Interesting sights at the top of the Taka's

[Lou Girardin]

What really 'p**ses' me off (scuze the language) is that NZ has no defense engineering contracts/firms/industry. Not only do I think that there is a huge market for kiwis working creating defense equipment (not just guns and ammo - but heavy industry vehicles), but I think the knowledge is here for newer and better things to be created. It would majorly benefit the local economy if for example a firm produced military grade trucks, trailors, tractors and other such engineering equipment for civilian use (as most defense contractors do).

Heck - even the kiwi uniforms are just jeans and t-shirt compared to what others are starting to look at.

We did once, there was the Semple 'Tank'. As fine a piece of No 8 engineering as you could hope for.
If it had been used against the Japs, the ground would have been strewn with their bodies, rolling around laughing.

[SPORK]

We did once, there was the Semple 'Tank'. As fine a piece of No 8 engineering as you could hope for.
If it had been used against the Japs, the ground would have been strewn with their bodies, rolling around laughing.

I think I saw that Semple tank somewhere. Absolutely useless. It WAS rather comical though!

[Hoon]

my main beef with the LAVatories is
a) damn expensive for a relatively soft vehicle compared to alternatives. I know buying ex-russian equipment would've been a bit of a big finger to the US but the reality is the money saved could've been spent on making the russian equipment even better and replacing any electronics to integrate with the US and Aussie.

Unfortunately its not that simple. If we were a non-western country then we would've been onto a bargain. Countries using LAVs are US, Canada, Australia and NZ. Countries using the BTR80/BMP3 are Russia, Pakistan, Iran, Syria, China, Emirates, Hungary and Afghanistan amongst others. Now when you get new vehicles like this you need training and also devise a manual of tactics and procedures (putting aside the language barrier and logistical nightmare of having to deal with a foreign non-ally). The easiest way is to share with allies that already use them however I can't see much chance of any of the above BTR80 countries sharing their SOPs with us let alone any combined exercises.

Likewise the AK47 is a reliable rifle but how many western countries do you see using it?? If a NZ soldier were to start shooting one off in the middle of a battle he would likely find a friendly grenade being tossed his way. Likewise would you trust the identification skills of a US Tank commander or bomber pilot when your russian APC emerges from the scrub?!?

Like I said before, buying Russian APCs was never an option. Only people that have limited knowledge on the subject would consider it. The only real options were to upgrade the M113s or buy the LAVs however I do agree that the LAVs were hellishly expensive but I aint complaining

[sAsLEX]

Likewise the AK47 is a reliable rifle but how many western countries do you see using it?? If a NZ soldier were to start shooting one off in the middle of a battle he would likely find a friendly grenade being tossed his way.

in vietnam I know the US preferred the ever reliable AK over the then new M16, just had to watch out for friendly fire due to their unmistakable sound, but the yanks are used to being shot at by their own

[Coldkiwi]

Likewise would you trust the identification skills of a US Tank commander or bomber pilot when your russian APC emerges from the scrub?!?

Mate... I don't think it matters! The US A-10's couldn't identify British Armoured columns, and those f-15's couldn't even identify their own bloody blackhawk choppers before shooting them down!! (yeah... it REALLY looks like a Mil-24 don't it?)

[Wenier]

On a trailer, and with no rotor blades, is probably as safe as a Robinson will ever get. They have a shocking accident record. My sons boss binned his new one recently.

Well the fact that the designer of the robinson, someone robinson i think came to NZ and saw wut the ppl were doin wit them and said no wonder uv got such a high crash rate tells ya somethin. Fact is many NZ pilots over stress robinson helicopters.

[matthewt]

A ex-boss of mine had two copters, a Robinson and a Jet powered one of some sort. His view was that the Robinsons were great copters provided you didn't try and do things they were never designed for. Too many people got them because they are more affordable and then thought they could do anything in them.

[James Deuce]

Like I said before, buying Russian APCs was never an option. Only people that have limited knowledge on the subject would consider it. The only real options were to upgrade the M113s or buy the LAVs however I do agree that the LAVs were hellishly expensive but I aint complaining

Gee thanks for the dis bro.

I worked on an appropriations evaluation in '95 on buying what were essentially gutted ex-eastern bloc APCs, command vehicles and amphibs, that were fitted with Cummins diesels and NATO comms suites - like I already said. the BMP came with a 25mm Bushmaster turret option as well, and were a fraction of the cost of the LAVs. We will not be operating LAVs in the terrain they are designed for. We will be attempting to use them in rugged pacific and Melanesian islands. The M113 update was not considered because the US won't, repeat, won't sell it to us due to our lack of a military relationship. The only forces we will be operating our LAVs with will be Australian and only when US forces aren't involved and only in Australia. That won't change unless the government changes, and then the LAV programme is likely to be reviewed to it's detriment. I think it has been a huge cock up. If you have a finite defence budget, a fluid political environment, and little justification for expenditure on force additions that have no practical benefit to local defence or border control, why waste billions?

[Coldkiwi]

Like I said before, buying Russian APCs was never an option. Only people that have limited knowledge on the subject would consider it. The only real options were to upgrade the M113s or buy the LAVs however I do agree that the LAVs were hellishly expensive but I aint complaining

But there must be other wheeled APC vehicles with some form of medium calibre turret with similar performance to the LAV's used in western countries? I don't quite understand the insistence of our govt to buy something that was clearly not the best use of money unless it was the only option (seems rather unplausible, especially when we paid so much)

[Coldkiwi]

I think it has been a huge cock up. If you have a finite defence budget, a fluid political environment, and little justification for expenditure on force additions that have no practical benefit to local defence or border control, why waste billions?

now I'm more confused! I thought the LAV buy up was a suck up to the Yanks, hence the huge price tag. But if they've got the pip with us still, then why did we even bother?
Jim, what were the rough figures looking like for converting the BMP's into a Nato compatible format? Would they have still been cheaper than the LAVS after the equipment/comms/gun update?

[Coldkiwi]

and here's some more food for thought:
Excerpt from a US soldiers memo of a recent firefight in Iraq where LAV III's (Aka Strykers in the US) where engaged by rebels as published in the September Issue of Investigate Magazine
"At one time I had to reload the 50 (Cal) with ammo. The ammo was on the outside of the vehicle on the side. Why they effing put it there I don't know!"

I dunno about our soliders but I think if I needed more ammo in a firefight, I'd rather have it right next to me than on the outside where i could get neatly perforated in the process of getting it.

The article also contains a rather disturbing report of a LAV being fully burnt out by a single RPG round.

Whats the point of these things again? 'Bullet magnets' I seem to recall was a catch phrase used in Black Hawk Down

[James Deuce]

now I'm more confused! I thought the LAV buy up was a suck up to the Yanks, hence the huge price tag. But if they've got the pip with us still, then why did we even bother?
Jim, what were the rough figures looking like for converting the BMP's into a Nato compatible format? Would they have still been cheaper than the LAVS after the equipment/comms/gun update?

This was an evaluation run after the National Govt had already turned the offer down, due to the "Suck up to the US" factor, but I believe we were offered 150 powered "shells" (chassis and running gear) for 10 million. The armament and comms options where then ours to order depending on our requirements and could cost up to 5 million per vehicle. Remember it was all NATO standard stuff, and a vast improvement on the Vietnam era comms and armament the Army was using at the time (95-96). I was the NZ Army Data Communications Engineer at the time, and we were attempting to deploy radio LAN connected equipment in APCs and Land Rovers that had no electronic hardening. The RFI made it practically unworkable.

[Hoon]

Gee thanks for the dis bro.

........ We will not be operating LAVs in the terrain they are designed for. We will be attempting to use them in rugged pacific and Melanesian islands.

Sorry no offense. Just that most people are quick to decide from the comfort of their armchair that the cheaper option is better without any consideration for the bigger picture or the soldier riding in it.

The problem with decreased mobility in rugged country would be no better with the Russian APCs either as they are wheeled too so this is getting into the tracked vs wheeled debate.

This is addressed in the Army's Long Term Development Plan which outlines the move to a highly mobile motorized Infantry to replace our light infantry. I guess they weighed up the options and decided the pros of the wheeled APC (better speed, range, maintenance) outweighed the cons (cost, decreased mobility etc). Other countries with bigger budgets have the luxury of maintaining both vehicles types however we can only afford to keep one so I guess wheeled offered the best overall performance.

I doubt the LAV would make much difference to how we'd deploy to the Pacific. The Aussies used their LAVs very successfully in ET. Also in rugged terrain like that, all patrols are done on foot with maybe an APC or helo dropping you off then coming back a week later to pick you up if you're lucky.

The article also contains a rather disturbing report of a LAV being fully burnt out by a single RPG round.

This isn't a LAV problem but an APC problem too. Any APC (without additional armour) and a lot of tanks wouldn't take an RPG shot either. The Chechyans have rewritten the book on infantry anti-armour warfare and are now considered the best in the world after making mincemeat of even the toughest Russian tanks with their RPG tactics.

[James Deuce]

Sorry Hoon I don't agree.

[Coldkiwi]

This isn't a LAV problem but an APC problem too. Any APC (without additional armour) and a lot of tanks wouldn't take an RPG shot either. The Chechyans have rewritten the book on infantry anti-armour warfare and are now considered the best in the world after making mincemeat of even the toughest Russian tanks with their RPG tactics.

soo... errr... whats the point of have a light armoured vehicle if light armour won't even protect troops from one of the most common battlefield weapons employed by every hick two man militia? Isn't it a bit like having a protective mozzie net to keep out the bugs in the bush and saying 'well, at least we're safe from bugs even tho bullets could get us'? Why buy something that can't do the job? We're not likely to have to defend against Tank or artillery rounds but surely RPG's are a common enough threat in peace keeping operations that the equipment should be able to take a hit?