Da da TA da
da da da TA
Posted on 06/10/2004 4:45:00 PM PDT by Vetvoice
The controversial Lav3 light armoured vehicle is understood to have caused a multimillion-dollar army budget blowout, while pictures fresh from the battlefields of Iraq graphically expose the vehicle's shortcomings.
Note: This story is accompanied by extensive imagery of the Lav3 suffering massive damage under combat conditions. Those photographs are available in the print edition.
Defence sources told The National Business Review the army had sought nearly $40 million extra funding for the Lav3s, a highly sensitive request given the controversial nature of the vehicles' purchase.
The Lav3s, which began service late last year, cost nearly $700 million.
The heated debate over wheels or tracks aside, the 105 Lav3s bought by the government is nearly twice the number of vehicles originally considered necessary in a single purchase.
Army spokesman Ric Cullinane and Ministry of Defence PR man Warren Inkster said they didn't know of the extra funding request.
But NBR understands there is a Lav3 funding paper trail between the army, the Chief of Defence Force Air Marshall Bruce Ferguson, the Ministry of Defence and the Treasury.
Official Information Act requests have been lodged with those parties and Defence Minister Mark Burton seeking all correspondence on the matter.
National Party defence spokesman Simon Power has also submitted a series of written questions on the matter to the minister.
Meanwhile, soldiers in a US Army "Stryker" unit have sent alarming photos of their hapless Lav3s out of Iraq.
The troops are describing the Lav3 as a "widow maker," according to US military analyst Lonnie Shoultz.
The images show the lumbering eight-wheeled vehicles stuck in the mud and in ditches.
New Zealand First defence spokesman Ron Mark said he'd heard stories from New Zealand Army soldiers of the Lav3s getting stuck in the mud during training in Waiouru, then ironically being towed out by the M113 armoured personnel carriers the army chose not to refurbish. The Australian Army chose to spruce up its M113s.
More seriously, the pictures show the Lav3 burning like a roman candle after being struck by rocket-propelled grenades (RPG) and driving over land mines.
Shortly after deployment in Iraq the Lav3 was revealed to be too thin-skinned to survive an RPG or mortar attack.
It has since been fitted with a heavy slatted cage, designed to take the initial brunt of an RPG or mortar explosion.
But this has proved futile, with US troops reporting Lav3s being routinely "lit up" by explosives.
That aside, the cages have made the Lav3 too wide to cross many Iraqi bridges, too big to fit into a C130 Hercules -- the plane they were designed to be transported in -- and about 2300 kg heavier, which considerably decreases their manoeuvrability.
As for landmines, the photos show the Lav3 failing there too.
The Lav3 was designed to be capable of driving away from a landmine explosion which Mr Burton has always maintained was a big advantage of the vehicle.
But the image on page 1 [print edition] shows the "tie rod" on one of the wheels has blown clean away from the undercarriage (inside the blue ring on the photo).
Even without the raging inferno, defence sources said, the vehicle was "not going anywhere on its own."
11-Jun-2004
Thanks,
I'll look up Sparks and Schoultz.
Personal bias goes back to 'sixties:
Tracks in field, wheels on the perimeter.
And then, only airbases and such where the threat was infiltration or indirect fire.
PS: Whoever posted that the LAV is only intended to get troops into the area missed notice of the humongus turrets they hung on about half of them.
My dear young friend. I think that the best answer to this is to glance into my diary and see what I had to say:
"Dear Diary"
" Today was a very busy day. Met this morning with representatives of all units scheduled to rotate into Iraq for the OIF 3 rotation beginning in about 2 weeks. They were very focused on their mission and hopeful that we washed up old farts could find some way to get them the equipment that they need to carry the fight to our enemy. I hope that I don't let them down."
"Caught glimpses of the Reagan funeral at the Crown Room in the Atlanta Airport. Sorry I missed the whole thing, but after all, we are at war. Important that we remember that Ronald Reagan saved the World."
"Responded to an ill-advised post on Free Republic. A well-meaning and Good American posted a vitriolic and propagandish screed from some commie-leftist newspaper in New Zealand that propagated complete nonsense about the Stryker Combat Vehicle. Of course, this leftist agenda merchant journalist, quoted Lonnie Scholtz, a kind soul, but completely ignorant and misinformed on the subject of armored vehicles. Scholtz has become the favorite source from those on the left who rant against this innovation, as they would against anything military. Unfortunate dupes, whose hearts are pure, but whose understanding of the facts are lacking, join in on the cacaphony. Meanwhile brave men die, not as a result of the alleged malfeasance cited in these screeds, but because our enemies: on the field of battle, in the mosques, in the Congress, and in the Media are undermining the tough work that has to be done."
"Dear Diary: Forgive these misguided souls, they know not what they do, I bear them no ill will."
I refer you to the original piece from the New Zealand newpaper quoted by the National Business Review.
I refer you to the original piece from the New Zealand newpaper quoted by the National Business Review.
Now this is an interesting question and deserving of some comment. In the long history and evolution of armored vehicles for use by Infantry, one enduring principle has been that infantry vehicles serve three purposes: to provide transport for infantry soldiers, to protect those soldiers from the effects of small arms fire and artillery fragmentation, and to provide an effective means of supporting fires from protected positions whilst the infantry dismount and advance by foot. Occasionally, some crackpot or clueless enthusiast would advance the opinion that infantry vehicles could go toe to toe with tanks; but those who had experienced the demands and realities of combat knew better.
Now here we have a proposition that the function of an armored infantry carrier ought to be to be to acquire an RPG gunner from under armor, through vision blocks, within a 360 degree arc, during those few seconds that it takes for an RPG gunner to jump up from concealment, sight and fire his weapon. Then, before the gunner can fire, the turret will slew, lock onto the target, and engage, thereby saving our erstwhile hero from the evil towelhead denivens of the East. Might be possible on Star Trek, but not on the planet and century that is Earth A.D. 2004.
Are you out of your cottonpicking mind? Just wondering.
As an historical aside, I was witness to just such an encounter while serving with the 7th Squadron, 17th Cavalry in a small Southeast Asian Country. A platoon of D Troop had fitted a 7.62 minigun to one of their gun jeeps. One of their frequent missions was to escort Forward Area Armament and Refuel Point (FAARP) convoys consisting of Ammo and Fuel trucks. Near Kontum, some valiant Communist stood up out of the underbrush and aimed his RPG at a fuel truck. D Troop's minigun swung into action and on 3-second burst sent our Commie gunner to meet with Lenin in Hell. It was a lucky shot. You don't build armored vehicles against this sort of requirement. Get real.
I write this as I watch our dearly beloved President Reagan move slowly toward his interment. God bless his immortal soul, he saved us all from the yoke of tyranny.
Don't let facts get in your way pal. I can just imagine who your future employer will be.
What in the world can you possibly have in mind, and what facts do you think apply to this discussion? I am confonded. Have a nice life.
Da da TA da
da da da TA
Go look at Post 1. I am not the initiator of this thread.
That's your proposition, not mine. My proposition is that an armored fighting vehicle should be dangerous to more than just the people who have to ride in it.
Then, before the gunner can fire, the turret will slew
There is no turret on a Stryker. Didn't all those soldiers you personally talked to tell you that?
So if a grunt puts on a Class IV vest with ceramic chest and back plates, he's reasonably protected from AK-47 fire. If he gets hit directly with an RPG round, he's toast.If said grunt jumps into an M113, Stryker, or LAV III, he's reasonably protected from AK-47 fire. If the vehicle gets hit directly with an RPG round, he's toast.
So what's the point?! Why not just have cheap, high-speed vehicles if your "heavy" armor can't defend against an RPG or mortar round?
Or better yet, why not field vehicles that are designed to patrol in areas saturated with RPG and mortar-armed enemies (i.e. to shrug off hits from said weapons)? Why have wheels instead of tracks if the wheels simply equate to being immobilized in mud?
But this in between stage, where the armor weighs a lot yet still doesn't protect against RPG's seems like a poor trade-off as you get neither speed nor additional defensive protection. Paying $millions$ for vehicles that are being taken out with $35 RPG and mortar rounds just doesn't make sense.
So with that said, it's a good thing that the Jihadis are poorly trained, generally ignorant, incoherent fighting forces against us.
We're seeing firsthand which equipment works, and which were ill-thought-out compromises. We'll become a better fighting force for these lessons paid in our blood (which thankfully isn't being made worse by a more skilled foe at the moment).
Over my paygrade. I have no expertise in armor or other fighting vehicles.
The Stryker's are not taking the field. They are hidden in the open areas of a former palace grounds. I can do that in an old jeep a lot less expensively than in a $3.3 million dollar Stryker.
The Stryker Brigade has never had its Mobile Gun System (MGS) that was to be delivered by General Dynamics. General Dynamics doens't believe that it can field the guns before sometime in 2005 so the next Stryker Brigade (1/25) that will replace this one in December will not have all of its weapons either - just what General Dynamics wants to deliver.
Lonnie Shoultz did not write that article. It is written under the name of Nick Bryant in a magazine in New Zealand. What have they got to do with Strykers anyway?
You need a head check once it gets clear of another part of your anatomy.
Read this reference opposing the ink about Kerry's "Three Purple Hearts: http://camden.k2bh.com/boards/MessageList.cfm?ThrID=1861#1
Dark and smelly up there, isn't it? Next time, put some KY Jelly behind your left ear, and some Preparation H behind your right ear.
Well done. You have scored two points in a row. I didn't look at Post# 1, and the effects of Jack Daniels led me to a brain dead comment about a turret. Gun slews though, so with that correction, my comment stands.
If you are not operating buttoned up, there is no point in having a remoted operated weapons systems. Am I missing something?
I guess that this debate will go on forever, but I have to tell you that this problem is not very high on my priority list. In the work that I am doing, I hear from units in theater every day. They have long lists of things they really need. The 3d Brigade, 2d ID is not asking for help to fix deficiencies in the Strykers. Analyses of attacks and casualties bears this out, its doing OK. We've got some big problems, but this isn't one of them right now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.