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
He is only protected at those portions of his body the plates cover.
I'm not a tanker, and Iraq was the first time I was given humvees to move my team around. I am not a mechanized guy by trade. That having been said, what I saw in 'Stryker country' was that those machines do not leave the wire unless they absolutely have to. For the time I was there I'd say that our two gunvees got way more 'face time' on raids than any Stryker.
I don't blame this on the Stryker drivers at all. They don't make the rules, and I'm sure that they'd like to get to do more than they do. But the word on the street is that losing Strykers will destroy OERs. Lots of OERs. Now, I can't speak to the merits or faults of the Strykers, but its clear that there are segments of the Army leadership that are fishing hard for good press.
What he H**l is that?
Tracks instead of wheels?
Steady.
Seems there's still a lot of debate amongst intelligent people re the Stykers abilities in the field, from every angle. I put a lot of weight on the post/s here from folk who have ridden them, worked in theatre with them. Me, I'm not an expert on LAV's but find the debate interesting at least.
centurion316 wrote ....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....
The National Business Review is New Zealand's equivalent of "The Wall St Journal". Its interest in the NZLAV would have been prompted by the cost of purchase, and value for money. Note, (your post #64) that the National Business Review was not quoting a New Zealand newspaper.
Many here thought the NZ army should have retained a tracked upgrade path. These views would have been strengthened by the New Zealand Army's M113's going places in East Timor that Australian LAV's could not.
Zelazny Rules!
I’ve worked with both wheeled and tracked vehicles in combat. What I write reflects some of my experience. What is your experience? Be careful when you use cross oceanic adjectives like “bollocks.” Most do not know what it means so it applies to you s well as me.
The New Zealand Royal Defense Force bought over 100 Strykers while watching ours roll over, bog down and really make asses of themselves. Now we cannot take it to Afghanistan because the roads are too small? WHAT? Did we build a fleet of land warriors that cannot leave the road?
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.