|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 28, 2009 9:41:14 GMT 12
This is not a "No. 75 Squadron Domain" as you put it. We cover all RNZAF and NZ Civil Aviation topics with a lot more besides.
It is your choice to stay or go of course, but I'd prefer you stayed as I'd like to know more about your days with the Canberra, etc. We are not trying to push you out, this is not an exclusive club - you only need to read some other threads to realise this, I'm simply asking you to have a little more respect for the others on this forum who may well know as much as you, if not more.
|
|
|
|
Post by caromeg on Dec 2, 2009 18:09:02 GMT 12
Well, a fizzer to an interesting thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by yogi on Dec 6, 2009 17:19:40 GMT 12
Hmm I feel a tad awkward after reading that....
Anywayyyy.... I would like to expand on the whole lav aquisition thing, does anyone know why the patria was not considered? Surely it would have been a more suitable choice what with its modular swap options? Plus it really just seems to be a better apc as it can swim etc.
pollies and their follies eh?
|
|
|
|
Post by shorty on Dec 6, 2009 18:38:47 GMT 12
"Anywayyyy.... I would like to expand on the whole lav aquisition thing"
Why? The decision was made, whatever anyone may think about that decision it's done and dusted and nothing that is said here will make a blind bit of difference. Time to get over it and move on.
|
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Dec 6, 2009 22:13:32 GMT 12
Hmm I feel a tad awkward after reading that.... Anywayyyy.... I would like to expand on the whole lav aquisition thing, does anyone know why the patria was not considered? Surely it would have been a more suitable choice what with its modular swap options? Plus it really just seems to be a better apc as it can swim etc. pollies and their follies eh? Patria was on the list of potential contenders however the company decided not to offer their vehicle. |
|
|
|
Post by Parrotfish on Dec 6, 2009 22:13:36 GMT 12
Anywayyyy.... I would like to expand on the whole lav aquisition thing, does anyone know why the patria was not considered? Surely it would have been a more suitable choice what with its modular swap options? Plus it really just seems to be a better apc as it can swim etc. pollies and their follies eh? Evaluation vehicles for the modular Patria were not delivered to the Finnish Army until 2003 where as NZ were evaluatiing candidates before then and made its LAV purchase in the same year- 2003. |
|
|
|
Post by yogi on Dec 8, 2009 18:45:23 GMT 12
"Anywayyyy.... I would like to expand on the whole lav aquisition thing" Why? The decision was made, whatever anyone may think about that decision it's done and dusted and nothing that is said here will make a blind bit of difference. Time to get over it and move on. lighten up pal. Why? because I want to know if the patria was considered Thats pretty much it. For my own benefit, not to start a stirring debate. ok by you? |
|
|
|
Post by yogi on Dec 8, 2009 18:47:20 GMT 12
Anywayyyy.... I would like to expand on the whole lav aquisition thing, does anyone know why the patria was not considered? Surely it would have been a more suitable choice what with its modular swap options? Plus it really just seems to be a better apc as it can swim etc. pollies and their follies eh? Evaluation vehicles for the modular Patria were not delivered to the Finnish Army until 2003 where as NZ were evaluatiing candidates before then and made its LAV purchase in the same year- 2003. Ahh I see. cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Dec 8, 2009 19:20:24 GMT 12
Cool it guys, or this thread will be terminated. There's no need to get aggressive, anyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by caromeg on Jan 10, 2010 21:29:03 GMT 12
And you forget that Humans buy Weapons systems based on a bias due to performance - cost and other - "Human Factors". The LAV was the doctrine of the US Army at the Time - Gen Shinseki getting into Stryker Brigades and the such. Dodson thought he would be buying a piece of kit that could integrate with Uncle Sam stryker brigades in the long term.
Other Capabilities and systems had no real chance. the LAV 2 was written off purely because it was Aussie. Project officers were forbidden and I mean forbidden to talk to the AS LAV project team on Anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Jan 11, 2010 18:13:40 GMT 12
Other Capabilities and systems had no real chance. the LAV 2 was written off purely because it was Aussie. I'm sure GM Diesel Division Canada (now GDLS) will be interested to hear the LAV2 they designed and manfactured were Aussie vehicles. Aussie are but one of the countries who operate them. I wonder if the fact you can only seat 4 soldiers in the rear of LAV2 with 25mm turret had something to do with it? Makes it hard to carry the required infantry section without buying yet more vehicles, armour thinner than the M113A1s it was replacing and with an aged design turret driven (traversed) by hydraulics rather than electrics! |
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Jan 20, 2010 15:05:33 GMT 12
So, have they gone yet....
|
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on May 25, 2010 20:07:29 GMT 12
www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3732671/Govt-to-sell-35-army-LAVsThe Ministry of Defence wants to sell up to 35 of the army's 105 light armoured vehicles, it was reported tonight.
One News said it had obtained documents under the Official Information Act which showed three LAVs were sent to Kabul to help transport New Zealand's SAS soldiers deployed in the Afghanistan capital but there were no plans to send any more overseas.
The report said 35 were likely to be sold, and Defence Minister Wayne Mapp said the army had more than it needed.
"There's never been a question that the army needs LAVs - it does - the question is do we need more than about 70 or 80?" he said.
Dr Mapp admitted they could be difficult to offload.
"There's no doubt specialist military equipment is always difficult to sell so that's a bit of a lesson for the future - you should by and large acquire what you need, rather than more."
The previous Labour government paid nearly $680 million for the LAVs in 2003.
Green Party MP Keith Locke said there had never been a need for so many LAVs.
"It's welcome news that the Government is selling off a third of the LAVs that were very much surplus to requirement - only three have been used since we've had them," he told NZPA.
"There's no apparent need to have a large number for places like the Solomon Islands and East Timor where we do peacekeeping and tank-like vehicles are not appropriate if we want to maintain good relations with the local population."
Mr Locke said it appeared the army pushed the Labour government into buying 105 LAVs for the sort of combat New Zealand forces were unlikely to be involved in.
"It's good that instead of having them hanging around we're selling them off while we can still get something for them," he said.
"There was never really a good case for having so many." Mr Locke defence expert - yeah right ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by nige on May 26, 2010 14:26:06 GMT 12
Green Party MP Keith Locke said there had never been a need for so many LAVs. Apart from entertainment value, why on earth does the media always refer to Keith Locke for informed commentary on defence issues? Yes, he's the Green's defence spokesperson but he is proudly anti-defence, proudly anti-american and proudly anti-NZ/western collective security etc. It's a bit like asking a criminal ring whether they think the police have the resources they need - of course the criminal gang is going to downplay what the Police needs. Alternatively substitute "criminal gang" with "mining company" and "Police" with "environmental protection agency" is anyone thinks I'm liking Keith Locke to a criminal etc  "It's welcome news that the Government is selling off a third of the LAVs that were very much surplus to requirement - only three have been used since we've had them," he told NZPA. Keith: only three have been deployed because NZDF lacks the associated LAV combat support vehicles. They were in the Labour Govt's LTDP for years but were never bought - so perhaps attack Labour for not resourcing the Army LAV fleet in the first place. I'd imagine the 3 in Kabul now has some support arrangement in place with the US etc? In other words, NZ begging and borrowing again (mind you I'm sure the US doesn't mind, as they're happy we are there etc). "There's no apparent need to have a large number for places like the Solomon Islands and East Timor where we do peacekeeping and tank-like vehicles are not appropriate if we want to maintain good relations with the local population." Keith: When RAMSI first deployed to the Solomons there were a lot of high powered calibre guns there - LAV's would have been great to ensure the NZ troops were protected. The Aussies sent their APC's except that NZ's new LAV's weren't operationally ready eg I'd imagine crew training, procedures and doctrines were still being developed. So for Keith, are the lives of NZ service personnel important or not? If so, why weren't the NZ M113's kept on and deployed until the LAV's were ready - another question he can ask of Labour. As for East Timor NZ and Oz M113 APC's were deployed (pre-LAV). Has Keith forgotten about that? Does he want to ask the NZ Army whether the NZ M113's actually used their guns in anger? The truth wins every time over his obfuscation. Of course LAV's or M113's aren't needed now in ET or Solomons seeing peace has largely been secured, but they were needed originally. Dipstick. Mr Locke said it appeared the army pushed the Labour government into buying 105 LAVs for the sort of combat New Zealand forces were unlikely to be involved in. Keith: At the end of the day, NZ is run by the politicians not the Army. NZ isn't a military dictatorship. I would suggest, as others here have said previously, that it suited the then Labour Govt (or let's be honest, Helen) to ensure the NZ Army got their 105 LAV's because the numbers were so impressive, to demonstrate Labours "commitment" to defence, in light of the alarming Air Combat disbandment. Keith: How do you know what is around the corner and what sort of combat NZ forces are unlikely to be involved in. More obfuscation eh. "It's good that instead of having them hanging around we're selling them off while we can still get something for them," he said. Keith: More obfuscation, i.e. sell of anything that is useful to NZDF because it suits your agenda. And what will we get for them versus what we paid for them? How on earth would Keith know, he's not in Govt talking to the US Govt etc. "There was never really a good case for having so many." Keith: That's rather simplistic and is open to debate - there are variables that need to be taken into account. Such as should we equip NZ's two battalions with LAV's properly (and, like the US and UK, remain combat ready and do less "peacekeeping" - peacekeeping suits Keith's agenda, but look at the terrible toll years of peacekeeping has had on the NZ Army - they are worn out, suffered resignations of experienced NCO's - combat support elements have had to do foot patrols themselves, it's not what they signed up for), where are the support vehicles and other budgetary support. Whilst I personally too question the number of LAV's bought but from the perspective of the Army being able to do its job properly, not because like Keith who would rather use the funding instead to fund his pet environmental and welfare projects. Next! Bring on the next piece of Keith Locke uniformed agenda driven garbage to be cut to pieces! |
|
|
|
Post by shorty on May 26, 2010 15:47:17 GMT 12
I am very much hoping that Keith Locke will come and live in Cheviot, as our resident village idiot has left and we are urgently seeking another, he is the most qualified one we have managed to find.
|
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on May 27, 2010 20:33:29 GMT 12
Well said Nige  |
|
|
|
Post by nige on May 27, 2010 22:46:27 GMT 12
Thanks, although actually I think Shorty put it rather well too - I could picture Keith Locke wearing a jester's hat, multi-coloured tights and juggling a few balls up in the air, whilst grinning away!
PS meant uninformed not uniformed, above!
(Ooops if this is a tad inappropriate for a public forum then please delete this Dave)!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by adzze on Dec 11, 2010 20:42:50 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by hawkeye on Jan 15, 2011 9:21:19 GMT 12
Good luck with that. Read Nige's comment - loss of experienced NCOs, thrashing of suppport staff and I would add that there is a paucity of good Lt-Capt Officers
|
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Apr 17, 2011 10:29:15 GMT 12
NZ Troops Get Secret Airlift of Armoured Cars ON THE QUIET: The LAVs' airlift was kept under wraps to reduce the risk to soldiers. www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/4890310/NZ-troops-get-secret-airlift-of-armoured-carsThe Government is sticking by its plan to pull New Zealand troops out of Afghanistan by 2014, despite sending armoured cars and extra infantry to beef up their combat capability. Five light armoured vehicles have been secretly flown to the provincial reconstruction team in Bamyan, and a further three presently operating with the SAS in Kabul will also be sent to the province. The deployment coincides with the next rotation of troops to the PRT and follows the death of Lieutenant Tim O'Donnell in a roadside bombing last year. The eight LAVs have been upgraded at a cost of $3.8 million with extra armour and roof-hung seats to protect against mines and roadside bombs. Joint Forces Commander Air Vice-Marshal Peter Stockwell said the extra armour would also provide greater protection in accidents on the difficult roads - a danger highlighted by the February death of Private Kirifi Mila. Extra infantry troops have also been assigned to the PRT, boosting the total numbers from around 100 to about 140 - the cap set by the Government. The deployments come in the face of continuing restlessness in the province's north east, and raise questions about whether New Zealand can meet the 2014 date for withdrawal. But Defence Minister Wayne Mapp insisted the deadline still applied. "We have to protect our people in the meantime. The LAVs are significantly safer, particularly with the new seating arrangement." The five LAVs sent from New Zealand arrived in Bamyan's north east yesterday. The three already in Kabul were freed up after the SAS deployment there was reduced. Bamyan's north east has significant pockets of support for the Taliban and the Defence Force kept the LAV deployment top secret for fear the vehicles could be targeted on the way to the area. Fairfax Media uncovered the airlift plan in February, but delayed publishing details till the LAVs were in place after the military raised concerns that an early report would risk an ambush by insurgents and put soldiers' lives in danger. The vehicles were flown in two shipments on a Qantas 747, which was indemnified by the Government. Air Vice-Marshal Stockwell said the Defence Force's C130 Hercules could carry only one LAV at a time on short-haul flights and tactical deployments, but not intercontinental airlifts. He said the bomb that killed Lieutenant O'Donnell, who was in a Humvee, would have done considerable damage to a LAV, and he could not say for sure whether the young officer would have survived the blast had he been in one. Ad Feedback "I'd hate to make a call on that. It would be pure speculation ... there is no 100 per cent protection with any vehicle." However, the patrol would have been better placed to fight off the follow-up attack, which used rocket propelled grenades and small arms fire. Labour Defence spokesman Iain Lees-Galloway, who is also the MP for Palmerston North, said the deployment reflected the increased danger Kiwi troops faced in Afghanistan. "It's important that the army uses all the equipment that its got available to it to make operating in Afghanistan as safe as possible for our soldiers. It's a reminder, if we needed one after last year, that the environment over there is dangerous." - By VERNON SMALL and MARTIN KAY
|
|
