the LAV III is not a small vehicle like the pingauer, it must weigh-in at least 3 times as much if not more.

the ping is ment to be a lightweight armd patrol vehicle, the LAV III isnt 'light'

chatting to mates at armd wksps in NZ they are NOT impressed with the LAV III, it has not got the mobility or the flexibility of the CVT(R) scorpion / M113 APC mix the NZ army was using previously.
the scorps and the m113 were totaly knackered and worn out, they had to be replaced, but the general consensus of the blokes at wksps and in NZRAC QA sqn seems to be that the LAV III cant do the same job as good.

Originally Posted by DrStealth

the LAV III is not a small vehicle like the pingauzer, it must weigh-in at least 3 times as much if not more.

the ping is ment to be a lightweight armd patrol vehicle, the LAV III isnt 'light'

chatting to mates at armd wksps in NZ they are NOT impressed with the LAV III, it has not got the mobility or the flexibility of the CVT(R) scorpion / M113 APC mix the NZ army was using previously.
the scorps and the m113 were totaly knackered and worn out, they had to be replaced, but the general consensus of the blokes at wksps and in NZRAC QA sqn seems to be that the LAV III cant do the same job as good.

Fair enough, the LAV25 may not be exactly what we're looking for, I was just using it as a quick example. My point is that 70 - 100 suitable vehicles could be acquired much more quickly and cheaply.

Fantastic IED proof excellent wonderfull, unless your the guy on top cover! In which case your still Fukked.

quick spotters note......

theres a bit of diff between the LAV25 and its 'bigger bro' the LAVIII

the LAV III is slightly bigger in all dimensions and runs on bigger dia tyres and rims, the (net) weight is increased by about a 1/3 to 18 tons.

"It also reinforces claims that the Army could be involved in Afghanistan's reconstruction for up to a decade."
and the rest.
john

From the website:

"Stories about the pinzgauer are usually about the laws of physics and the glorious moment when they were broken"

Quite a claim - I bet DPA believe it to be literal!

Originally Posted by Trossachs

Originally Posted by Percy_Pigeon

Originally Posted by sandmanfez

MOD procurement really are a slack bunch arent they? This is rated as an "Urgent operational requirement" and yet they're not capable of rolling them out, for over a year. Its a bloody disgrace!

Ok then were can we get 70 -100 armoured vehicles at the drop of an hat.

Just cos its operational does not make it possible


Its not an exact science and to that end will take time. Better to have a less than perfect solution than a rushed in ill thought out UOR.

I SPEAK FROM EXPERIENCE... TWICE

As has been said elsewhere - LAV is pretty readily available, I've seen the Canadian version and been impressed. We should have bought a Bdes worth years ago. Meanwhile that useless heap - SAXON - is for sale through the surplus chain. See www.witham-sv.com They will also sell you a 432, Sabre, BARV and an armoured mondeo - price reduced....

Next question - when did the UOR go in ? When they started to ship Snatch out ? We had them on TELIC 3 so they have had a while to find something better !

I worked on the "Get some effing Snatch" requirement during TELIC 2. The work to decide what to replace it with started as soon as, if not sooner than, the end of Telic 2. You might notice that the threat has evolved during this period. It has not remained constant - change of means and methods etc. Not easy to design a UOR in these circumstances.

All UORs are a trade off BTW. Buying something that we already have (in another version) is a good idea - think of the other lines of development....

The problem with the wmik imho in operations other than war is .Is if the little locals stone you youre screwed its not like you can cut loose with the gpmg and people will whine about it being too agressive .They need something like this pity it will take time to get them.

Originally Posted by sandmanfez

Originally Posted by DrStealth

the LAV III is not a small vehicle like the pingauzer, it must weigh-in at least 3 times as much if not more.

the ping is ment to be a lightweight armd patrol vehicle, the LAV III isnt 'light'

chatting to mates at armd wksps in NZ they are NOT impressed with the LAV III, it has not got the mobility or the flexibility of the CVT(R) scorpion / M113 APC mix the NZ army was using previously.
the scorps and the m113 were totaly knackered and worn out, they had to be replaced, but the general consensus of the blokes at wksps and in NZRAC QA sqn seems to be that the LAV III cant do the same job as good.

Fair enough, the LAV25 may not be exactly what we're looking for, I was just using it as a quick example. My point is that 70 - 100 suitable vehicles could be acquired much more quickly and cheaply.

Okay but which 'suitable' vehicle could be acuired more quickly and cheaply? It is all very well sitting there saying they got it wrong; anyone could do that. The £30m questions is what was the right answer and so far i dont think anyone here has answered that.

The timescales they are dealing with to introduce a new vehicle into service seem pretty reasonable to me. Bearing in mind the training issue. The Army work on a training cycle that spans many years and equipment commissioning can usually only happen in one 6 month slot in that perios. Quite often the delay into active service of these vehicles is due to the availability of the unit to train up on them, no matter how simple the training is. On top of that the logistic element has to be sorted acuiring the right number of spares and furnishing the units. On top of that the country specific equipment (radios etc) have to be integrated into the vehicle system and often changes have to be made to accomodate power requirements.

I guess all i am saying is that it very easy to pick holes in what the MoD did, when very often they have done things for the right reasons at the time. I guess that argument could expand into a whole set of others, but i beleive that they probably have done the right thing.

The timescales for rolling out new equipment might be reasonable in a peacetime army on a peacetime procurement cycle.

The trouble is we have a peacetime procurement cycle servicing an army engaged in combat operations - and so servicemen are dying as a result.

The management (sic.) of the armed forces, for whatever political reason, are unwilling or unable to make the bold procurement decisions which are necessary to get the right kit in the right timeframe. The argument that "it takes time" to develop solutions is fatuous: from the beginning of WW2 up until the 1960s, complex weapons projects (including aircraft) were designed from scratch and brought to field issue in a matter of months - and today we have design technology unimaginable in those days.