New Zealand Army

[ngatimozart]

A NZ Army Brigadier has been appointed Deputy Commanding General of the Combined Joint Forces Land Component Command, Operation Inherent Resolve (anti Daesh Coalition), for a nine-month period from November. The Brigadier General will be based in Baghdad and as per current NZ policy regarding personnel deployed to Iraq, will not be named.

 

[Rob c]

Tracked vs wheeled has been discussed here before way back.
I think the advice from more knowledgeable forum members was that wheeled platforms (LAV etc) are faster and can get across 90% of where they need to be, and speed around the rest. And Pacific Islands have adequate road structure. Therefore, there is little point adopting a tracked system. Apologies if I have misrepresented anyones comments. From memory, from reading DTR other advantages of wheels are cheaper to run, quicker to repair, smoother ride and better comfort. On the other hand the Brits seemed happy with the performance and mobility of their Broncos in Afghanistan. And although we are focused on the local this hasnt stopped us borrowing hummers and sending LAVs further afield, where both plafroms had limitations (protection and mobility respectivly)

I have heard the wheeled argument in regard to speeding around the rest, and this probably ok for a pure APC however I don' buy it in NZ type conditions when referring to an IFV that is need to provide support to the troops. The problem is that in hill country it is tactically important to either take or hold the high ground. and in NZ we have a hell of a lot of high country. So it is no good when you need your troops supported, either to take or hold high ground, having your support vehicle going flat out round and round the bottom. I would also question the 90% figure as I was shown a figure by an MP just before the LAV's arrived that gave the NZ access figure "from memory" of around the 60-65% mark, There were huge tracks of NZ that it could not access either because they were to steep or to soft.

 

[ngatimozart]

I have heard the wheeled argument in regard to speeding around the rest, and this probably ok for a pure APC however I don' buy it in NZ type conditions when referring to an IFV that is need to provide support to the troops. The problem is that in hill country it is tactically important to either take or hold the high ground. and in NZ we have a hell of a lot of high country. So it is no good when you need your troops supported, either to take or hold high ground, having your support vehicle going flat out round and round the bottom. I would also question the 90% figure as I was shown a figure by an MP just before the LAV's arrived that gave the NZ access figure "from memory" of around the 60-65% mark, There were huge tracks of NZ that it could not access either because they were to steep or to soft.

We generally use our IFVs overseas for combat, although training is done in NZ. That's the general idea. So theoretically we buy for what we intend to use them for. We field light infantry and from what I understand we rely on speed, so wheeled IFVs are better suited for speed. From what I have been reading, the 25mm gun is no longer seen as the optimal calibre gun for IFVs, with 30mm or preferably 35mm being seen as optimal.

I've already alluded to the amphibious capable IFVs and to me that is an important capability for the Army to have because it now is undertaking amphibious warfare operations. There are two types of turret, manned and RWS (Remote Weapon Systems) turrets. The manned turrets have a basket that hangs from the turret into the vehicle underneath and can reduce the pax carrying ability by up to 4 pax. For example in the BAE Iveco Super AV it would reduce the pax (excluding driver) carrying ability from 12 fully equipped soldiers, plus their gear, to 8 fully equipped soldiers, plus their gear. A RWS turret doesn't have the basket and it has the capability of being reloaded from inside the vehicle, so you can carry the 12 fully equipped soldiers, plus their gear. The disadvantage of the RWS turret is that there is no vehicle commander ability to poke the upper part of their body out of the top of the turret for a look around. The RWS turrets do have 360 degrees sensor / camera coverage.

I have been looking at the NZ Army having mobile fire support in the form of 105mm / 120mm turret mounted gun on an 8 x 8 wheeled IFV. I've looked at the US Army Stryker 105mm AGS and it would not be the system for us because of problems that they have with the auto loader and that it only has 18 rounds in the vehicle. There are other options around, even if we have to go with a manned turret. This isn't a replacement for towed artillery because they have different strengths and weaknesses.

The other thing that I have been looking at is better AA cover for the Army. Part of it is based on mobile AAA and SAM capability based around the Rheinmetall Skyranger 35mm system with say Starstreak or LML SHORAD missiles fitted to the side of the turret. This would be fitted to the same 8 x 8 wheeled IFV as the mobile fire support gun in the para above, which would be the same 8 x 8 wheeled IFV acquired to cart the infantry around.

I am a firm supporter of the mobile gun platforms and this has lead to some lively discussion between myself and Mr C who isn't. His opposition is mostly based on cost.

 

[Rob c]

We generally use our IFVs overseas for combat, although training is done in NZ. That's the general idea. So theoretically we buy for what we intend to use them for. We field light infantry and from what I understand we rely on speed, so wheeled IFVs are better suited for speed. From what I have been reading, the 25mm gun is no longer seen as the optimal calibre gun for IFVs, with 30mm or preferably 35mm being seen as optimal.

I've already alluded to the amphibious capable IFVs and to me that is an important capability for the Army to have because it now is undertaking amphibious warfare operations. There are two types of turret, manned and RWS (Remote Weapon Systems) turrets. The manned turrets have a basket that hangs from the turret into the vehicle underneath and can reduce the pax carrying ability by up to 4 pax. For example in the BAE Iveco Super AV it would reduce the pax (excluding driver) carrying ability from 12 fully equipped soldiers, plus their gear, to 8 fully equipped soldiers, plus their gear. A RWS turret doesn't have the basket and it has the capability of being reloaded from inside the vehicle, so you can carry the 12 fully equipped soldiers, plus their gear. The disadvantage of the RWS turret is that there is no vehicle commander ability to poke the upper part of their body out of the top of the turret for a look around. The RWS turrets do have 360 degrees sensor / camera coverage.

I have been looking at the NZ Army having mobile fire support in the form of 105mm / 120mm turret mounted gun on an 8 x 8 wheeled IFV. I've looked at the US Army Stryker 105mm AGS and it would not be the system for us because of problems that they have with the auto loader and that it only has 18 rounds in the vehicle. There are other options around, even if we have to go with a manned turret. This isn't a replacement for towed artillery because they have different strengths and weaknesses.

The other thing that I have been looking at is better AA cover for the Army. Part of it is based on mobile AAA and SAM capability based around the Rheinmetall Skyranger 35mm system with say Starstreak or LML SHORAD missiles fitted to the side of the turret. This would be fitted to the same 8 x 8 wheeled IFV as the mobile fire support gun in the para above, which would be the same 8 x 8 wheeled IFV acquired to cart the infantry around.

I am a firm supporter of the mobile gun platforms and this has lead to some lively discussion between myself and Mr C who isn't. His opposition is mostly based on cost.

While I agree that for the tasks our army tends to do in peace time, a wheeled vehicle is the better option when used oversea's. We must remember that the prime function of any countries defence force is the defence of that countries sovereignty and the freedom and security of it's peoples. so it's equipment should reflect this. It must also be remembered that out of 105 LAV's only 5 have traveled overseas. I do support having some LAV's , but I think a mixed fleet would have been a better option. Even the Auz army expressed surprise at the time of the buy with the totally wheeled outcome. At the time of the purchase the info I had pointed to significant political input.
I agree with you in the need for direct fire support for the infantry and I would think that it is verging on essential in a true combat situation, but would prefer a tracked vehicle for mobility reasons. While AA cover would be nice .
I would think that with the removal from service of the current AA missile system that AA in general has a very low priority.
In regard to the option of either man or RWS weapon systems, I think both have their advantages and disadvantages at this time, but as time and technology moves on the advantage should swing to the RWS type systems.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

As a "light infantry" force with limited personnel resources the employment of the NZ Army if alone will likely be in lower level conflicts as has occurred in Timor, Bourgainville and the almost Fiji deployment during the coup in the 90's. As such, the ability to get ashore and provide protected mobility is an important factor.

This is where I see the Bronco as a force multiplier as it can depart the Canterbury via LCM or on its own and climb from the water across the beach. I would suggest a pool of 24 vehicles to provide a deployable force of 12 to command and move the company ashore plus three specialist units in the form of a fitter and two mortar carriers. The remaining vehicles would be for training and attrition replacement back in NZ. The need for the 25 or greater main gun in these engagements is unlikely as an HMG and or AGL will be superior fire power against irregular or local government forces.

The employment of the mobile mortars will provide a longer range punch if required especially if the 120 mm system is acquired.

If NZ is required to operate in a coalition operation then the upgraded LAV is the better choice for the same reasons it was originally acquired for speed and levels of protection.

A mixed fleet provides options to commanders to accomplish the objective.

 

[kiwi in exile]

Re: 25mm guns. I remember reading on wikipedia (yea I know) that upgrading to a 30mm bushmaster increases firepower by 50% for a 20% increase in caliber size at 70% parts commonality. 30mm seems to be the way forward and would be an easy relatively cheap upgrade for both the LAVs and RNZN, but would it be warrented given the amount of action we see? Not sure what the NZ LAV upgrade is likely to entail, but wouldn't be too surprised if its a limited upgrade. Would be interesting to see us relook at our whole turret design/options. Again, the articles in previous issues of DTR are a great read regarding this. Would sooner see us incorporate a precision missile capability than a large calibre gun.

Fiji recently recieved weapons shipments from Russia, which included RPGs (as well as 5.56mm AK101s). This should be considered. Give their history of instability and coups, some of these may fall into the wrong hands.

 

[40 deg south]

Re: 25mm guns. I remember reading on wikipedia (yea I know) that upgrading to a 30mm bushmaster increases firepower by 50% for a 20% increase in caliber size at 70% parts commonality. 30mm seems to be the way forward and would be an easy relatively cheap upgrade for both the LAVs and RNZN, but would it be warrented given the amount of action we see? Not sure what the NZ LAV upgrade is likely to entail, but wouldn't be too surprised if its a limited upgrade. Would be interesting to see us relook at our whole turret design/options. Again, the articles in previous issues of DTR are a great read regarding this. Would sooner see us incorporate a precision missile capability than a large calibre gun.

Fiji recently recieved weapons shipments from Russia, which included RPGs (as well as 5.56mm AK101s). This should be considered. Give their history of instability and coups, some of these may fall into the wrong hands.

Given Fiji's modern history of erratic leadership, the Fijian Army may well constitute the 'wrong hands' as far as NZ is concerned!

I think the flurry of recent defence announcements is giving us all a rush of blood to the head.

Given we have 100+ low-mileage LAVs, the odds are heavily against us acquiring a new vehicle type. I'd expect part of the fleet to get a protection upgrade, hopefully along the lines of Canada's LAV 6 programme, a few designated command post/ambulance-type fit-outs, and a big chunk of the fleet to get mothballed for spares under a tarpaulin somewhere. Upgrading the 25mm or getting some fire support versions might be nice, but I am not convinced it will happen. Note this is pure speculation from a civilian outsider: could be completely off the mark.

Addendum - interesting new modular variant now released. That could well be appealing if the costs are comparable to the standard LAV 6 upgrade.

Rapid role reversal [CANSEC2016D1] | IHS Jane's 360

 

[ngatimozart]

Given Fiji's modern history of erratic leadership, the Fijian Army may well constitute the 'wrong hands' as far as NZ is concerned!

I think the flurry of recent defence announcements is giving us all a rush of blood to the head.

Given we have 100+ low-mileage LAVs, the odds are heavily against us acquiring a new vehicle type. I'd expect part of the fleet to get a protection upgrade, hopefully along the lines of Canada's LAV 6 programme, a few designated command post/ambulance-type fit-outs, and a big chunk of the fleet to get mothballed for spares under a tarpaulin somewhere. Upgrading the 25mm or getting some fire support versions might be nice, but I am not convinced it will happen. Note this is pure speculation from a civilian outsider: could be completely off the mark.

Addendum - interesting new modular variant now released. That could well be appealing if the costs are comparable to the standard LAV 6 upgrade.

Rapid role reversal [CANSEC2016D1] | IHS Jane's 360

The NZ LAVS are due for a MLU and they are looking at either replacing or upgrading the NZ LAV. That would be a prudent move to assess the best option looking to the future, considering that the Army and NZDF has been refocused towards an expeditionary force (amphib ops) structure. Historically NZDF has always been an expeditionary force but never adequately equipped for it, until now. Expeditionary because since the NZ land wars of the 19th Century all our wars have been overseas.

 

[chis73]

One of the statements in the DWP cabinet minutes released recently struck me as intriguing. It said that one of the options currently under consideration was a "smarter distribution of vehicles between the light armoured vehicles training and operational fleets." To me, that sounds like government-speak for not upgrading many of the LAVs and assigning the remainder to "training". It was mentioned alongside bringing forward the retirement of the IPVs - so that lends credibility. So, chances of a major upgrade of the LAV fleet seem optimistic. Maybe they might get some better IED protection and updated electronics.

Source (see para 7).

 

[Rob c]

The NZ LAVS are due for a MLU and they are looking at either replacing or upgrading the NZ LAV. That would be a prudent move to assess the best option looking to the future, considering that the Army and NZDF has been refocused towards an expeditionary force (amphib ops) structure. Historically NZDF has always been an expeditionary force but never adequately equipped for it, until now. Expeditionary because since the NZ land wars of the 19th Century all our wars have been overseas.

I think the option of some new vehicles is fairly remote even though I personally would like to see a reintroduction of a tracked option and a close fire support vehicle , realistically am not holding my breath for that to happen. However looking at recent history on hardware up grades gives me hope that the LAV upgrade could be extensive and comprehensive.

 

[kiwi in exile]

I see us upgrading rather than replacing our LAVs within the given timeframe. Getting upgrades along the Canadian LAV 6.0 line would be the most simple, affordable option. Upgrading a limited number would be fine. The fact that the ADF has not shortlisted this for their LAND 400 program suggests that there are some limitations with this platform, but anything else would be too costly for NZDF.

Equally, if not more important is replacing the LOVs (with Bushmasters).

 

[chis73]

I see us upgrading rather than replacing our LAVs within the given timeframe. Getting upgrades along the Canadian LAV 6.0 line would be the most simple, affordable option. Upgrading a limited number would be fine. The fact that the ADF has not shortlisted this for their LAND 400 program suggests that there are some limitations with this platform, but anything else would be too costly for NZDF.

Equally, if not more important is replacing the LOVs (with Bushmasters).

The problem with the LAV 6.0 upgrade is that it isn't really an upgrade, more a stealth replacement (much like the Royal Navy's through-deck cruiser). New hull, new engine, up-rated suspension, larger tyres, new seats, most of the expensive bits of the turret replaced - there ain't a lot left. Mainly the 25mm Bushmaster cannon. One thing it won't be is cheap.

LAV 6.0: Protected, mobile and lethal - Vanguard Magazine | Vanguard Magazine

Agree on the urgency of the Armoured LOV replacement (the unarmoured ones work OK). My thinking is that it's replacement requires two new types of vehicle (for our international peacekeeping effort).
1. A mine-protected 4x4 light armoured patrol vehicle, with a crew of 4-5. There are plenty of such vehicles currently on the market (eg. Oshkosh JLTV, Australian Hawkei, the BAE RG Outrider LTAV- with the Irish Army). Could also be used as an infantry battalion recon vehicle.
2. A larger utility MRAP in a wide variety of variants to cover multiple roles - but especially for the combat service support & combat support units. eg. Thales Bushmaster, the UK Ocelot etc.

Wouldn't expect huge numbers of these - enough to cover 2 rotations of a company group would probably do.

Finally, +1 me on the Bronco / BVS10 Viking vehicles. Just the thing for puddling about in Pacific Island lagoons. More of a LVT4 amphibious tractor type than an assault vehicle.

Correction: Ocelot / Foxhound should be in the first group rather than the second. I was thinking more of the Cougar family (UK Mastiff, Ridgeback & Wolfhound)

 

[ngatimozart]

The problem with the LAV 6.0 upgrade is that it isn't really an upgrade, more a stealth replacement (much like the Royal Navy's through-deck cruiser). New hull, new engine, up-rated suspension, larger tires, new seats, most of the expensive bits of the turret replaced - there ain't a lot left. Mainly the 25mm Bushmaster cannon. One thing it won't be is cheap.

LAV 6.0: Protected, mobile and lethal - Vanguard Magazine | Vanguard Magazine

Agree on the urgency of the Armoured LOV replacement (the unarmoured ones work OK). My thinking is that it's replacement requires two new types of vehicle (for our international peacekeeping effort).
1. A mine-protected 4x4 light armoured patrol vehicle, with a crew of 4-5. There are plenty of such vehicles currently on the market (eg. Oskkosh JLTV, Australian Hawkei, the BAE RG Outrider LTAV- with the Irish Army). Could also be used as an infantry battalion recon vehicle.
2. A larger utility MRAP in a wide variety of variants to cover multiple roles - but especially for the combat service support & combat support units. eg. Thales Bushmaster, the UK Ocelot etc.

Wouldn't expect huge numbers of these - enough to cover 2 rotations of a company group would probably do.

Finally, +1 me on the Bronco / BVS10 Viking vehicles. Just the thing for puddling about in Pacific Island lagoons. More of a LVT4 amphibious tractor type than an assault vehicle.

Ok, then what are the costs of these vehicles in US$ and what do they offer NZ that a tie in with the five eyes country doesn't. Stand fast the LAV 6, remembering that we now field an amphibious force. It's not about what we fielded in the past, but what we need to field in the future. What are the cost benefits of these platforms vs staying with the current NZ LAV? How long does it to deploy a company of embarked troops and their IFVs from the ship to the beach with the current NZ LAV vs an amphibious IFV capable of 7 - 10 knots in the water with a water range of 10nm? If you have a tracked vehicle losing a track, how long does it take for that vehicle to be repaired and returned to active service vs a wheeled vehicle losing a wheel and being repaired and returned to active service? In NZs case what are the acquisition, sustainment and maintenance cost to benefits of acquiring tracked IFVs vs wheeled IFVs? What vehicles offer better protection for the personnel inside? That is what needs to be assessed in the long term, not what looks sexy, good, popular, and / or cheap.

Finally, we may not have the luxury of a lot of time before we get involved in a conflict against a proper conventional military force. NZ is most definitely not prepared or adequately equipped for such an occurrence. I have seen some say that such a thing could kick off in five years and some say 10. Who's to say, however as each day goes by it appears to be more likely.

 

[RegR]

One of the statements in the DWP cabinet minutes released recently struck me as intriguing. It said that one of the options currently under consideration was a "smarter distribution of vehicles between the light armoured vehicles training and operational fleets." To me, that sounds like government-speak for not upgrading many of the LAVs and assigning the remainder to "training". It was mentioned alongside bringing forward the retirement of the IPVs - so that lends credibility. So, chances of a major upgrade of the LAV fleet seem optimistic. Maybe they might get some better IED protection and updated electronics.

Source (see para 7).

That is just smoke and mirrors talk to justify re-roleing some into ambos, CPs, mortars etc and selling or mothballing the remainder as has already been mooted by defence ie other unit use and "excess" issue. The "training" variants would not require the full gambit of any MLU mods much the same as baseline NZLAV do not require the "afghan" upgrades as a general rule.

I to do not see us aqquiring a new "LAV" and definately not tracked as the same reasons for going wheeled in the first place still apply. A tracked version would still not have deployed to Afghan in numbers so nothing to be gained. We already have NZLAV in numbers so hopefully our MLU would be to tag onto the canadian LAV6.0 program as would be matured and sorted by then (as opposed to potentially starting another debacle).

I think the more pressing issue is the LOV-A capabilty (or more importantly lack of) as TBH this type/category would have been more use in Afghan (in numbers) and regionally. I would ideally like to see a more suitable "light" armoured vehicle to replace the LOV-A completely (GS LOV does its job adequately), replace the excess NZLAV with a "medium" category such as bushmaster and upgrade the revised NZLAV strength to LAV6.0 spec for our "heavy" fleet. This would give us more flexability and options for various scenarios vs our current options which have been proven to be inadequate or overly large dependant on threat level or terrain.

Again I think the JATF is merely a direction more so than a direct action as in more doctrinal when required rather than a complete change in overall tactics, incl major equipment, and to date have not seen or heard anything vastly different to suggest any major changes. A good excuse to focus capability across the 3 services into a common goal but nothing overly new to what we were already doing or progressing towards anyway as a inevitability of introduced capability, namely HMNZS Canterbury.

 

[Rob c]

The problem with the LAV 6.0 upgrade is that it isn't really an upgrade, more a stealth replacement (much like the Royal Navy's through-deck cruiser). New hull, new engine, up-rated suspension, larger tyres, new seats, most of the expensive bits of the turret replaced - there ain't a lot left. Mainly the 25mm Bushmaster cannon. One thing it won't be is cheap.

LAV 6.0: Protected, mobile and lethal - Vanguard Magazine | Vanguard Magazine

Agree on the urgency of the Armoured LOV replacement (the unarmoured ones work OK). My thinking is that it's replacement requires two new types of vehicle (for our international peacekeeping effort).
1. A mine-protected 4x4 light armoured patrol vehicle, with a crew of 4-5. There are plenty of such vehicles currently on the market (eg. Oskkosh JLTV, Australian Hawkei, the BAE RG Outrider LTAV- with the Irish Army). Could also be used as an infantry battalion recon vehicle.
2. A larger utility MRAP in a wide variety of variants to cover multiple roles - but especially for the combat service support & combat support units. eg. Thales Bushmaster, the UK Ocelot etc.

Wouldn't expect huge numbers of these - enough to cover 2 rotations of a company group would probably do.

Finally, +1 me on the Bronco / BVS10 Viking vehicles. Just the thing for puddling about in Pacific Island lagoons. More of a LVT4 amphibious tractor type than an assault vehicle.

Lav 6 looks very heavy at 55000 lb '25 tonne" which looks like it will be outside NZ axle loading for general use on the road, I don't know thw distance between axles so it may sneak in. But if not it could require special permits to travel on the road or have to be transported.

 

[John Fedup]

The Vanguard article comment about the CCV program ignored the reasons for why it was considered. In Afghanistan, LAVs couldn't go where the Leopards were sometimes going and the 25 mm gun had limitations. If our army had to go back to Afghanistan, the guys in the field would prefer CV90s with a 30-35mm gun over LAV 6s.

 

[40 deg south]

One of the statements in the DWP cabinet minutes released recently struck me as intriguing. It said that one of the options currently under consideration was a "smarter distribution of vehicles between the light armoured vehicles training and operational fleets." To me, that sounds like government-speak for not upgrading many of the LAVs and assigning the remainder to "training". It was mentioned alongside bringing forward the retirement of the IPVs - so that lends credibility. So, chances of a major upgrade of the LAV fleet seem optimistic. Maybe they might get some better IED protection and updated electronics.

Source (see para 7).

Chis73
Well spotted. That ties in with the model used in the truck purchase; partially replace the retiring fleet with military-standard trucks for deployment offshore, and use lower-cost commercial trucks for garrison duty at home.

In the case of the LAVs, upgrade a portion of the fleet for potential deployment, and do the minimum necessary with the rest.

Whoever asked a couple of pages back about the Polaris (?) off-road vehicle shown during a royal visit, I suspect it is either on trial or special forces only. There is no mention of it on the NZDF website, nor am I aware there has even been publicity around a purchase.

NZ Army - Medium and Heavy Operational Vehicles

 

[John Fedup]

Whoever asked a couple of pages back about the Polaris (?) off-road vehicle shown during a royal visit, I suspect it is either on trial or special forces only. There is no mention of it on the NZDF website, nor am I aware there has even been publicity around a purchase.

Canada picked up a few Polaris turbo diesel utility vehicles for evaluation.

Light infantry units in Edmonton, Petawawa and Valcartier to receive new utility vehicles | Ottawa Citizen

 

[RegR]

They were at Linton camp so obviously being evaluated by regular units, most likely infantry, spt coy etc. SF would just get something like this if they felt the need, their sign off regimes alittle different to the rest.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

While I agree that for the tasks our army tends to do in peace time, a wheeled vehicle is the better option when used oversea's. We must remember that the prime function of any countries defence force is the defence of that countries sovereignty and the freedom and security of it's peoples. so it's equipment should reflect this. It must also be remembered that out of 105 LAV's only 5 have traveled overseas. I do support having some LAV's , but I think a mixed fleet would have been a better option. Even the Auz army expressed surprise at the time of the buy with the totally wheeled outcome. At the time of the purchase the info I had pointed to significant political input.
I agree with you in the need for direct fire support for the infantry and I would think that it is verging on essential in a true combat situation, but would prefer a tracked vehicle for mobility reasons. While AA cover would be nice .
I would think that with the removal from service of the current AA missile system that AA in general has a very low priority.
In regard to the option of either man or RWS weapon systems, I think both have their advantages and disadvantages at this time, but as time and technology moves on the advantage should swing to the RWS type systems.

I had read 12 Lav 3 have deployed to exersize Talisman Sabre, to Austrailia,along with several other lovs, trucks ect, onboard HMNZS Canterbury, and wasnt it 8 Lav 3 that deployed to Bamiyan Province/ Afghanistan? I would agree on a prefered track option, but it might be cost prohibitive.