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
ping
The 101st ABN was not impressed. Lots of streets in Mosul Strykers can't get down.
You do a great job when you stick to facts. When you start dishing up unsubstaniated rumors, one begins to wonder when you will be fitted for your tin-foil hat.
Have you actually talked to a live soldier, NCO, or officer from a Stryker unit? I have. Many, including a number who are currently in combat. I have also talked to the technical folks who have examined in great detail each combat engagment resulting in damage to a Stryker vehicle. Their accounts bear no resemblence to the so called rumors that you report. And, the article you posted is a blatant hit piece without the slighest connection to reality.
"Rumor has it" that Bush was behind 9/11, too.
Rumors are free, and often worth every penny.
No a/c, however. (bummer)
Tracks,Lav-III's..Strykers.
Bodge them together...they can get it done..and use each other to get out of trouble.
Having CAS..reliable ..call now/watch CAS,
Thats the key to these light movers being strategic.
Which article would that be?
Ping me to an account of how the Remote Weapons System / .50 cal successfully engaged and destroyed an RPG gunner from a moving Stryker.
If the Stryker is so great, why did the Army stick it up in the relatively peaceful north? Why is it the only pictures of the Stryker off of paved roads usually show them stuck?
"Rumor has it that there has been more than one combat refusal to go out the gate in the Stryker."
I've heard that too. In various forms with the most common being, "I would rather walk than get cooked in the back of a Stryker."
You're correct. Forgive me. The Abrams had a seemless transition from the drawing board to the battlefield. Thanks alot for the blinding input. :o)
Maybe you'd like to enlighten us with some of your knowledge? Other than problems with the air filters in the first gulf war I'm not aware of any serious problems with the Abrams after it was put into production. Maybe the Stryker shouldn't have been put into full production until the "kinks" had been worked out? Of course, when a new administration and secretary of defense are breathing down your neck, congress is demanding side by side testing versus the MTVL, and GDLS is offering millions in stock options, things do tend to get approved quickly. BTW since you seem to be so well informed, has GDLS ever fixed that unfortunate recoil problem with the MGS Stryker? I'm sure a couple of tens of millions more dollars will have it nearly up to the level of the M8 in no time.
Wherer the rubber meets the road.
I have read the posted article, the original article, and previous articles by Lonnie Shoultz, He obviously is against the LAV/Stryker and is not being objective, in addition a lot of the points he raised I suspect are taken out of context or false. In essence I believe the article to be bollocks.
But the Stryker burns equally well. U.S. has not committed the Stryker to areas of heavy combat.
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.