|
|
Post by Bruce on Mar 8, 2007 17:56:35 GMT 12
according to media reports today, 37 out of 105 LAVIIIs operated by the NZ Army are currenly unserviceable. Most of the problems relate to chassis cracking as a result of construction faults. The necessary repairs will aparently be carried out by the builders, General Dynamics, but the fact that so many failures have occurred, especially under peacetime training conditions, has caused some embarrassment for the MoD. Phil Goff was trying to play down the problem today, but I reckon they may as well paint them Lemon yellow.... Now you know why they bought so many!
|
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Mar 8, 2007 18:18:46 GMT 12
Yeah, but the upside is that the ones out of action won't clock up too many kilometres in a year! ;D Have they melted down all the APCs yet; maybe they can bring them back online?  |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Mar 8, 2007 18:33:25 GMT 12
The LAV's look like very capable machines and certainly much better than the M113's they replaced. A few teething troubles for the fleet whilst still new is to be expected. I wouldn't really call them lemons.
I never knew they were made by the same people that made the RNZAF's F-16's, and probably paid for by the same moeny.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Mar 8, 2007 19:18:02 GMT 12
That's not what I'm hearing Dave. The technical ability was a bit beyond the Army initially, and the sheds built to accommodate them were the wrong size, etc...etc.. I still don't know why they needed 105 at six mil each!
|
|
|
|
Post by lesterpk on Mar 8, 2007 19:44:30 GMT 12
They were hoping lots of redundant air force avionics and armament would swap uniforms and help them maintain them, I think one changed, everyone else just left.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Mar 8, 2007 19:53:13 GMT 12
You cannot blame the shed size on the vehicles of course. I don't know too many details, just my impression from seeing them in action, they look very fast and capable. Of course they may not be as good in tough terrain, I don't know.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Mar 8, 2007 20:14:47 GMT 12
You can blame the shed size on the vehicles, because they were built specifically to accommodate them but they got the measurements wrong!
Lester is correct, they were a bit technical for the Army, and they did look to air force technicians for advice.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Mar 8, 2007 20:37:38 GMT 12
You can blame the shed size on the vehicles, because they were built specifically to accommodate them but they got the measurements wrong!
That's obviously the fault of some Army officer in planning, or the building contractors. Not the vehicle's fault. It's the building that is faulty, due to a huge cock-up. Just like when the Public Works Department laid the concrete for all the major warehouses at Te Rapa, and then the RNZAF pointed out they'd had the drawing upside down and it all had to be ripped up and done again!
|
|
|
|
Post by Radialicious on Mar 9, 2007 0:11:46 GMT 12
Is it true that the RNZAF C-130 cannot transport a LAVIII?
|
|
|
|
Post by Radialicious on Mar 9, 2007 0:14:28 GMT 12
It was mentioned during the news tonight that the LAV was breaking up during training but was yet untested in combat.
Seems a lot like our last Americas Cup effort
|
|
|
|
Post by flyjoe180 on Mar 9, 2007 8:11:25 GMT 12
Why the hell cant they test these things and check their suitability for air transportation properly before they buy them?
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Mar 9, 2007 9:02:59 GMT 12
They CAN fit in a Herc, I've seen it happen here at Ohakea. It's a bit tight, but it fits.
The Army was hoping for a great influx of Av and Arm personnel, but we all laughed at them. The LAV actually shares some components with the NAS in the A4!
|
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Mar 9, 2007 9:21:30 GMT 12
Is it true that the RNZAF C-130 cannot transport a LAVIII? Yes it will fit (just) but a fully loaded LAV weighs in at 20 tonnes which is about the max payload (fuel AND freight) that a Herc can lift). In the trials done at Ohakea the Herc took off flew around for about 20 minutes and landed again with minimum fuel. The trial was only done (at Army's request) to prove that it would fit in and could take off - just to shut up those who said it couldn't be done. It was the heaviest single load our Hercs had ever carried and I have heard that 40 Sqn have no wish to ever repeat the exercise! There are not many places you can fly in NZ in 20 minutes, let alone deploy them by air overseas! If they are ever needed somewhere in a hurry it will have to be by Antinov or someone elses C-17 or C-5. They are a very expensive piece of kit, one which is only of any use on good roads. As soon as they go off road they get stuck and if the road/bridge isn't designed to handle 20 tons then you can imagine the result... Australia found their LAV's to be totally unsuitable for use in East Timor in 1999 and withdrew them and replaced them with their M113's. They then decided to upgrade their M113's instead of buying more LAV's... we should have done the same. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Mar 9, 2007 14:05:31 GMT 12
Blimey. Well, they do not sound as impressive as they look then. How many will be able to be loaded onto that new ship we're getting?
I guess it's a cunning way for the Government to stop having to deploy our troops into war zones...
|
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Mar 10, 2007 17:09:14 GMT 12
Is it true that the RNZAF C-130 cannot transport a LAVIII? Yes it will fit (just) but a fully loaded LAV weighs in at 20 tonnes which is about the max payload (fuel AND freight) that a Herc can lift). In the trials done at Ohakea the Herc took off flew around for about 20 minutes and landed again with minimum fuel. The trial was only done (at Army's request) to prove that it would fit in and could take off - just to shut up those who said it couldn't be done. It was the heaviest single load our Hercs had ever carried and I have heard that 40 Sqn have no wish to ever repeat the exercise! There are not many places you can fly in NZ in 20 minutes, let alone deploy them by air overseas! If they are ever needed somewhere in a hurry it will have to be by Antinov or someone elses C-17 or C-5. They are a very expensive piece of kit, one which is only of any use on good roads. As soon as they go off road they get stuck and if the road/bridge isn't designed to handle 20 tons then you can imagine the result... Australia found their LAV's to be totally unsuitable for use in East Timor in 1999 and withdrew them and replaced them with their M113's. They then decided to upgrade their M113's instead of buying more LAV's... we should have done the same. I have joined the group as I just can't let this rubbish continue  1. Yes a combat loaded LAVIII weighs around 20 tonnes but it was never envisaged that it would be carried combat laden. The air portable weight is significantly lower. It can be flown to Australia - the RNZAF have said so. Even if army wanted to carry it into 'combat' can you really see the government allowing one of our precious five C-130s flying into a combat area 2. A trial loading into an RNZAF C-130 was done long before the one you mention. The one you mention was a follow on and done in part to try and stop the unfounded rumours some people were and apparently are still repeating 3. The Aussie Army did not find their LAVs unsuitable in East Timor and withdraw them and send in M113 (I know which website you or you informant have been reading. Much of it is down right lies). The M113s were there from the start. Certainly the wheeled vehicles were more suited to the coastal plains than the hill country but the nature of terrain/vegetation in the hills was also better suited to the infantry units that operated their M113s. The cavalry unit operating the LAV was better suited to the plains. By the way Aussie LAVs are II's, ours are III's. Aussie LAV do not weigh even close to 20 tonnes. Its like saying a 727 is the same as a 757 just because they are both made by Boeing. 4. Aussie has just about finished taking delivery of a major follow on purchase of LAV almost doubling their total number  They have been arguing about how to upgrade their M113s for 20 years and the current plan is to only upgrade about 1/3 and dispose of the rest. 5. Other messages on this thread claim the vehicle sheds were the wrong size - rubbish. 6. Cracking of one component has been identified and the repair takes just a couple of days. 7. When purchased, the LAVs were not manufactured by the same company as the F16s. They were made by part of the company who made our diesel railway locomotives ;D Since then the company has been brought out by General Dynamics. I've had numerous conversations in several base messes on the same topic. I think I generally manage to dispel the rumours. That is all except one memorable night in the Whenuapai Officers Mess. Arriving back in NZ on a Herc flight from East Timor and going into the mess in uniform to find the disbandment of the ACF had just been announced was not a wise move  I felt in more danger than the mission I had just left. I retreated. |
|
|
|
Post by caromeg on Mar 10, 2007 17:53:40 GMT 12
I agree with the comments made by 30sqnatc. The LAV3 is a first class vehicle and it has been unfailrly bagged. Vehicle Sheds are fine at least they were in Friday when I drove past some of them. The comments made about carriage in a C-130 have always been odd. Under what military nessesity would an AFV in the NZDF be carried by a C-130 in Combat Load? Things must be pretty desperate if we are going to risk $50 million bucks worth of capital and training. If you are going to move these vehicles strategically you do it by ship rail or road, just we did with the 113s to Timor.
Having spouted positives about the Lav 3, I still wonder if it was the right vehicle for NZ. It is very expensive to support logistically and one point that is often missed is that the premier vehicle of the NZ Army is out of step with ANZAC interoperability. This comment always irks Kiwis as we hate having to admit that we just can't afford some type of equipment on our own. On issue of Lav in general, what is often lost to observers is that just as the RNZAF lost it's strike capability, how many people are aware that the NZ Army, now nearing the completion of it's motorisation process, has lost it's light infantry capability. Soldiers cruise in the back of Lavs only one in five can read a map properly, when was the last time 1 or 2/1 did a battalion live field firing attack ( in the bush). The skills from S/E Asia are gone (but still need in the long term). Kiwi Army is Mot Inf not Lt Inf.
With repect to the comments about working on the plains in Timor this highlights waht these vehicle are designed to do and do very well - work on established road networks to dominate the increasingly urban environment. The 113 was designed for the more rough terrain work.
Talk to the Army Geo boys and they will tell you how difficult the terrain is in SWP. Lets not forget that the orginal Army proposal was for Lavs (about 25) to replace the Scorpions in the Recce Role and 113 Upgrade with Australia. - all for about 200 Mill.
Oncapabilities should we also be questioning what happened to the Territorial Force? Once it was a very capable Army in its own right. It died in 1993 when the money to train them dried up and they stopped exercising - a cold war dividend on top of a Defence Force that was already at cold war dividend level?
The only way forward from here is leadership and common sence. Failing that a calamitous human disaster that pulls us together and prioritises the work.
Lastly to end the grip and put it all in perspective
You get the Defence Force you vote for.
|
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Mar 10, 2007 18:14:43 GMT 12
How many troops can a LAVIII carry?
The Australian Army LAVIIs are used more as fire support vehicles as they can only carry four(?) troops in the back, plus the crew. The Australian LAVIIs also have a amphibious capability, which I believe isn't a feature of the Kiwi LAVIIIs.
The Australian LAVs have seen quite a bit of service in Iraq, and one has even had a car bomb explode next to it, which severely damage the LAV, but luckily the crew all survived.
The M113 upgrade has had more than it's share of problems, and the last I heard was that there may even be less vehicles modified now as the project has suffered quite a cost blow-out.
|
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Mar 10, 2007 19:22:00 GMT 12
How many troops can a LAVIII carry? The Australian Army LAVIIs are used more as fire support vehicles as they can only carry four(?) troops in the back, plus the crew. The Australian LAVIIs also have a amphibious capability, which I believe isn't a feature of the Kiwi LAVIIIs. The Australian LAVs have seen quite a bit of service in Iraq, and one has even had a car bomb explode next to it, which severely damage the LAV, but luckily the crew all survived. The M113 upgrade has had more than it's share of problems, and the last I heard was that there may even be less vehicles modified now as the project has suffered quite a cost blow-out. Three crew (all NZ LAVs are turreted including our recovery and engineer blade variants) and seven passengers with all facilities. There is seating for a eighth 'occasional' passenger |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Mar 10, 2007 20:10:55 GMT 12
I'd be interested to know where the info about LAV hangars being the wrong size came from, I've been in the hangars in Linton and Burnham, as well as at TTT in Waiouru, and they all appear to fit the LAVs.
If I remember correctly we have already deployed LAVs overseas, to Australia, again if I remember correctly it would have been in laet '04, early '05 perhaps?
|
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Mar 10, 2007 21:01:26 GMT 12
30
My info on the initial design of the sheds was from an impeccable source: I don't know you!
Obviously they fit the vehicles now, it would be idiotic to suggest otherwise, but in considering your vehement outburst, you might like to consider your own facts.
|
|
They have been arguing about how to upgrade their M113s for 20 years and the current plan is to only upgrade about 1/3 and dispose of the rest.
I felt in more danger than the mission I had just left. I retreated.