Foreign troops label SAS vehicles 'unsafe for duty'

04 Mar 2010 10:50p.m.

Brian Dooley wrote:

I too studied the NZLAV question at length and I was aware of the theoretical criticisms you made (and still make), however that was then and most of your criticisms are no longer valid because the NZLAV has put in many miles in North and South Island in all weathers and also in the Northern Territory. It has been transported by C130 and fitted in as easily as an M113. There is no reason to think that it will perform any worse than the Canadian LAVs, which they were running when you wrote your article and which are still running, and for which they still feel there is no adequate replacement.

With respect to the 'kevlar coffin' and 'unsafe for duty' remarks, these were in reference to the US Stryker and were disputed by the very guys who were supposed to have made them when interviewed by a different journo. In fact they had all the hallmarks of a newspaper beat-up.

With respect to the number bought they are all spoken for but it is true they can't be properly manned until the troops are paid properly.

04 Mar 2010 11:36a.m.

Richard Prosser wrote:

No you can't, which is why there are different machines for different jobs. In the case of New Zealand where we have a small defence budget and a requirement for many different tasks, you have to pick the machine which is most versatile and best suited to the type of work it is going to have to do most of, and the LAV III isn't that machine.

I have been into this at some length, you can find it about three articles down the page here:

http://www.alor.org/NewZealand/Electricity-%20Politicians%20Not%20Low%20Lake%20Levels%20are%20to%20Blame.htm

Obviously a wee bit dated now, and pardon the politics, but both the previous Government and the current Minister while he was in Opposition were well appraised of the vehicle's shortcomings long before it was too late.

03 Mar 2010 08:13p.m.

Brian Dooley wrote:

But is the NZLAV too light or too heavy, too big or too small, not enough wheels or too many? Can you have a machine that is perfect for every possible military task, and does it exist? If it does then what is it?

03 Mar 2010 02:03p.m.

Richard Prosser wrote:

Neither the US Marine Corps nor the Australian Army use the LAV III. Both use variants of the LAV-25, which is smaller and lighter than the LAV III. Based on their experience in East Timor, the Australian Army chose to upgrade its M113 APCs rather than buy the LAV III. Israel has done the same thing. The US Army uses the Stryker, which is a more lightly-armed version of the basic LAV III chassis than that purchased by New Zealand and Canada. In addition, the Stryker was never intended as anything other than an Interim Armoured Vehicle for US Forces, meant to fill a short-term procurement gap. Canada has been looking for a replacement for its LAV IIIs since 2008.

The problem with the Stryker and the LAV III is that they lacks sufficient armour to provide protection for crews and soldiers when deployed in combat zones, and the addition of applique armour places excessive stress on the suspension and drive train, and makes the vehicle top-heavy and prone to roll-over.

It also means that the vehicle is unable to be transported by C-130 Hercules, which was a tender requirement for both New Zealand and the US Army.

In addition, the size and lack of manoeverability of the wheeled LAV III makes it unsuited to urban environments as it cannot easily turn around in narrow streets, or climb over obstacles such as burned out cars.

03 Mar 2010 12:23p.m.

Brian Dooley wrote:

Further to my last comment, if we discount the overtly political comments nothing is left which criticizes the NZLAV as a military vehicle. In support of its employment by NZ it should be noted that the Australian Army, the US Army and the US Marine Corps, all use variants of the Canadian LAV series and some are actually deployed right now in Afghanistan. In addition several other countries have either bought them or developed their own similar versions.

So what is so wrong about the NZLAV?

03 Mar 2010 11:25a.m.

Draco T Bastard wrote:

http://www.army.mil.nz/our-army/equipment/nzlav/default.htm "Currently the LAV is fielded with the Canadian Army, US Army, US Marines and the Australian Defence Force." So, JD, if the US vehicles are superior then why is the US using the Canadian vehicles?

03 Mar 2010 08:45a.m.

Brian Dooley wrote:

Who are the foreigners who say the NZLAVs are unsafe? What are their reasons, and on what authority?

03 Mar 2010 05:40a.m.

simon wrote:

this is another Americain war in which we should not be involved at all, Get Some Balls john Key save some money bring our boys back home, stop sucking up to the yanks, their country is long past it's use by date thanks to greed.

02 Mar 2010 11:26p.m.

JD wrote:

Oh please Brian, the Canadian's! you watch too much TV. The Canadians only use LAV's because they make the damn things, they are hardly going to use superior US equipment, which is battle proven, over there own homegrown tin cans on wheels. We can thank Labour for some truly bad choices when it comes to buying our military hardware, there agenda of buying non-US equipment, has done nothing but put our troops at risk with inferior gear.

02 Mar 2010 10:20p.m.

pirpi wrote:

Cut losses by selling the LAVs and bringing the soldiers home. They were never supposed to see combat anyway i.e. more bs from the government