me. They are a rambling, jumbled mess! Try sticking to the topic of the thread and if you want to discuss something different try looking for another thread on the subject or start a new one. As for the discussion on LAVs I am done for now. |
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Nov 27, 2009 13:33:25 GMT 12
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.............. |
|
