[trogg]

(Another in the growing series of Trogg’s rants)


A minor report in the radio news a couple of days ago (22nd) was followed up on the xtra and NZ City web sites but nothing on the mainstream sites (that I could find).

The report is fairly vague but basically two soldiers were injured (one seriously) when their Armoured Personnel Carrier rolled when the terrain beneath it gave way.

Sure, they are soldiers and that is one of the risks they take in their job and in their training but what if the machinery they are given is not suitable and is risking the soldiers before they are even on the battlefield?

Reading between the lines the Armoured Personnel Carrier is probably the new LAV III version, which started to be phased in from August last year.
This new APC is basically a $6,000,000 eight wheel drive truck (replacing the vintage but still dependable M113 tracked APC) with the latest toys and gadgets that money can buy. Unfortunately they are not the most reliable with the first six delivered suffering from a range of problems, one even suffered a broken axle one month after delivery. Now is that good value for money when they have done between 277km and 2344km?

Unfortunately there were critics right from announcement of the contract to purchase 105 of them (plus spares etc totalling around $700,000,000).
Many have said they are too heavy (at twenty tonnes) to be useful anywhere other than formed roads therefore useless in areas where they might be deployed like East Timor, Australia’s Northern Territory or even Waiouru. The manufacturer states there have been no problems with previous models (like the USA’s Stryker version) being deployed in Ethiopia and Afghanistan.
Hello… where are the swamps and wet clay in those countries?

Wouldn’t it make more sense to buy something that wasn’t heavy with a high centre of gravity (and was prone to rolling over) for use in the areas where it might be deployed? Obviously not, and now we have two injured in day to day training.
Even the Americians are starting to question if it is money well spent.

How many more personnel of our small Army have to be injured or even paralysed before the powers that be start realising they stuffed up in this purchase and try to find a way out of buying all 105 of them only to be parked up?

:shrug:

[styx]

I'll have a word with my mate, who has just got the unenviable job of chief purchasing officer for the armed forces :wink:

Trouble is, he's a raving right-winger, and gun nut . . .

[trogg]

Originally posted by styx@Mar 26 2004, 01:51 PM
I'll have a word with my mate, who has just got the unenviable job of chief purchasing officer for the armed forces :wink:

Sweet one Styx.

I am picking the deal has already been done and there will be a huge penality to cancel but maybe the penality is cheaper than paying the ongoing medical cost of injured drivers.

In my humble opinion as an outsider, I think it would be better to buy some new versions of the M113 that we already know can handle the terrain that they are likely to serve in with the NZ Army.
Sure they might not carry as many people but at least they can drive out of a C130 Hercules ready for battle unlike the LAV III that requires a second C130 to carry the troops and ammunition etc.

And if he is the guy responsible for signing off on the Pinzgauer Light Operational Vehicle (LOV) contract order to replace the ageing Land Rover fleet then a huge thumbs up.

I have been doing some research on them (there is even an armoured version available) and I think they will be hard to break.
Check this out if you want to see a 6x6 with a 2.4 tonne payload that will put most off-roaders to shame!

[trogg]

Originally posted by trogg@Mar 26 2004, 05:46 PM
And if he is the guy responsible for signing off on the Pinzgauer Light Operational Vehicle (LOV) contract order to replace the ageing Land Rover fleet then a huge thumbs up.    

Well it is official... the Pinzgauer purchase has finally been anounced (NZ Herald 29/03/04).

And the award for worst kept secret goes to.......