PDA

View Full Version : Pajero Replacement?



Pages : [1] 2

spider pig
16th May 2014, 14:13
Runour going around is they are replacing the pajeros. Haven't heard anything official but could be some truth since nissans are being taken away and pajeros are restricted to roads/tracks and not allowed off road

kaiser
16th May 2014, 14:41
Most Nissan,s are been taking away due to their age. Cars over 10 years that are not specialist vehicles will be wadied

Truck Driver
16th May 2014, 16:10
Most Nissan,s are been taking away due to their age. Cars over 10 years that are not specialist vehicles will be wadied

Must have changed the policy again then
At one point nothing was being wadied on the 10 year rule unless anything major had to be done, cost wise, to them

RoyalGreenJacket
17th May 2014, 18:01
pajeros are restricted to roads/tracks and not allowed off road

why would these 4x4's not be allowed off-road?

F_M
17th May 2014, 18:52
Because they are shit! Just because something is 4x4 doesn't mean that it's capable of going off-road. All they are is fancy officer transportation devices.

spider pig
17th May 2014, 18:57
Exactly as FM said. Ground clearance is crap and the tow hitch is low and a protrudes a decent bit from the car which means it can go up sudden and sharp inclines.... Also I think there something to do with the radio in the rear under the floor and Iv heard of water getting into it and causing sparks and potential fire

The real Jack
17th May 2014, 20:55
Exactly as FM said. Ground clearance is crap and the tow hitch is low and a protrudes a decent bit from the car which means it can go up sudden and sharp inclines.... Also I think there something to do with the radio in the rear under the floor and Iv heard of water getting into it and causing sparks and potential fire

How did they not notice this when they were trialling it? Or for the trials did it not have a tow hitch fitted?

Truck Driver
20th May 2014, 22:31
First time I saw a Pajero in a Bks, the poor ground clearance was the first thing that struck me about it

spider pig
20th May 2014, 22:48
How did they not notice this when they were trialling it? Or for the trials did it not have a tow hitch fitted?

I have no idea... Another poor decision among many

na grohmiti
20th May 2014, 23:08
Ground clearance is no different than any other civilian 4x4 type painted green. I think the problem may be the horrific wheels they decided to fit.

apod
21st May 2014, 10:25
Back axles keep breaking.Engine maintenance is a pain.Too small for fully equipped troops on the likes of CIT.
Ford Rangers being introduced to specialist units and as stores vehicles.

The real Jack
21st May 2014, 14:26
What's left to buy in terms of Civvy jeeps then? Would the Landcruiser V8s be way out of the DFs pricerange? New Patrols wouldn't meet the euro emission regs I think(they're still made for non european markets)

hptmurphy
21st May 2014, 15:34
Back axles keep breaking

Oops....


Too small for fully equipped troops on the likes of CIT.

Given the amount of kit that was issued in parallel with them i.e. vests etc nobody seems to have factored all that stuff in.

So whats the standard overseas soft skin 4x4?

na grohmiti
21st May 2014, 18:42
What's left to buy in terms of Civvy jeeps then? Would the Landcruiser V8s be way out of the DFs pricerange? New Patrols wouldn't meet the euro emission regs I think(they're still made for non european markets)

Surely the days of using civilian vehicles in a military role is gone. There are numerous unarmoured soft skin military vehicles on the market. G Wagen for starters. But ideally, 7 seaters are old hat. Get a pickup with crew cab big enough for 4 adult european humans. Patrols, Land Cruisers , even Rangers are fine for bringing the pony to the gymkana with Lottie and her chums Tiffany and Quentin, but were never designed to allow 4 or more fully equipped soldiers travel and egress the vehicle in a tactical manner.

Gwagen. Sell the Mitsu "wankers" as a job lot before it's too late.

Bam Bam
21st May 2014, 19:18
What about that "Spanish Humvee" that the DF had a few years ago, would that be fit for purpose?

na grohmiti
21st May 2014, 19:40
Mowag Eagle?

Tango_Charlie
21st May 2014, 19:47
How did they not notice this when they were trialling it?

You would certainly expect this to be the case, but having been on more than one board for trialling new equipment in my time I think I have figured out how the process works.

1. A need for new equipment/kit/vehicles/other is identified by the army after a soldier has been injured by existing equipment or existing equipment becomes too expensive to maintain or the manufacturer is no longer making parts for it.

2. The army select a senior officer, no more than 3 years from retirement to find the 3 cheapest and poorly made variants of the required piece of kit.

3. A board of experts is convened to trial all three. In the case of the pajero's this board most likely consisted of the most experienced and capable officer and NCO instructors from the Transport and Vehicle Maintenance School as well as selected suitably trained personnel from other service corps.

4. The board will test and trial each of the three options under various criteria such as safety, performance, interoperability with current kit, maintenance costs etc.

5. The board will then submit a full and detailed report outline the pro's and con's of each option and they will also submit a recommendation based on their years of experience.

6. The army will buy the cheapest one.

The real Jack
21st May 2014, 20:03
The amazing thing about G wagons is they could standardise the whole 4x4 fleet on them, but the Army only buys piecemeal not multiyear contracts. There's petrol automatic nissans, manual diesel nissans, RHD nissans, Armoured nissans, Pajeros and a hodgepodge mix of crew cabs at the mo + others.

sofa
21st May 2014, 21:46
You would certainly expect this to be the case, but having been on more than one board for trialling new equipment in my time I think I have figured out how the process works.

1. A need for new equipment/kit/vehicles/other is identified by the army after a soldier has been injured by existing equipment or existing equipment becomes too expensive to maintain or the manufacturer is no longer making parts for it.

2. The army select a senior officer, no more than 3 years from retirement to find the 3 cheapest and poorly made variants of the required piece of kit.

3. A board of experts is convened to trial all three. In the case of the pajero's this board most likely consisted of the most experienced and capable officer and NCO instructors from the Transport and Vehicle Maintenance School as well as selected suitably trained personnel from other service corps.

4. The board will test and trial each of the three options under various criteria such as safety, performance, interoperability with current kit, maintenance costs etc.

5. The board will then submit a full and detailed report outline the pro's and con's of each option and they will also submit a recommendation based on their years of experience.

6. The army will buy the cheapest one.


More likely, the civil serpents on the board will stick in there two pence worth to act the boll%x and you end up with a bit of kit that is less then what the Army is looking for.

na grohmiti
21st May 2014, 22:06
The trick is to word the tender in such way that only the item you are looking for, and know is best for the job, can be selected.

Saab
22nd May 2014, 00:08
Crew cabs?????????

No way!!!!!!!1

I've been in many a crew cab. The front is grand but you need to be a midget with skinny legs to sit in the back.

They make the Pajero seem spacious.

na grohmiti
22nd May 2014, 00:50
Crew cabs?????????

No way!!!!!!!1

I've been in many a crew cab. The front is grand but you need to be a midget with skinny legs to sit in the back.

They make the Pajero seem spacious.

As I said
Get a pickup with crew cab big enough for 4 adult european humans
They are out there. Not all are designed for lower limb amputees.

Bam Bam
22nd May 2014, 00:53
Mowag Eagle?

http://webzoom.freewebs.com/1sbde/31lsb/Sean.jpg

Think it is the Eagle

Details from this old thread.

http://forum.irishmilitaryonline.com/showthread.php?8079-Humvee-on-Trial

Herald
22nd May 2014, 01:38
Did they not trial this baby ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URO_VAMTAC

ODIN
22nd May 2014, 05:40
The URO would have been the right job for overseas as they could have used an add-on armor kit.

DeV
22nd May 2014, 09:01
http://webzoom.freewebs.com/1sbde/31lsb/Sean.jpg

Think it is the Eagle

Details from this old thread.

http://forum.irishmilitaryonline.com/showthread.php?8079-Humvee-on-Trial

That's a HUMVEE or similar

They would be overkill for the role as a general runabout.
Too expensive in terms of purchase price and running costs

Herald
22nd May 2014, 10:34
That's a HUMVEE or similar

They would be overkill for the role as a general runabout.
Too expensive in terms of purchase price and running costs

Yeah, I'd imagine the Vamtec isn't the cheapest, in 08 the Malaysians paid about €172,000 ea for 85 of them, I've no idea of the spec or level of ballistic protection is included in that, and they do about 6KM to the litre.

RoyalGreenJacket
22nd May 2014, 12:35
Surely the days of using civilian vehicles in a military role is gone. ...Patrols, Land Cruisers , even Rangers are fine for bringing the pony to the gymkana with Lottie and her chums Tiffany and Quentin, but were never designed to allow 4 or more fully equipped soldiers travel and egress the vehicle in a tactical manner.

i've highlighted this point many many times here - in particular regarding how they are employed in the CIT escort role, but many seem to think it is adequate, while like yourself - i feel it is far from fit for purpose for such a task.

i would not expect to use our Ford Rangers for such a task and i would raise concerns if i was asked to do so, but i would still deem Snatch / APV very suitable for such task.

DeV
22nd May 2014, 13:09
HUMVEE gets around 17 mpg, Pajero gets around 21 mpg

Snatch has a max speed of 97 kph, it's possibly too slow

Truck Driver
22nd May 2014, 13:59
That vehicle above, I think, is a Spanish vehicle which was on trial a few years ago. Think it was 2006. Got a photo of it in McKee Bks at the time...

madmark
22nd May 2014, 14:16
g-wagon range would be a good fit for the defence forces with the 4x4 and 6x6

http://www.mb-military-vehicles.com/fileadmin/downloads/G_ClassMilitary_en.pdf

Fridge Magnet
22nd May 2014, 15:00
You would certainly expect this to be the case, but having been on more than one board for trialling new equipment in my time I think I have figured out how the process works.

1. A need for new equipment/kit/vehicles/other is identified by the army after a soldier has been injured by existing equipment or existing equipment becomes too expensive to maintain or the manufacturer is no longer making parts for it.

2. The army select a senior officer, no more than 3 years from retirement to find the 3 cheapest and poorly made variants of the required piece of kit.

3. A board of experts is convened to trial all three. In the case of the pajero's this board most likely consisted of the most experienced and capable officer and NCO instructors from the Transport and Vehicle Maintenance School as well as selected suitably trained personnel from other service corps.

4. The board will test and trial each of the three options under various criteria such as safety, performance, interoperability with current kit, maintenance costs etc.

5. The board will then submit a full and detailed report outline the pro's and con's of each option and they will also submit a recommendation based on their years of experience.

6. The army will buy the cheapest one.

Sure just look at the LTAV situation.

The LTAV we have now wasn't recommended, bought anyway and now the DF is stuck with an utter ball of shite vehicle.

The real Jack
22nd May 2014, 15:08
Sure just look at the LTAV situation.

The LTAV we have now wasn't recommended, bought anyway and now the DF is stuck with an utter ball of shite vehicle.

And the steyr - could have been cheaper to buy whole new rifles instead of upgrading the ones we have!

sofa
22nd May 2014, 17:55
Sure just look at the LTAV situation.

The LTAV we have now wasn't recommended, bought anyway and now the DF is stuck with an utter ball of shite vehicle.

Army know what they want. but civil servants keep interfering on grounds of cost or other reasons.

Retired officer once told me that a lot of the civil staff in Parkgate St have a chip on there shoulder with the Military.They smirk at the rank system and the higher up guys

do not like being greeted with a "hay ya Mick" while the officer beside them getting a "good morning sir". Basicly they are out to put a spanner in the works.

trellheim
22nd May 2014, 20:29
lot of the civil staff in Parkgate StNewbridge surely now ? :)

sofa
22nd May 2014, 22:50
Newbridge surely now ? :)

It was around the time of the first white paper. \:)|

DeV
23rd May 2014, 00:11
I don't see why there is any DoD involvement in procurement at all.

There job is policy.

There involvement should be securing funding from DoF, ensure legislation is compiled with, etc

sofa
23rd May 2014, 18:51
I don't see why there is any DoD involvement in procurement at all.

There job is policy.

There involvement should be securing funding from DoF, ensure legislation is compiled with, etc

Do not want to be second fiddle to the military ?

Saab
24th May 2014, 15:23
As I said
They are out there. Not all are designed for lower limb amputees.

But do the ones you are thinking of fit the job.

I have seen a 4x4 transit crew cab (non military) with loads or room but would it suit chasing after Garda cars on some escort duty?

The DF isn't big enough to have a range of fit for purpose vehicles considering the DF has so many purposes to fit.
I don't know how many Nissan/Pajero type miles are done on the average day but I bet a very small percentage of them are ff road and a not much bigger percent are doing duties where the lads are wearing all the gear.
There re pics on other threads of big 4x4 armored vehicles that are perfect for lots of rolls but I bet no one would want to see on the road doing any sort of escort duty.
So I don't believe we could ever have a vehicle that ticks all the boxes.

Interesting about the g-wagon.
If you read the spec sheet.
It has a narrower track, shorter wheel base, lower ground clearance and similar cab width to the Pajero.
Aren't they all the things people complain about?
So how exactly does that make it better?

hptmurphy
24th May 2014, 18:47
Interesting about the g-wagon.
If you read the spec sheet.
It has a narrower track, shorter wheel base, lower ground clearance and similar cab width to the Pajero.
Aren't they all the things people complain about?
So how exactly does that make it better?

Vehicle of choice of most of western Europe if you include the Peugeot versions and has been for nigh on twenty years, must be doing something right.

madmark
24th May 2014, 19:28
G- wagon is mission adaptable from atcp to overseas one platform unlike what we have at the moment

Saab
25th May 2014, 00:14
Vehicle of choice of most of western Europe if you include the Peugeot versions and has been for nigh on twenty years, must be doing something right.


G- wagon is mission adaptable from atcp to overseas one platform unlike what we have at the moment
Maybe so but
More than once people said Pajero is too small but the g-wagon is the same size. Thus will have the same problem.
More than once people here said Pajero is too low. The g-wagon is lower, does that not mean it is worse?
So what makes it so versatile?
Why would a smaller vehicle be more suitable for what we do?
Watching the news I don't see g-wagons on prisoner escorts. I've traveller in Europe and seen some cits and no sign of g-wagon. What ever everyone else is doing with them it doesn't seem to be the same as the DF.

On escorts they seem to use transit sized vans. Mostly Renaults in France, fiat in Italy. Maybe the gwagon is used for something else???

madmark
25th May 2014, 00:42
http://greendef.blogspot.ie/2013/10/guns-up-for-australian-army-6x6-g-wagons.html

http://www.army-armee.forces.gc.ca/en/vehicles/g-wagon.page

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plrH7RvQ54Y

1 make of vehicle can meet all our requirements would cut down on the different types of spares the DF has from isuzu d max ford rangers pajeros and patrols and even the acmat and ford f350s

FMP
25th May 2014, 12:57
I think what some folks are trying to say is the complete lack of standardization and total (apparent) shambles of procurement if baffling. The fleet in its current form from light vehicles to prime movers to HGV's is akin to each individual soldier wearing a different uniform or carrying a different rifle. Bollocks you say lol. Think about it. Which comes first the vehicle or the role? Seriously. I mean its like there's a special offer on, buy loads and then see what we can make them do. Or worse buy a few and then next time buy something else and the time after that something completely different again.

The other thing is, why do procurement insist on buying civilian vehicles and then try to make them fit for purpose? One platform across the "military" fleet surely be to god can only mean one thing. Success!! In driver training, tech and engineering training, one size fits all, (comms kit, weapon racks, trailers, spare parts, spare parts and spare parts) adaptability and functionality .

If and only if the correct platform is chosen in the first place. One platform in numerous roles. Take Landrover, we bought a few way back. We bought the opposite of what the British Army bought. God knows why but it proved a disaster. Same for the Bedford 4 tonner, they had diesel 4 x 4, We bought petrol 6 x 2, another disaster. They have been using diesel 110 LR's for decades, in numerous roles and with great success. Roles include but are not limited to GS, Rapier, Ambulance, Station Wagon, Command Wagon, LAD, FFR, WMIK and on and on. BUT! And this is the important bit, they did not go down their local car show room and buy them there. They went to the factory and said we want this, but to these specs. We cant afford to do that but we can go to the factory and say "You know the ones you built for them lads? We want some". Proven, tested and off the shelf. The British Army have done the spec sheet, the R & D, the proving and the upgrading. They looked at their Concept of OP's, their current and predicted roles and built something fit for purpose.

Our inability to get it right has cost lives. Within the ranks of the ARW for one. Even our SF have suffered from institutional apathy when it comes to vehicle selection. The vehicle that rolled was nothing more than a bog standard civilian Landrover with a snorkel and a WIMIK fitted. Of course the bloody thing rolled over. The purchase of the F350's! Jesus, whats going on lad's even the yanks don't use them and there american vehicles. Big windows, salesmen (sorry sales people) see you coming miles away.

The Landy is an old argument and its days are numbered but it will live on for years to come. Moving on lets look at Australia. Another big Landy user (again home built to their own specs, not a civilian one). They have placed an order with MB for IRO 2,000 light vehicles. These vehicles will come in 8 configurations and fill twice as many roles. Guess what? Its all the same vehicle. The G Wagon. Not as you know it and not as portrayed in their glossy brochure. There are a few pictures of the Australian ones (4 x 4 and 6 x 6 on the same page) but not covered in detail. One vehicle capable of superb functionality in a variety of operational roles. GS, Station Wagons, FFR, Ambulance, SRV, Cargo, Prime Movers, K9 Units, Command, etc. All gold standard stuff that the troops need. Single cab, double cab, hard top, 4 x 4, 6 x 6. On top of that 1500 + 4 x 4 and 6 x 6 trailers from a local to hitch on the back of them. Not just any trailers, they had to be compatible. Same lights, same wheels, same width, same height. One tow hitch to suit all. We cant even get that right.

The individual unit is pricey but the diggers had to pay for the R & D and the production line set up. The result is an outstanding fleet of vehicles that will give them a predicted 25 years of service, longer as the vehicles continue to roll of the production line for years to come. Buy into it! "They designed them, we want some".

To argue that we need the Mitsubishi for cash and prison escorts is a cop out, its a denial that there is a problem. Fair one, there probably nice and comfy but when you then have to use the same vehicle as a prime mover for the 120's or a recce vehicle,,,,priorities the wrong way round. Aid to the civil power is not the function of the DF, it is a role they provide.

The whole fleet is a mishmash of this and that with no foresight or concept of what there really meant to do. We need trucks, buy some and then some others. We need 4 x 4's, buy some and then some others.

We need APC's, buy some, how many can we afford? Right! Now what do we do with them? Was there any thought as to how to deploy them. No is the bloody answer before you start. You just have to look at how there deployed. Is there a single unit, all whistles and bells APC,s, Command, Medic, LAD, MRV, CRV, LATV grouped together with a single battalion to form a mobile reaction force within the state? No! Are there a number of company strength units grouped together (with all of the above) to form smaller mobile reaction forces within the state? No! There's not enough of certain types of vehicle for the DF to do so. Concept of Operations. There is none.

Which came first, the vehicle or the role? Fcuk knows! Its been a shambles for so long no one can remember.



7483

sofa
26th May 2014, 00:55
Britain used a number of G-Wagons during the Falklands conflick

DeV
26th May 2014, 10:20
FMP,
You are right is much of what you say, transport procurement is baffling!

Every 5 years or so the DF seems to enter a new contract for a light 4x4 to be delivered over 3 years. Just decide what specs are required, do extremely intensive trials over an extended period and enter a purchasing (and full life support) contract for around 15 years (if one is boarded in that time we replace with the same). It must be COTS, ideally MOTS, we can't afford (and the risk is too high) to be a launch customer doing our own R&D etc.

We currently have a situation where there are at least 2 makes, at least 4 models, all with different training, spares etc.

What do we need the vehicle to do? Utility, runabout, CP, ATCP, crew served wpns carrier (in trailer), 120 prime mover etc. But what roles could it take over? Staff car, OP, wpns mounted vehicle (eg A/T Plns, ARW etc), light panel van (replace the connect), ambulance (replace the LR), large panel van (replace the transit). You would need to do a cost benefit on some of these, eg a transit may be a lot cheaper.

The problem is the bulk of the time will be spent on Irish roads (but maybe with a more capable vehicle that would change). We need a light 4x4 GS/FFR that is robust, spacious (comfort/stores), good on-road and off-road, hard top, air con (comfort and overseas), NATO trailer hitch & lighting system, able to carry at least 4/5 troops with light/heavy scales, 24V power, aerial & radio mounts. What options do we want to include? Soft top, small and large panel van, weapons mounts, ambulance, crew cab etc etc.

GoneToTheCanner
26th May 2014, 11:18
because they captured them from the Argentinians. they didn't have them to bring them there.It is a matter of record that several were kept going by the new owners and even made it back to the UK, because the new users liked them very much and certain senior officers tried to eh, acquire them for themselves....the G-wagen is expensive and dates from the age of the dinsosaur and for many years was only built to order because it was too expensive for civvie operators. Another one to be considered is the Pinzgauer?

regards
GttC

Come-quickly
26th May 2014, 11:39
Pinz or duro would make an awful lot of sense as long as they can be made reasonably comfortable for ATCP.

DeV
26th May 2014, 12:44
They are are a light-medium 4x4 truck, not a utility 4x4 like a Landrover

paul g
26th May 2014, 13:54
they don't make pinzgauer anymore. its out of production, and the british are planning its replacement

look at the dutch, they've opted for the VW amarok commercial vehicle slightly modiffied to replace their g WAGONS.

http://www.janes.com/article/31556/dutch-mod-opts-for-amarok

GoneToTheCanner
26th May 2014, 19:36
off we go to Holland, to pick up a surplus G wagon....

northie
26th May 2014, 20:02
they don't make pinzgauer anymore. its out of production, and the british are planning its replacement

look at the dutch, they've opted for the VW amarok commercial vehicle slightly modiffied to replace their g WAGONS.

http://www.janes.com/article/31556/dutch-mod-opts-for-amarok

200,000 km? don't make me laugh.............

DeV
26th May 2014, 20:23
200,000 km? don't make me laugh.............

I would imagine that that is the limit, ie if they reach that milage in the 10 years they will be taken out of service

northie
26th May 2014, 21:47
I would imagine that that is the limit, ie if they reach that milage in the 10 years they will be taken out of service

Certain DF units have vehicles reach that in half the projected service life of these dutch vehicles!

DeV
26th May 2014, 23:07
But others wouldn't hence rotation could be a good idea

Jungle
27th May 2014, 01:25
g-wagon range would be a good fit for the defence forces with the 4x4 and 6x6

http://www.mb-military-vehicles.com/fileadmin/downloads/G_ClassMilitary_en.pdf

The one on the cover page is the Canadian version. We've had them for about ten years now, they're good vehicles.

na grohmiti
27th May 2014, 01:42
They use them to recce the route of the Dakar Rally. This used to be a Pajero only job.

GoneToTheCanner
27th May 2014, 02:00
120 thousand miles on a Merc engine? easy. i'd have one in a heartbeat.

FMP
27th May 2014, 10:00
7485


Interesting about the g-wagon.
If you read the spec sheet.
It has a narrower track, shorter wheel base, lower ground clearance and similar cab width to the Pajero.
Aren't they all the things people complain about?
So how exactly does that make it better?

Lower ground clearance when fitted with factory tyres, put BFG 265/70/16 on em like the Canadians and Australians do and you have massive ground clearance. Not only that but huge approach and departure angles. The Mitsubishi is shaped like a rugby ball, curves inwards, the G Wagon looks like a brick, straight walls. Straight walls = more internal space. Rugby ball = less internal space. Not science just a fact. The Mitsubishi is a civilian vehicle full of civilian shite designed to take hubby wife 3 kids the dogs and a weekends worth of holiday luggage. The G Wagon (in question) was designed from the ground up for military users, all the crap ripped out of it to ensure 4 fully equipped bods cann sit in it in safety and comfort (the station wagon version) and with plenty of room for all the military shite in the back.7486

FMP
27th May 2014, 11:38
7487

Smaller than the Mitsubishi?

FMP
27th May 2014, 11:44
74887489749074917492

Truck Driver
27th May 2014, 15:53
How about THIS for an advertisement for the G-Wagen ?
From what I can recall, the damage was due to an IED
As displayed in the Bundeswehr museum in Dreseden, Germany

FMP
27th May 2014, 17:34
How about THIS for an advertisement for the G-Wagen ?
From what I can recall, the damage was due to an IED
As displayed in the Bundeswehr museum in Dreseden, Germany

Outstanding! Bet they drove it all the way home as well, German engineering at its best.

FMP
27th May 2014, 17:50
A few more variations on the G.

7498

7499

7500

7497


7496

FMP
27th May 2014, 19:01
FMP,
You are right is much of what you say, transport procurement is baffling!

Every 5 years or so the DF seems to enter a new contract for a light 4x4 to be delivered over 3 years. Just decide what specs are required, do extremely intensive trials over an extended period and enter a purchasing (and full life support) contract for around 15 years (if one is boarded in that time we replace with the same). It must be COTS, ideally MOTS, we can't afford (and the risk is too high) to be a launch customer doing our own R&D etc.

We currently have a situation where there are at least 2 makes, at least 4 models, all with different training, spares etc.

What do we need the vehicle to do? Utility, runabout, CP, ATCP, crew served wpns carrier (in trailer), 120 prime mover etc. But what roles could it take over? Staff car, OP, wpns mounted vehicle (eg A/T Plns, ARW etc), light panel van (replace the connect), ambulance (replace the LR), large panel van (replace the transit). You would need to do a cost benefit on some of these, eg a transit may be a lot cheaper.

The problem is the bulk of the time will be spent on Irish roads (but maybe with a more capable vehicle that would change). We need a light 4x4 GS/FFR that is robust, spacious (comfort/stores), good on-road and off-road, hard top, air con (comfort and overseas), NATO trailer hitch & lighting system, able to carry at least 4/5 troops with light/heavy scales, 24V power, aerial & radio mounts. What options do we want to include? Soft top, small and large panel van, weapons mounts, ambulance, crew cab etc etc.

DeV

Great chatting mate. Good to see there are like minded people all on the same page on this site. You have hit the nail on the head in many (all) areas. MOTS is the way forward, and a single platform which can fulfill all the roles mentioned does exist. Its on my attachment that refuses to work lol. It was a rather glossy handout from the Australian DoD detailing the various roles and variations of their new light vehicle. The G Wagon. I have posted pics of them further down the topic and some Canadian and German variants. Pretty pictures to look at but they do highlight the issue in question, it can be done. All the roles in your post and mine are covered with the exception of the soft top. An amazing amount of thought has been put into their contract with MB and the result has been a fantastic vehicle that will serve for years and have the support services from MB to back it up. It has been the result of years of experience with Landrover and their adaptations to it. But mostly listening to the people that have had to use them. Bod's on the ground.

More importantly, in relation to the DF's case, someone else has done all the R & D, "well done digger I'll take 600".

Interesting you should mention the transit. Why not? I mean it, why not look at the home role of the DF within the state. They come in 4 x 4 (with raised suspension on these models) and they would be quiet capable of fulfilling the majority of the roles mentioned. There will always be some role that a particular vehicle may not be suited for but, quickly running through them in my head, the old transit,,,,,,your not a million miles away from what could in fact be the answer to the problem.

First as you rightly said, someone somewhere needs to sit down and decide "this is the road we must travel (no pun intended) a decision has been made and this is it lock stock and barrel for the next 15 to 20 years". Across the entire fleet, modified to suit and for the best part future and soldier proof.

I would like to think that it will get sorted in my lifetime, that only gives them a few years lol. No not really, at least i hope not. There needs to be some major changes in mindset and pressure from the DF put on the purse string holders to make them realize what currently happens is false economy. While the initial unit cost of the G Wagon (for example) would be high, the lifetime (20 years in contract) costs would be drastically reduced (not re tendering every 5 years). That is good business since. MB are going nowhere so its also a safe bet.

There are plenty of docs and photos out there on the Aus Wagon (did i just coin a phrase there). Its worth the effort to track it all down. Just to look and nod and say to yourself "hmmmm they got that right".

Cheers DeV.

FMP
27th May 2014, 19:08
7502

7503

7504

7505

7501

FMP
27th May 2014, 19:33
Try again :biggrin:

DeV
27th May 2014, 22:51
Unfortunately what is preventing it is money. It could be phased in but it would probably take 5+ years after the signing of the contract

The real Jack
27th May 2014, 23:05
Unfortunately what is preventing it is money. It could be phased in but it would probably take 5+ years after the signing of the contract

That's the idea about doing a multi year multi unit contract, they could buy a few a year as attritional replacements until the fleet was standardised. I doubt the dod and df could arrange and justify such a contract.

DeV
28th May 2014, 07:33
True. It should dramatically reduce the cost of maintenance over time, so long as there isn't a huge difference in purchase price.

They have started to improve public procurement (eg departments working together on joint contracts).

DoD's problem could be they are afraid of getting burnt

DeV
28th May 2014, 07:37
Another option could be to piggy back on some else's order as part of EDA pooling and sharing

DeV
28th May 2014, 13:50
Just looked out the tender that the Pajero won, it was for up to 320 vehicles to be delivered over 4 years (60-80 annually), don't think it included spares etc.

To put into context there are still Nissan Patrols (at least 2 models around) in service. Last month, the DFR had a total of 1,524 vehicles (all types).

Saab
28th May 2014, 16:44
If you read the spec for both the 09 Pajero and the g-wagon you see the g-wagon's external dimension is smaller.
If you can put bigger tyres on the g-wagon then you can for the same to the pajero.

Just because the Canadians put a machine gun on the roof doesn't make it bigger.

There is nothing stopping the DF doing that to a Pajero other than it would then be totally unsuitable for most of what it is currently used for.
I don't think Jonnie Sun reader would be too happy with one of those on the M50.

Our problem is we can't afford to have such dedicated vehicles.
How long would it take to convert that g-wagon into a gs vehicle?

The other variants shown in the poster would be great as replacements for the transits.
But that has nothing to do with the pajero

DeV
28th May 2014, 18:16
If we had the G-Wagon (or similar):

The station wagon would be the GS/FFR (it already has 24V. power so the manufacturer doesn't have to do a costly line change), it potentially means the FFRs and GSs are interchangable (another huge plus).

Recce pln wants to do a screen? Theres 5 GSs outside, take 5 GPMGs out of stores and mount them.

Replace a number of chassis with 1/2 and you have huge life cycle cost savings

FMP
29th May 2014, 09:09
If you read the spec for both the 09 Pajero and the g-wagon you see the g-wagon's external dimension is smaller.
If you can put bigger tyres on the g-wagon then you can for the same to the pajero.

Just because the Canadians put a machine gun on the roof doesn't make it bigger.

There is nothing stopping the DF doing that to a Pajero other than it would then be totally unsuitable for most of what it is currently used for.
I don't think Jonnie Sun reader would be too happy with one of those on the M50.

Our problem is we can't afford to have such dedicated vehicles.
How long would it take to convert that g-wagon into a gs vehicle?

The other variants shown in the poster would be great as replacements for the transits.
But that has nothing to do with the pajero

Saab. Mate I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall here. The purpose of the pic with the 58 was not for the 58 it was for the two bods to help give you something to put the shape and size into perspective. Its the rugby ball shaped vehicle / brick shaped vehicle theory. Ignore the 58 its irrelevant. I am not in any disagreement with you in relation to spec sheet measurements. Taken at its widest points the Mitsubishi is the larger of the too vehicles. No doubt about it. Its the shape of the bloody thing that causes it to be cramped and small. After all is it not the internal space that is the point here? That's where people have to sit, where radios etc have to be fitted. Four lumberjacks in body armour, battle vests, helmets and weapons can fit comfortably in that vehicle (Or diggers if you look at the Aus Vic). There's only four single seats in it. Do you in the DF have the requirement to fit more in the Mitsubishi looking at the roles its involved in? If you do then it really is the wrong vehicle for you and the question needs to be asked how the bloody hell did it get chosen in the first place?

To say the Aus G Wagon depicted in the poster "has nothing to do with the Pajero" has left me baffled. Bottom row, second vehicle from the right. Truck Lightweight, Station Wagon 4 x 4, four door (plus double rear doors) sounds like the Pajero to me. Only better. Why? Because the Aus DoD poster shows the same baseline vehicle being used in numerous roles. The SRV, The Ambulance, The Panel Van, The 6 x 6 and 4 x 4 Cargo. The 6 x 6 Twin cab. Imagine the amount of vehicles that one make could replace in the DF in so many roles. I know you said we could not afford it. Saab the reality is procurement the way it currently works costs us more in the long run. How long have the Pajero's been in service? This penny packet purchasing of all makes and models of vehicles in the DF has cost a fortune because so many times it's proven that the vehicle bought is not anywhere near suitable even for the most mundane tasks and needs replacing. Or just sidelined into a role it was never intended for. Goes back to one of my questions in an earlier post, "which came first, the vehicle or the role"?

Taking a risk on a company like MB is not a risk, they will be around for years. Taking a risk on a vehicle prepared by MB to military spec's for an existing customer is not a risk, when the correct service & support is included in the contract. The Aus DOD has done all the R & D, paid for the production line start up on a Mil Spec Vic and have a 20 year contract in parts replacement.

I am in no way saying the DF do the same, they definitely cant afford that. But the reality is mate they cant afford not to go down the MOTS road in selection of their light vehicles (as well as their 4 ton range etc.). Proven and in use by very experienced Armed Forces. Multi tasking, that is the nature of all Armed Forces, but first and foremost they must be equipped to carry out their primary role. Doing so with civilian vehicles (the Aus and Canadian G's are so far removed from their civilian counterparts they may as well be totally different vehicles) and then expecting them to preform in a military environment is is a disaster, its costly and you will never get that happy medium. Because that is what it is, finding a happy medium. One vehicle that can perform many tasks to an acceptable standard with a long service life.

I could go on but duty calls ;). Good to talk mate.

DeV
29th May 2014, 11:50
4/5 personnel is probably ok for most roles, in the run about/utility role the more the better though (old Nissan could seat 7, newer Nissan/Pajero can seat 6 (6th is uncomfortable).

Questions:
G-Wagon FFR where is the radio fitted? Between front and rear seats or in the "boot"?
Is the 4 seats because of the cupola?
Is there a 5 seat version (eg for carrying a 81 and 5 man crew)?

With we got the better SINCGARS handsets if the radio is in the boot could all the operations be done from a back seat?

Saab
30th May 2014, 10:44
FMP,
The point was g-wagon has many variants.
The poster shows variants that the DF could possibly use to replace the Transit.
I am sure there is a role there.

Then as Dev says we put 5 in and wonder why it is squashed.
1.8m is more than wide enough for 2 people. That's the narrowest point of the rugby ball.
Which is granted 50mm smaller than the g-wagon but really are you going to say that you would notice?
The squareness makes the gwagon look bulkier but it is cosmetic.

That look does make it a more imposing vehicle and I can see why it would be a military driver's wet dream.
Also if you use google images you can see it in the soccer mum role too
But the problem is the Pajero is used on the streets of Irish towns doing many jobs.
Many more miles are covered with only 2-3 occupants not even armed let alone in full body armor.
While in a CIT you might want a bulky threatening vehicle you certainly don't want it when nipping down to the local C&C to pick up mess supplies.

THe problem then is that the DF isn't big enough to have a bolt on kit, let a lone a variant, to have a vehicle for every role.
So what we do have is a vehicle for Irish roads that meets a little of the spec for each role it has to do.

It would be nice it this was not the case but then there are a lot of things that would be so.

GoneToTheCanner
30th May 2014, 10:54
Im inclined to agree with Saab. A G-wagon is expensive overkill for routine shuttling about and I'd mirror what he says about them tooling about with a handful of lads in them, plenty of them without FFR aerials fitted. Look at what happened in the past with utility vehicles; landrovers did everything until they were replaced by small commercial vans, which saved a fortune in fuel and maintenance.

regards
GttC

FMP
30th May 2014, 11:54
DeV

RF: Seating. The mods we have been discussing are all four seats. Based on the operators requirements having looked at the role's the G Wagon will undertake in their relevant forces. The station wagon will be employed as C2, FFR, GS, escorts, patrols, recce, Liaison, FIRES, etc. All pretty standard stuff. Operational experience since 2001 has influenced this 4 seats decision hugely. The concept is one soldier one door in light vehicles (and some not so light, think Hummer). Provides all round observation (or as best you can from inside a vehicle) rapid dismount and or bringing weapons to bear. The bod in the middle became redundant as he could do none of the aforementioned.

Its back to the question, what exactly do we need our vehicles to do? Every unit MT for every army will have in its stables a fleet of vehicles that fit into the transit / bus bracket. Pottering about and general transport outside of primary duties (War fighting all the way down to ATCP. One can never do without these type of vehicles but your operational vehicles need to be able to do whats required of them in many roles and leave the pottering to a few "normal" ones.


To answer your questions, as best i can.

1. In the FFR, C2 role radio stacks for Aus and Can mods are in the "boot" . If you look at the Canadian versions you will see the rear left window blanked with a sheet metal panel with louvers in top right corner. The radio stack is against this panel and slaved to the front and or second row.

2. The Aus Wagon will not have ring mount fitted but is still a four seat in the station wagon / twin cab variant. The Canadian GS model as well will go without. Its only the Armoured / Soft skin Recce, patrol, escort types that are fitted with the ring mount. All are devoid of that fifth seat. For the reasons mentioned above and no doubt fitting three lumberjacks kitted in body Armour, battle vest, helmet and weapon into a single row would be a bit of a squeeze :-D. Saab will love this,,,, it is a tight fit (not with four, but any more, yes) So the long winded answer is all are without but not because of the ring mount, if you chose to incorporate on it does however make the space readily available for the operator.

3. Yes mate it can be made to carry five, in the same way as most cars / SUV's but that center seat will be a tight fit. The two mobs mentioned wont be doing it so "IF" one was to buy into their production line and required it,,,,it would cost.

Some limited pics of the Aus C2, no radio stack pic but one or two of their BMS (Blue force tracker by another name) slaved from the "boot".

Did i mention the Canadian Armour version?:biggrin: Will fire some pics over, interesting story attached to a few of them.

Cheers.

FMP
30th May 2014, 12:15
The attached pic's are of the Canadian Armour G Wagon. Its actually very difficult to tell the difference externally as there is almost no difference whatsoever. The windscreen! It looks sunken or as if its got a "picture frame" around it. Easiest way of telling at a glance.

Pictures Armd 1 through Armd 3 are of the same vehicle. Got smashed by a CWIED under the front axle on the way into Kandahar City. Pic 1 recovery to Kaf, Pic 2 on the ground in Kaf and Pic 3 same wagon in the Canadian armed forces museum in Lumberjack land. Three soldiers and a Journalist on board walked away with minor injuries. I'm not saying its the bestest most protected vehicle in the world EVER! I'm saying you put enough wallop into an IED and you will put a Challenger 2 on its roof. Its all relative. Fact is this time it did its job, other times it did not. Nothing is bomb proof.

Last two pics are just Armour G Wagons, give you an indication of what i mean about the windscreen. Armour G Wagon,,,,,,,,perhaps another role filled. Were there not some Armour Nissan's kicking about the DF somewhere. Ohhhhh reasons to use the G Wagen as a Pajero replacement, the list goes on lol :biggrin:

Jungle
30th May 2014, 12:36
That trip from Kabul to Kandahar was probably the last time the (Cdn) G wagons were used outside the wire. The only ones I have seen in Kandahar were in KAF.

FMP
30th May 2014, 13:02
Gttc and Saab.

Guys, I seem to have missed out on a major point here. From your last two posts I get the feeling we are not talking about replacing the Pajero because it fails in its military role, it simply does not have a "military" role. You are looking for something to cut about the place, with as little impact as possible and no primary operational overseas or home military role? Correct? Something straight forward.

If that is the case it could in fact then be replaced by any number of vehicles, bring on the transit!! I'm all for that lad's honest to god I am.

But Soccer Mums? Really? point missed again. Purpose built, ground up, military costumer. Aus and Canadian G's are a lifetime away from soccer ;).

Great chatting lads, honest to god it is, but were chatting about two totally different things.

I shall leave you in peace and I do hope you find the answer.

Faugh a Ballagh! ;)

DeV
30th May 2014, 13:17
The benefit of a common chassis to replace all the various makes and models of GS, FFR, panel vans, estate cars, possibly some staff cars, some specialist vehicles would be huge.

Tender cost - as in cost of arranging the paperwork, trials etc is a once off for a long term contract (instead of 3/4 contracts for GS/FFRs alone
Supplier management - much easier and cheaper as 1 to deal instead of say 4
Spares/tools - 1 set of spares to hold instead of 8+, purchase price is lower as you are buying more of a small range, easier to monitor usage and inventory
Training - training on 1 vehicle instead of 8+ for mechanics and drivers

As an organisation though the biggest benefit could be deployability (more rugged and capable vehicle) but your panel van (eg Ford Connect replaced with 4x4 panel van), it also means less vehicles are required.
Monday - collect ammo from Ammunition Stores
Tuesday - mobile ammo point across broken ground on LLFT
Wednesday - courier jobs for DFHQ
Thursday/Friday - Stores vehicle for CQ on Tac ex across broken ground

The DF should be using a common chassis to replace the vehicles that softskined tactical and the urban runabouts, would save a fortune!

The idea being to reduce the variety and size of the transport fleet (not add additional vehicled)

FMP
30th May 2014, 14:39
The benefit of a common chassis to replace all the various makes and models of GS, FFR, panel vans, estate cars, possibly some staff cars, some specialist vehicles would be huge.

Tender cost - as in cost of arranging the paperwork, trials etc is a once off for a long term contract (instead of 3/4 contracts for GS/FFRs alone
Supplier management - much easier and cheaper as 1 to deal instead of say 4
Spares/tools - 1 set of spares to hold instead of 8+, purchase price is lower as you are buying more of a small range, easier to monitor usage and inventory
Training - training on 1 vehicle instead of 8+ for mechanics and drivers

As an organisation though the biggest benefit could be deployability (more rugged and capable vehicle) but your panel van (eg Ford Connect replaced with 4x4 panel van), it also means less vehicles are required.
Monday - collect ammo from Ammunition Stores
Tuesday - mobile ammo point across broken ground on LLFT
Wednesday - courier jobs for DFHQ
Thursday/Friday - Stores vehicle for CQ on Tac ex across broken ground

The DF should be using a common chassis to replace the vehicles that softskined tactical and the urban runabouts, would save a fortune!

The idea being to reduce the variety and size of the transport fleet (not add additional vehicled)


DeV.

Agree 100% with all your comments. You are hitting the nail on the head. You have got it mate. No question. You can see the huge cost benefits and the fact that because "A" vehicle spends one day being a capable military vehicle there is no reason in the world it cant spend the next day collecting mars bars from tescos to stock the camp tuck shop, but you cant do it the other way round. The DF is after all a military body.

My rather flippant but in good humor comment "Ohhhhh reasons to use the G Wagen as a Pajero replacement, the list goes on lol" I need to rephrase slightly, i was caught up in the Pajero discussion but have been trying to make a bigger point about the procurement/fleet shambles, same as yours actually.

"Reasons to use the G Wagon as a multi vehicle replacement and standardise the fleet, the list goes on!!".

One last picture ;)

Saab
30th May 2014, 17:24
Gttc and Saab.

Guys, I seem to have missed out on a major point here. From your last two posts I get the feeling we are not talking about replacing the Pajero because it fails in its military role, it simply does not have a "military" role. You are looking for something to cut about the place, with as little impact as possible and no primary operational overseas or home military role? Correct? Something straight forward.

And there lies the problem.
While the majority of the mileage is as such it is also wanted as a military vehicle. For maybe 10% of its life it will be doing rugged military duties.
As I said before the main whinge about the Pajero is too low to the ground and can't fit 3 full sized bods in the back.
As you admit the g-wagon is no different on these two points.

If we stay with Pajero next time we want a small 4x4 then we will have them standardised. but that ain't going to happen

IF someone decided that we need a 4x4 panel van and a 4x4 small truck then a whole new discussion would ensue. ie replacing all small vehicles ie under 3500kg with a single chassis capable of doing all roles.
We are talking about replacing the Pajero and not the transit, transit connect, renault what ever it is, landrover ambulance, transit ambulance, ford ranger, ford mandeo and what ever else comes into that category.
Single chassis would be the solution.
Also a rethink of the roles the vehicle is to do.

The Australians got their 4x4 and 6x6 g-wagons to replace the landrover 110. The life cycle to be 15 years. The average cost per vehicle about €140,000.
What does the DF spend on such vehicles?

DeV
30th May 2014, 18:25
Cost, VFM and ability to do the job are the deciding factor

If that's the cost, even with all versions and full servicing, no way!

What do we need?
A vehicle that can do the job of the 3/4 models of Nissan Patrol (FFR & GS) the Pajero (FFR & GS), the small panal vans (Kangroo, Connect and Feista), some of the smaller specialist vehicles (eg CMU Estate), some of various staff saloons etc

In the form of 3 versions of a common chassis and engine etc:
GS
FFR
3 door van

With selectable 4x4 (to keep costs down)
Seating for min 5 personnel with kit (trailer if necessary)

hptmurphy
31st May 2014, 21:17
As you admit the g-wagon is no different on these two points.

From the photo the G wagen certainly looks to have greater clearance than the Pajero.

Have to suggest that mitsubishi products seems a little 'soft' in comparison to Nissan products. The older generation of Nissan Patrol were very rugged and dependable and god knows I know , I tried hard enough to break them , including trying to drown a few of them. Limited in comparison to the G Wagens pictured but certainly paid for themselves.

The GRs weren't as capable but the mistake seems seems to have been trying to replace the GR with something cheaper as opposed to emulating the finer points of the earlier vehicle.

Pajero was wrong choice as was the GR.

FMP
2nd June 2014, 12:59
From the photo the G wagen certainly looks to have greater clearance than the Pajero.

Have to suggest that mitsubishi products seems a little 'soft' in comparison to Nissan products. The older generation of Nissan Patrol were very rugged and dependable and god knows I know , I tried hard enough to break them , including trying to drown a few of them. Limited in comparison to the G Wagens pictured but certainly paid for themselves.

The GRs weren't as capable but the mistake seems seems to have been trying to replace the GR with something cheaper as opposed to emulating the finer points of the earlier vehicle.

Pajero was wrong choice as was the GR.

Murph

Your right. It does look like that does it not ;).

General comments now, not aimed at you Murph, or anyone else for that matter, just general chit chat :biggrin:.

But a better way of putting is the G Wagon is a far more capable off road vehicle than the Pajero or vehicles built like it could ever be. Even if the manufactures stat's on one is "better" than on the other. And here's why. Will try and make this short :-D.

Ground clearance is a measurement from the ground to the lowest point on the underside of a vehicle (not including the bottom of the tyres (bad joke).

Gents, sorry if this is egg sucking but some people cant seem to grasp this.

On the G Wagon that point is the bottom of the diff. (Someone remind me, what was it?)

On the Pajero its the body of the vehicle itself. I.e. its the lowest visible point.

Whats the difference you say, the P still has grater clearance than the G?

The difference is the way the two are put together. The G has an "external" axle, the body of the G sits above the axle. Making it higher off the ground. The P has an "internal" axle, its body is molded around the axle. Making it lower to the ground.

Despite the "clearance" the G is a better performer because of this. Anyone who has spent time off road will vouch that approach, grounding and departure angles are all important. You keep your track on the path of least resistance. That is, the width of your vehicle from left tyres to right tyres. Stay out of ruts as best you can, don't drive over large boulders or tree stumps,,, if you have to do so do it carefully, your diff and axle can take a knock but not at very high speeds. The body of your vehicle cant, the sump cant.

On undulating or rough ground, driving up inclines, over ridges, and down declines that "clearance" means nothing, for most off road driving it actually means very little if your vehicle is an "external" axle type. You will never get your diff more than a few hundred mm of the deck unless you fit tyres six foot in diameter on your vehicle, impracticable to say the least. Larger tyres help a bit but you will be restricted by your wheel arch as to how big you can go and the vehicle needs to be set up for it. The benefit of the G Wagon like Landrover, Land Cruiser 70 series and even the old Nissan is that "external" axle. Other makes and models apply but you see what I'm getting at.

Excuse the "commas " I actually have no idea what the axles are called, but I do know why one vehicle works and the other does not in an off road environment. Hopefully some petrol head out there may be able to tell us the correct terminology, and will correct me here and there. I just drive the bloody things, off road, every day of my work rotation.

They say a picture paints a thousand words, sometimes I really have my doubts. Plenty posted here and the basic principles of off road driving are being missed. Being able to see why one works and the other does not. At a glance, no manufactures stat's needed.

Experiment time! Everyone join in, not just Murph.

Three pics attached. One pajero, one Canadian G and one Aus G. Pics are roughly taken at similar angles but in reality it wont make any difference.

Get yourself one of those see through plastic rules we used in school.

Line the rule up on the center of the front wheel hub and the rear wheel hub of each vehicle. One at a time.

Then, now be honest, tell us which vehicle do you think is by far better built for off road work? More importantly, tell us why the other is not. Remember the closer the body to the hub the less capable the vehicle is off road. If the body is actually lower than the hub,,,,,,it's a car.

Gents I am having great craic with these posts, its good banter and some great discussions going on here. I wish the DF would listen to what is said on these pages. I am pulling my hair out, don't get me wrong, but that's what a good discussion does to you.

Murph, you are right again when you say the Pajero and GR were the wrong choice. The task now is not to repeat that mistake, again.

Cheers ;)

Jungle
2nd June 2014, 17:40
I used the Pajero in Cyprus in 1992, as a patrol vehicle. It was ok, adapted to what we were doing.
THe model shown in the pic above is very different; while the 1992 model I used looked and felt like a Military vehicle, the current model looks like an urban AWD veh, not adapted to offroad conditions. It would not have been useful in the job I was doing in Cyprus in 1992.

hptmurphy
2nd June 2014, 17:50
I'm not a user of any of the vehicles anymore but Apod has suggested its problematic,that'll do for me.

The pictures paint the picture as it is, even without the clearance issue looking at the guys sitting in the Pajero they even look cramped.

the older Pajero was probably on par with the Nissan Patrol GRs, the newer one more like a Nissan Quasqhai.

Learn from our mistakes, you have got to be kidding me, more often that not we compound them and wander aimlessly into the future .

That settles it G Wagen or Puegeot P4 it is.....not that we'll see them in this lifetime.

Fridge Magnet
2nd June 2014, 18:59
G Wagons really are a great bit of kit.

Jungle
2nd June 2014, 19:06
G Wagons really are a great bit of kit.

They certainly are.

DeV
2nd June 2014, 21:51
If you go for a 4 seater you will need 2 4x4s in a 81 & HMG detachment and 2 drivers in the crew instead of 1

FMP
3rd June 2014, 09:26
If you go for a 4 seater you will need 2 4x4s in a 81 & HMG detachment and 2 drivers in the crew instead of 1

Holy catfish Batman!!!!

DeV, that's a 105 crew mate and the rest! How many bod's you got on your tubes and HMG's? SOP in the MOB is 3, on 81's, HMG, GPMG SF, Milan (in its day) and Javelin. And that's in the light role (man pack). If the driver is part of the crew and there not just to drive that still gives you a 4 man crew. Maybe a look at the ORBAT is in order as well as the fleet that transports them. That sounds very manpower heavy mate, what are the reasons for such large crews? (Possibly for a different thread).

Talking vehicles again and best case scenario ;) The G station Wagon in 4 seat configuration would give you room down the centerline for your tube (HMG, GPMG etc (on a nice bracket to keep it safe) baseplate, legs, sight and ancillaries against the side panels again on nice brackets, and you still have room for bomb's and ammo too. Cut out the trailer where possible. Apply same principle to other CSW's. The only one that would defo need a trailer is Javelin (and RBS 70) due to the massive bloody transit containers for the missile. If a smaller crew was viable of course (again not sure why your crews are so large).

Then when all that war fighting kit was safe in the armoury you have your GS vehicle to do all your other "light" ATCP/A duties. ;)

The real Jack
3rd June 2014, 10:42
SOP in the MOB is 3, on 81's, HMG, GPMG SF, ....

Ministry of bombs?

FMP
3rd June 2014, 11:15
Ministry of bombs?

As in Demobbed, to be demobbed you must have been in the,,,,,,MOB :-D

Flamingo
3rd June 2014, 12:20
I don't know a lot about the current crop of military 4WD (my practical experience ended with Landrover 110's), but I can tell you exactly why the G-Wagen will NEVER be bought - can you see any politician of the current (or future) Dail having headlines "The Army are getting Mercs" while the voters are screaming at them about not getting a medical card?

Sorry guys, if they were half the cost of the Nissans they are not happening.

hptmurphy
3rd June 2014, 12:34
It would appear from the numbers suggested for crew served weapons that the current vehicle ,the Pajero, is not fit for purpose, but then again the weapons are normally carried as trailer load again a pain in the bum.

The singular 4x4 in as in service is very limited in that case and we possibly need to look at second level of vehicle for deployment of such weapons, or do we as trailers etc are fine for transport purposes during training and exercise type ops.

So do we need a second level vehicle something along the lines of ACMAT VLRA or Pinzgauer and retain Pajero etc specifically for ATCP/A and as GS vehicles?

I would suggest if the Pajeros are suffering broken axles that they are being overloaded and driven over terrain they are suited to while loaded possibly above that which is judged to be appropriate for a vehicle this size.

One would have to ask did we buy a vehicle with a mil spec that would have taken into account a military work load or did we buy a commercial SUV with a spec more suited to an outdoors type person without. I suspect we bought an SUV that looked good on paper which wasn't subjected to the loads that would encountered by an exercising military force.

DeV
3rd June 2014, 12:38
Holy catfish Batman!!!!

DeV, that's a 105 crew mate and the rest! How many bod's you got on your tubes and HMG's? SOP in the MOB is 3, on 81's, HMG, GPMG SF, Milan (in its day) and Javelin. And that's in the light role (man pack). If the driver is part of the crew and there not just to drive that still gives you a 4 man crew. Maybe a look at the ORBAT is in order as well as the fleet that transports them. That sounds very manpower heavy mate, what are the reasons for such large crews? (Possibly for a different thread).

Talking vehicles again and best case scenario ;) The G station Wagon in 4 seat configuration would give you room down the centerline for your tube (HMG, GPMG etc (on a nice bracket to keep it safe) baseplate, legs, sight and ancillaries against the side panels again on nice brackets, and you still have room for bomb's and ammo too. Cut out the trailer where possible. Apply same principle to other CSW's. The only one that would defo need a trailer is Javelin (and RBS 70) due to the massive bloody transit containers for the missile. If a smaller crew was viable of course (again not sure why your crews are so large).

Then when all that war fighting kit was safe in the armoury you have your GS vehicle to do all your other "light" ATCP/A duties. ;)

This is in the public domain so:
Crew on a 81 is 5 (including Det Cmdr & driver)

Changing the crew could be done but it has advantages

The advantage (bearing in mind I'm not a mortar man):
- someone else to spare the listening watch with (rotate with crew)
- someone else to help manpack it (and more importantly the ammo)
- organic transport for either transport weapon and/or ammo



The 81 goes in a trailer in brackets for barrel, bipod, baseplate etc (sights are probably carried)
Same with the HMG

If you need to get the wpn to somewhere the trailer won't go, open trailer and manpack it

You will not fit 4 crew, personal kit, 81 and 1st line ammo into a G-Wagen without a trailer (even with the roof rack (which could be good for personal kit)). The first line ammo (in the public domain) is something like 150 rounds (I could be wrong on that).


It isn't good VFM to have a load of vehicles for the day to day work and then another load (off a different type) for exercises/ops

FMP
3rd June 2014, 12:39
I don't know a lot about the current crop of military 4WD (my practical experience ended with Landrover 110's), but I can tell you exactly why the G-Wagen will NEVER be bought - can you see any politician of the current (or future) Dail having headlines "The Army are getting Mercs" while the voters are screaming at them about not getting a medical card?

Sorry guys, if they were half the cost of the Nissans they are not happening.

Your not wrong Flamingo :-D but it is a crying shame, nevermind eh, It's a great discussion. Maybe long after I'm dead and gone,,,,,,,,,,,

hptmurphy
3rd June 2014, 12:52
"The Army are getting Mercs"

Have them already in the form of 4x4 trucks... plus the freebie car some Director Of S+T got for accepting them,


But in fairness they were a great purchase.

FMP
3rd June 2014, 12:52
This is in the public domain so:
Crew on a 81 is 5 (including Det Cmdr & driver)

Changing the crew could be done but it has advantages

The advantage (bearing in mind I'm not a mortar man):
- someone else to spare the listening watch with (rotate with crew)
- someone else to help manpack it (and more importantly the ammo)
- organic transport for either transport weapon and/or ammo



The 81 goes in a trailer in brackets for barrel, bipod, baseplate etc (sights are probably carried)
Same with the HMG

If you need to get the wpn to somewhere the trailer won't go, open trailer and manpack it

You will not fit 4 crew, personal kit, 81 and 1st line ammo into a G-Wagen without a trailer (even with the roof rack (which could be good for personal kit)). The first line ammo (in the public domain) is something like 150 rounds (I could be wrong on that).


It isn't good VFM to have a load of vehicles for the day to day work and then another load (off a different type) for exercises/ops

Lets get that trailer on the back of them then ;) Cheers for the update DeV.

hptmurphy
3rd June 2014, 12:56
It isn't good VFM to have a load of vehicles for the day to day work and then another load (off a different type) for exercises/ops

It is if you are wrecking one type trying to carry out a role its not suited for.

DeV
3rd June 2014, 13:11
It is if you are wrecking one type trying to carry out a role its not suited for.

Which is why what should be bought should be something suit for long range patrols the "roads" of Liberia as well as ATCP ops in Dublin

hptmurphy
3rd June 2014, 13:50
Which is why what should be bought should be something suit for long range patrols the "roads" of Liberia as well as ATCP ops in Dublin


Given the parameters mentioned around crew served weapons and the limitations of SUV type vehicles and the extremities of the environments described and cost , to include running costs ,replacements and purchase I don't think there is one vehicle that can practically address every scenario.

The G Wagen especially the family of vehicles as in service with the Australians would suggest that a package centred around that family is the better option than trying to make one vehicle take on roles it may not prove suitable for.

hptmurphy
3rd June 2014, 13:52
Lets get that trailer on the back of them then

From experience trailers severely limited a vehicle in relation to off road tasks, pack mules might be more suitable:-D

kaiser
3rd June 2014, 17:35
Prepare for a lot more ford rangers

DeV
3rd June 2014, 17:50
Given the parameters mentioned around crew served weapons and the limitations of SUV type vehicles and the extremities of the environments described and cost , to include running costs ,replacements and purchase I don't think there is one vehicle that can practically address every scenario.

The G Wagen especially the family of vehicles as in service with the Australians would suggest that a package centred around that family is the better option than trying to make one vehicle take on roles it may not prove suitable for.


+1
A family with as much as common in possible is the answer

For example, the BFO CIS trailers (about the size of a small caravan)
I heard that Automatic Nissan Patrols were purchased specifically to pull them (but I also heard they weren't up to the job so they use the manual ones)

The trailer and towing vehicle could (potentially) be replaced by the crewcab 6x6

FMP
4th June 2014, 09:15
+1
A family with as much as common in possible is the answer

For example, the BFO CIS trailers (about the size of a small caravan)
I heard that Automatic Nissan Patrols were purchased specifically to pull them (but I also heard they weren't up to the job so they use the manual ones)

The trailer and towing vehicle could (potentially) be replaced by the crewcab 6x6

A family of vehicles to replace anything up to a dozen different makes and models. With compatible trailers is without a doubt the way forward. You will always need trailers. The 6 x 6 Crew cab being a great alternative in many roles ;).

Amazing capacity on the G's compared to some similar vehicles out there. Aus DMO literature attached again just to refresh. Potentially you could actually do away with some HGV's as well in say for instance 105 and 120 prime mover roles. Your Company and Battalion Q stores etc. Due to the carrying/towing capacity of the 6 x 6 cargo. And the 4 X 4 cargo. Remember the 4 x 4 Pinz is/was used by 7 RHA in 16 Air Assault as their L118 prime movers. That's gun, crew, and ammo, the 6 x 6 G Cargo is an infinitely more capable vehicle.

This is getting very interesting, what started as a Pajero replacement has touched on HGV territory. But the right vehicle can do it in a lot of roles. Not all, but a lot.

I hate quoting stats but these are not the Manufactures there the DMO's so its not a sales pitch.

Aus G 6 x 6 cargo Payload: 2390Kg. Compatible twin axle Trailer payload: 1500Kg.

Aus G 4 x 4 cargo Payload: 1180Kg. Compatible single axle Trailer payload: 800Kg.

Have a pic or two below of what the Aus MOB did with their 6 x 6 Landrovers out of interest sake, one would think that the 6 x 6 G's will undergo similar uses based on positive experiences with the Landrover.

As mentioned here often, price is the major influencing factor. Also mentioned here is the fact that the way vehicle procurement is done, its costs the DF more in the long run. Penny packet tenders every couple of years for god knows how many different types of vehicles cost more money than a single family of vehicles with all the correct support services if the contract was for 15 to 20 years. Which is the norm for a military customer. MB, MAN, Landrover all have military divisions (separate from their civilian divisions) that supply military customers exclusively. It is a safe and more cost effective option, even if the initial unit outlay is expensive.

How many vehicles will be replaced 20, 30 or 40 at a time in the DF over the next 15 to 20 years? One off's with no service support contracts and no commonality. A bad way to spend tax payers money? I think so.

The Mil specs G Wagon prepared for the Australian MOB is in all its guises an outstanding vehicle. But the real outstanding feature is the way its been bought. Not just by Australia but the vast majority of armed forces who buy vehicles, long contracts with service support, commonality on a multi role single chassis.

Good business sense. Good military sense.

Saab
4th June 2014, 09:33
+1
A family with as much as common in possible is the answer

For example, the BFO CIS trailers (about the size of a small caravan)
I heard that Automatic Nissan Patrols were purchased specifically to pull them (but I also heard they weren't up to the job so they use the manual ones)

The trailer and towing vehicle could (potentially) be replaced by the crewcab 6x6

No one can argue that single platform would be great. Italians, French and Americans do it. Then again they also support their local motor industry, something we just do not have.
However we don't have the economy of scale to do what they do.
How many Pajeros are there? 300 - 400 ?
What are the Aussis buying 2000 4x4, 700 6x6 and 2000 trailers to be supported for the next 15 years? (and Sweden have piggie backed an order of 100 on this)
Big difference to the amount of spares don't you think.

As for the Nissans. The Automatics have a bigger engine and are well suited to towing.
The problem lies in the laws regarding towing. The drawing unit must be at least twice the weight of the trailer.
Nissan is 3,500kg laden. CIS trailer is 3,500kg laden. You need a 7 ton truck to pull those trailers. The solution was to lighten the trailers.

Of course this could all be solved if we could make a pact with another country about defence purchase.

DeV
4th June 2014, 10:55
No one can argue that single platform would be great. Italians, French and Americans do it. Then again they also support their local motor industry, something we just do not have.
However we don't have the economy of scale to do what they do.
How many Pajeros are there? 300 - 400 ?
What are the Aussis buying 2000 4x4, 700 6x6 and 2000 trailers to be supported for the next 15 years? (and Sweden have piggie backed an order of 100 on this)
Big difference to the amount of spares don't you think.

As for the Nissans. The Automatics have a bigger engine and are well suited to towing.
The problem lies in the laws regarding towing. The drawing unit must be at least twice the weight of the trailer.
Nissan is 3,500kg laden. CIS trailer is 3,500kg laden. You need a 7 ton truck to pull those trailers. The solution was to lighten the trailers.

Of course this could all be solved if we could make a pact with another country about defence purchase.



Pooling and Sharing a la EDA comes to mind (NZ has piggy backed a UK order (outside of EDA obviously))

We can achieve economies of scale:
2/3 types of Nissan Patrol (assuming GS & FFR are exactly the same)
1 type of Pajero (assuming GS & FFR are exactly the same)
Various makes & models of staff car, panel van, run abouts etc)

All with there own unique spares and equipment etc

If you narrow that to 3 versions of the same model of baseline vehicle (with 85-100% parts commonality)
That's economies of scale

You are buying let's say 1 type of exhaust instead of up to at least 5, you will say have 5 in stock of each (total 25), now you will increase your stock a bit as you have more vehicles, you are now holding 15 in stock, at a lower purchase price as you can negotiate a discount as you are bulk buying

DeV
4th June 2014, 11:01
A family of vehicles to replace anything up to a dozen different makes and models. With compatible trailers is without a doubt the way forward. You will always need trailers. The 6 x 6 Crew cab being a great alternative in many roles ;).

Amazing capacity on the G's compared to some similar vehicles out there. Aus DMO literature attached again just to refresh. Potentially you could actually do away with some HGV's as well in say for instance 105 and 120 prime mover roles. Your Company and Battalion Q stores etc. Due to the carrying/towing capacity of the 6 x 6 cargo. And the 4 X 4 cargo. Remember the 4 x 4 Pinz is/was used by 7 RHA in 16 Air Assault as their L118 prime movers. That's gun, crew, and ammo, the 6 x 6 G Cargo is an infinitely more capable vehicle.

This is getting very interesting, what started as a Pajero replacement has touched on HGV territory. But the right vehicle can do it in a lot of roles. Not all, but a lot.

I hate quoting stats but these are not the Manufactures there the DMO's so its not a sales pitch.

Aus G 6 x 6 cargo Payload: 2390Kg. Compatible twin axle Trailer payload: 1500Kg.

Aus G 4 x 4 cargo Payload: 1180Kg. Compatible single axle Trailer payload: 800Kg.

Have a pic or two below of what the Aus MOB did with their 6 x 6 Landrovers out of interest sake, one would think that the 6 x 6 G's will undergo similar uses based on positive experiences with the Landrover.

As mentioned here often, price is the major influencing factor. Also mentioned here is the fact that the way vehicle procurement is done, its costs the DF more in the long run. Penny packet tenders every couple of years for god knows how many different types of vehicles cost more money than a single family of vehicles with all the correct support services if the contract was for 15 to 20 years. Which is the norm for a military customer. MB, MAN, Landrover all have military divisions (separate from their civilian divisions) that supply military customers exclusively. It is a safe and more cost effective option, even if the initial unit outlay is expensive.

How many vehicles will be replaced 20, 30 or 40 at a time in the DF over the next 15 to 20 years? One off's with no service support contracts and no commonality. A bad way to spend tax payers money? I think so.

The Mil specs G Wagon prepared for the Australian MOB is in all its guises an outstanding vehicle. But the real outstanding feature is the way its been bought. Not just by Australia but the vast majority of armed forces who buy vehicles, long contracts with service support, commonality on a multi role single chassis.

Good business sense. Good military sense.

It could potentially take over some Transit (where a 4x4 would be better) and prime mover roles

Problems with the prime mover:
- again can it carry the crew of 5/6
- could the TCV troop seats be put in the back for the remaining crew (how would this impact on loading/unloading ammo? Can they be mixed with ammo/stores?)
- can it carry the first line ammo (can't remember exactly but it is at least 1 pallet for a 105)

Saab
4th June 2014, 11:12
Pooling and Sharing a la EDA comes to mind (NZ has piggy backed a UK order (outside of EDA obviously))

We can achieve economies of scale:
2/3 types of Nissan Patrol (assuming GS & FFR are exactly the same)
1 type of Pajero (assuming GS & FFR are exactly the same)
Various makes & models of staff car, panel van, run abouts etc)

All with there own unique spares and equipment etc

If you narrow that to 3 versions of the same model of baseline vehicle (with 85-100% parts commonality)
That's economies of scale

You are buying let's say 1 type of exhaust instead of up to at least 5, you will say have 5 in stock of each (total 25), now you will increase your stock a bit as you have more vehicles, you are now holding 15 in stock, at a lower purchase price as you can negotiate a discount as you are bulk buying

The ausies aren't replacing their on road fleet with the g-wagon.
For the next few years the Landrover 110, in its variants will still be in use.
Then there are staff cars, panel vans and a load of other vehicles.

But if you want to replace say all on road vehicles with a 4x4 then you are increasing the investment required.
Yes you will have 1 type of exhaust. Say 1 spare for every 50 vehicles.
But a mondeo exhaust is about €150 and a g-wagon exhaust is €400. Tyres, wheels and other such consumables are also higher. Not to mention the fact that a 3l diesel drinks more than a 2l diesel. 4x4s and 6x6s are also more expensive to maintain. I heard once that half of our so called 4x4 vehicles have their front prop shaft removed to reduce wear and increase fuel efficiency.

So initial cost 2-3 times current cost and running cost 1.5 to 2 times current. Some how I can't see it being a runner.

Wasn't there talk of a tender for some small trucks but I thought it was 7.5 tons.
Why did the DF not replace the Acmats with a similar sized vehicle? My guess is that someone in the arty deemed them too small. So why would you reintroduce another small vehicle.

FMP
4th June 2014, 11:40
No one can argue that single platform would be great. Italians, French and Americans do it. Then again they also support their local motor industry, something we just do not have.
However we don't have the economy of scale to do what they do.
How many Pajeros are there? 300 - 400 ?
What are the Aussis buying 2000 4x4, 700 6x6 and 2000 trailers to be supported for the next 15 years? (and Sweden have piggie backed an order of 100 on this)
Big difference to the amount of spares don't you think.

Hay Saab, your still on topic mate, most of us have veered off in one form or another. Or have we? You are right in what you say, no one is going to deny that. It is actually the point a lot on here are trying to make, to replace 300-400 Pajeros with another something or other would not make a huge difference one way or another to the whole commonality debate. You still have that vehicle which will not be compatible with anything else.You get like for like (incompatibility), hopefully a better more capable like for like. But when talking about the Pajero look at the bigger issue here. The disaster that is vehicle procurement. That's how the DF ended up with Pajero. So what I'm saying is not only get shot of the Pajeros but the Nissans, Landrovers, F350, rangers and the god knows how many different makes, models of everything else that comprises the light to medium vehicle fleet. Retire and replace with a common chassis over a number of years.

Then numbers would exceed 1000+ making the economy of scale a reality.

Then you can look at your 15 to 20 year service support contracts.

And do exactly what the swedes did.



Then start on the HGV fleet,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,;)

FMP
4th June 2014, 12:41
It could potentially take over some Transit (where a 4x4 would be better) and prime mover roles

Problems with the prime mover:
- again can it carry the crew of 5/6
- could the TCV troop seats be put in the back for the remaining crew (how would this impact on loading/unloading ammo? Can they be mixed with ammo/stores?)
- can it carry the first line ammo (can't remember exactly but it is at least 1 pallet for a 105)

DeV

Bit pushed for time at the moment so will keep it short,,,,,,,,,you will be glad to hear ;).

Talking the 6 x 6 it can carry the full crew and ammo pallet (payload of 2390Kg). If you look at the Landy pics you will see two options for seating. (Same idea being transferred to the G Wagon). One for an eight man section in the back the other a specialist engineers wagon with four in the back plus all the storage for their kit. Nice comfy seats and 4 point harnesses etc.

Using the engineers vic as an example. Four in the rear plus driver and commander is six, that's your full crew.

Side load into trays. Unload same. Canopy up, FORWARD side board down. If you don't want trays fire the pallet in the side and secure. Lower to the ground than a 4 tonner so hand-balling a hell of a lot easier.

Fraid I have no idea what the DF rules are for troops / ammo in the same vehicle. Would imagine its fine or why use 4 tonners to pull the guns. L118/119 are light guns, literally.

All the rear modules are being built in Aus. Do same in Ireland and make them how you want ;). Its that payload is the key, all the G Wagons variants were talking about have massive payload weight capacity compared to other vehicles of similar size. That 6 x 6 Landy included.

DeV
4th June 2014, 13:58
Saab,
It depends on the vehicle they select and the deal they get.
If you have a spare part that is currently being replaced every 15000 km and costs €100, the same part for a new vehicle has to be replaced every 20000km and costs €200. Assuming it costs the same to fit in Euros and time. While the parts may be more expensive you could potentially save money on labour and downtime. It is well worth looking at.

I'm not saying we should go out and buy G-Wagen (or similar) which has advantages and disadvantages.
I'm saying we should be entering longer term contracts with whole life support as part of them. Put a tender out there to replace all 4x4s in the DF (covering as many roles and replacing as many makes and models of vehicles as possible). If different versions of the same model are available, then avail of them to reduce cost (eg is the a 4x2 panel van/2 seater jeep). Do substantial testing over 6-12 months at home and overseas and then decide. At the moment, the DF publishes a new tender for 4x4s every 3-5 years (ending up with various makes/models, some of which are not suitable) and a spares tender for each make in service every 1-3 years.

Not all vehicles would be suitable or a required to be 4x4, but there are various models of staff car out there as an example, I guarantee you that a GS I found to take them from Coolmoney Camp to Cemetery Hill (after they get out of their Ford whatever. Tell the GOCS to use his own car. When they arrive outside the GPO at Easter they do so in a military vehicle.

Is there a similar vehicle to the ACMAT available? The Nissans have been used as 120 prime movers.
Was it cheaper and better VFM to use existing TCVs (or new TCVs that could also be used as prime movers)?


FMP,
I don't know but no all the Aus versions could be road legal in Ireland and there could be more implications (eg some versions could require a truck licence).

By the way guys, the G-Wagon is over spec'ed for the GS/FFR role (the role being a 750 kg payload), G-Wagon is >1000 kg so is going to cost more anyway.

Saab
4th June 2014, 15:01
Its been a while since I have seen a tender.

But as far as I remember they do exactly what you say they should with regard to life cycle.

The Pajero was bought to replace the Nissan not just in addition to.
Just like in Australia where the g-wagon is replacing the 110 over a period of years.
The way FMP writes one would think that when a delivery of 200 g-wagons arrive then 200 110s are put on the scrap heap.

For the next 5 years then Aussies will be operating 2 vehicles.
In 10 years they will start to introduce their new g-wagon replacements. That might be g-wagon again or something else.

The French buy Renault trucks but still find they have Pugeots and Land rovers.
The Germans, although they love the g-wagon also use the VW transporter.

It would appear that, although single vehicle makes sense to people, procurement people find a need to buy different vehicles.
I am sure there must be reasons other than bean counting.

DeV
4th June 2014, 17:52
Saab we are still operating (small numbers of) Patrol 260s. There have been at least 3 tenders since. There are 2 problems:
A) the vehicles being purchased aren't up to the job
B) the tenders are for too few vehicles.

Cost could be a factor in this but they don't give options to extend vehicle figures or duration

Other countries have there tactiical fleet, road fleet and sometimes white fleet. They have all they need in each, they can afford it

FMP
4th June 2014, 17:59
Its been a while since I have seen a tender.

But as far as I remember they do exactly what you say they should with regard to life cycle.

The Pajero was bought to replace the Nissan not just in addition to.
Just like in Australia where the g-wagon is replacing the 110 over a period of years.
The way FMP writes one would think that when a delivery of 200 g-wagons arrive then 200 110s are put on the scrap heap.

For the next 5 years then Aussies will be operating 2 vehicles.
In 10 years they will start to introduce their new g-wagon replacements. That might be g-wagon again or something else.

The French buy Renault trucks but still find they have Pugeots and Land rovers.
The Germans, although they love the g-wagon also use the VW transporter.

It would appear that, although single vehicle makes sense to people, procurement people find a need to buy different vehicles.
I am sure there must be reasons other than bean counting.

Saab.

I am by no means saying replace every single vehicle in the DF with one model. I'm saying replace as many as you can in as many roles as you can. There is a whole raft you can replace. I have for the sake of this conversation stayed with the G Wagon. Because it is a perfect example of how it could be done. A modern vehicle built and in service and available as MOTS. I have already said previously, there will always be a need for bus's, saloon cars and the like. Its about keeping that mixed fleet to a minimum, and the priority be given to vehicles that help you fulfill your role as The Defense Forces of Ireland.

Quote from DOD Defense Material Organisation booklet on Land 121 phase 3A, Lightweight and Light capability vehicles (G Wagon).

Foreword by Major General Cavaenagh Head Land Systems.

"During the week of 2 July 2012, the roll-out of the G-Wagons and matching Haulmark
trailers commenced. Over the next four years, the Defence project known as LAND 121
Phase 3A - Lightweight and Light Capability, will roll out more than 2100 G-Wagons and
nearly 1800 matching trailers to ADF units across Australia. The G-Wagon fleet will comprise
eight mission-system configurations: lightweight single cab carryall, light single cab carryall,
command post, surveillance and reconnaissance, ambulance, station wagon, panel van,
and dual cab canine".

Booklet is too big a PDF to upload. Google: Land 121 Phase 3A PDF. Read the foreword mate it's all there its complete total replacement!

Attached again is the nice little poster. Quote the Last three sentences in the overview.

"The G-Wagons will replace the current fleet of Land Rovers. The G-Wagon fleet will comprise eight mission system variants and will be delivered to Army and Air Force units across Australia between July 2012 and June 2015. The delivery of the trailers will take place between July 2012 and mid-2016".

Replace the Landrover. Anyone got the definition of "Replace" handy?
(Landrover in service since the 1980's is a multi role vehicle in the Aus MOB. Ambo, FFR, GS, TCV, SRV, Cargo, Crew cab, 6 x 6 and 4 x 4. Roles funnily enough being assigned to the G Wagon)

2100 G Wagon in service by June 2015. Next year.

1800 Trailers in service by mid 2016. Two years time.

This is a huge project that will involve over 7000 vehicles from the above to HGV's to Armour. $360 odd billion Aus dollars. Almost total fleet replacement.

Aus signed a contract with MB for the G wagons for 15 years with three options to extend, each of 7 years. All in the booklet. Don't think they will be changing from the G Wagon any time soon. At least not for the next 15 years anyway. Landy gave over 3 decades of service. So the precedent is there.

Not saying the DF do that either. But they bloody well should! I'm saying the DF are throwing good money after bad time after time after time because of crap procurement, an inability to learn from their mistakes and not buying into production lines set up for other forces.

Phew :-D

hptmurphy
5th June 2014, 00:22
Why did the DF not replace the Acmats with a similar sized vehicle? My guess is that someone in the arty deemed them too small. So why would you reintroduce another small vehicle.

The ACMAT VLRA were getting long in the tooth and the Leyland /DAF 4x4 truck was quite a suitable replacement. The IVECO 4x 4 was the follow on from this but not quite as capable

If you've ever driven an ACMAT you'll quickly realise how antiquated it is and how limited in the domestic role they were. The Artillery tractor wasn't what they were designed for and thus were an interim measure as such.

They were more suited to the role they played in UNISOM and as the newer version deployed by the ARW.


The Pajero was bought to replace the Nissan not just in addition to.

Therein lies the problem, the GR Nissans were /are over expensive useless off road and so why replace them with a similar vehicle which is less capable.


The French buy Renault trucks but still find they have Pugeots

P4 is a G wagen.....

Similarily the French buy what they can produce at home so the military can have a say in how a vehicle is built, we don't have that option and buy off the shelf.


For the next 5 years then Aussies will be operating 2 vehicles.

Nice... but at one point we had four different types of 4x4 in service!!!!

Long of the short of it and my last point on the subject every time we buy vehicles, we buy from the top shelf in penny packets, try fit them into multi roles and wonder why we have to go back to the open market to replace them in a time less than their predicted life span because we usually get it wrong in the first place.

At this point we should be using our position in aligned groups like the EU battle group to buy that which others find to be fitting for the job required ( ie if the Germans intend on buying 1000 Gwagens we should consider tagging along on that order with our requirement to get the best price possible) and that we could use in the roles they are intended for and if need be have a fleet of less capable vehicles for day to day taskings such as ATCP etc.

Our tender process is not fit for purpose for the acquistion of relatively small amounts of military vehicles given the specialist nature of the role vs what we tend to buy which are in essence dressed up civilian spec vehicles.

Saab
5th June 2014, 00:36
Saab we are still operating (small numbers of) Patrol 260s. There have been at least 3 tenders since. There are 2 problems:
A) the vehicles being purchased aren't up to the job
B) the tenders are for too few vehicles.

Cost could be a factor in this but they don't give options to extend vehicle figures or duration

Other countries have there tactiical fleet, road fleet and sometimes white fleet. They have all they need in each, they can afford it

A) is a matter of opinion. As I pointed out biggest criticism of Pajero has been it cant seat 5 comfortably and is too low to the ground. The solution offered here was the g-wagon. Which also cannot seat 5 (as a 4x4) and is lower. Yes bigger tyres can be fitted but the same applies to the Pajero.

B) I agree but we don't have the economy of scale.

LTCVs are expected to last 15 years, HTCVs are expected to last 20 years. The tenders reflect this.
When you are buying 2000 vehicles you can be sure that your supplier will give the latest technology as and when it comes on line.

Can we afford to have 3 fleets?
The way barracks are being closed would we even have the space to store 3 fleets.

You can be sure the Aussies will still have a few landrovers in service in 15 years, just like our 260s.
I thought we moved away from scrapping a serviceable vehicle just because of age?????

FMP, All I'm saying is single platform is great when you can do it. We have about 2000 vehicles all told. ADF has that and more in just the LTCV fleet. There is no comparisons.

Murphy, the point about the P4 is that it is a variant. Even with massive buying power they don't stick to the single vehicle concept.
But I agree with the rest of you post 100%

ias
5th June 2014, 11:45
Joining with someone else, except maybe the Aussies, for a purchase of G-Wagens, has a problem, as most of these will be employed on island they will probably be RHD. The Germans etc. will be buying LHDs, this would most likely preclude a joint buy, or at least preclude us from getting anything like their price, I would imagine.

Having said that, is the EDA not working on a proposal for joint purchases by EU countries?

Saab
5th June 2014, 16:32
Joining with someone else, except maybe the Aussies, for a purchase of G-Wagens, has a problem, as most of these will be employed on island they will probably be RHD. The Germans etc. will be buying LHDs, this would most likely preclude a joint buy, or at least preclude us from getting anything like their price, I would imagine.

Having said that, is the EDA not working on a proposal for joint purchases by EU countries?

To get a good price Sweden bought 100 g-wagons with RHD piggy backed on the Aussie order.
This at first seems strange until you see they also buy their postal delivery vehicles, Transit and Renault mini-buses, RHD.
I wonder are they going to use the g-wagons for the same purpose??

ropebag
5th June 2014, 17:29
we had thousands of LHD landies and trucks brought back from Germany - its a bit wierd, but you get used to it pretty quickly. if it means the difference between affording, and not affording, a through-life support programme for your kit, then you'd have to be a bit thick to pass up the offer.

kaiser
5th June 2014, 18:39
Have the 28 or 27bn recieved ford rangers yet?? I'm informed they are the vehicle coming in as the pajero replacement

DeV
5th June 2014, 19:19
I have looked out the Sept 06 edition of An Cosantoir which has an article about CVBW (ok it is 8 years ago but if gives you a idea):

They have a staff of 106 to do 1st and 2nd line maint on the DFTC fleet and 3rd/4th line on the whole DF
They hold 90,000 spare parts (they only keep a item on the shelf for 2 years before disguarding it)
The DF has a fleet of around 2,100 vehicles of >160 types (not including variants)
At the time there were 4 versions of the Nissan Patrol in service (all with completely different engines)
All requiring different spares, servicing kits & diagnostic software)

hptmurphy
6th June 2014, 00:54
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peugeot_P4

Its a fcuking G Wagen!

hptmurphy
6th June 2014, 01:12
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRPFgP6RaLTJjjjoLDurQGwIOFaSizM8 i9Vn6DdJlrAFXKmb5jfHg


Just the job!

FMP
6th June 2014, 05:59
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peugeot_P4

Its a fcuking G Wagen!

Yup! Built under licence in France.

FMP
6th June 2014, 06:10
I have looked out the Sept 06 edition of An Cosantoir which has an article about CVBW (ok it is 8 years ago but if gives you a idea):

They have a staff of 106 to do 1st and 2nd line maint on the DFTC fleet and 3rd/4th line on the whole DF
They hold 90,000 spare parts (they only keep a item on the shelf for 2 years before disguarding it)
The DF has a fleet of around 2,100 vehicles of >160 types (not including variants)
At the time there were 4 versions of the Nissan Patrol in service (all with completely different engines)
All requiring different spares, servicing kits & diagnostic software)

And therein lies the problem DeV. As you well know. Complete and utter shambles. Always will be unless each aspect of the fleet is standardised. Same bus's, same staff car's, same mini vans,,,,,,,,,,same bloody tactical fleet of light and heavy soft skin vehicles. Ain't rocket science is it, or is it? LoL

Report may be 8 years old but if anything the situation has got worse, not better. How many new makes and models introduced since then verses how many retired or to put it another way "Replaced" ;)

FMP
6th June 2014, 06:15
Yup! Built under licence in France.

Older model than the Canadian and Australian ones but still a G Wagon. ;)

FMP
6th June 2014, 06:46
;)
Older model than the Canadian and Australian ones but still a G Wagon. ;)

Here's another (attached), this time built by Panhard on the same chassis/body as the Aus panel van. G Wagon!:-D;)

morpheus
6th June 2014, 08:58
Have the 28 or 27bn recieved ford rangers yet?? I'm informed they are the vehicle coming in as the pajero replacement

thats a no for 27Bn anyway

kaiser
6th June 2014, 10:44
Cheers morpheus I was told they have them in dundalk my guy must be wrong.
He also said we are piggy backing on the public sectors purchase of rangers. Albeit compulsory piggy backing..
Also observation 360 from the vehicle is ment to be poor at best.

morpheus
6th June 2014, 12:20
OK well i tell you what, if there are only a handful they may not have been out in the carpark. Ill be up that way later today and will keep an eye out.

Saab
6th June 2014, 15:40
I wonder why the Royal Navy is also buying Ford Rangers?

As the Aussies develop the Military version of the Ranger they are buying in the g-wagon.

http://www.carsguide.com.au/car-news/australian-developed-ford-ranger-joins-uk-military-23033#.U5HSJ3JdX1o

The real Jack
6th June 2014, 16:11
I wonder why the Royal Navy is also buying Ford Rangers?

As the Aussies develop the Military version of the Ranger they are buying in the g-wagon.

http://www.carsguide.com.au/car-news/australian-developed-ford-ranger-joins-uk-military-23033#.U5HSJ3JdX1o

RGJ posted about them, they're just part of their "white fleet" not Landie replacements.

FMP
6th June 2014, 20:13
I wonder why the Royal Navy is also buying Ford Rangers?

As the Aussies develop the Military version of the Ranger they are buying in the g-wagon.

http://www.carsguide.com.au/car-news/australian-developed-ford-ranger-joins-uk-military-23033#.U5HSJ3JdX1o

What fcuking military version?? The new ford ranger was designed and developed in Australia. How the hell did you get "military version" out of that. Because the MOD Police use them? Because the RN EOD teams use them? Do you even read the the stuff you link too. Do you actually have a driving licence?

Saab
6th June 2014, 23:50
What fcuking military version?? The new ford ranger was designed and developed in Australia. How the hell did you get "military version" out of that. Because the MOD Police use them? Because the RN EOD teams use them? Do you even read the the stuff you link too. Do you actually have a driving licence?

OMG....................

That article is only about the RN's purchase.

Search http://www.army-technology.com/

There are a couple of articles about Ford Ranger light tactical vehicle, the Ford Everest armoured vehicle, the Ford Ranger armoured vehicle, the Ford Everest cash in transit, the Ford Ranger emergency response vehicle.

But of course armoured vehicles, developed in Australia by Ford and the Australian defence industry aren't military vehicles.

Yes I have a driving licence.
I even have what the Irish Defence Forces call an AF154 that allows me to drive small vehicles.
Like the ones we are talking about.

Hasn't the Irish Army rangers been using them for some time?
The US sent a load of them to Afghanistan for both army and police. Single cab, crew cab and even ones with HMG mounted.
Oh and the Malaysian army too.
But if you say its not a military vehicle I am sure you know best.

Funnily enough army-technology also has articles on the G-wagon and how it has not developed over the years. Like the land rover it's military strength lies in its simplicity.
However the modern version, sold to civilians uses more complicated suspension and is build as a high end SUV.

Herald
6th June 2014, 23:53
Speaking of mil versions of ford stuff, heres an interesting israeli adaption of the F-350.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasan_Sand_Cat

Bit dear though, you'ld probably get 5 Pajeros for one of them.

The real Jack
7th June 2014, 00:09
Hasn't the Irish Army rangers been using them for some time?
T

Ford F350 modified for use by rangers != Ford ranger

na grohmiti
7th June 2014, 03:19
Ford F350 modified for use by rangers != Ford ranger

Eh.. No.

FMP
7th June 2014, 08:18
OMG....................

That article is only about the RN's purchase.

Search http://www.army-technology.com/

There are a couple of articles about Ford Ranger light tactical vehicle, the Ford Everest armoured vehicle, the Ford Ranger armoured vehicle, the Ford Everest cash in transit, the Ford Ranger emergency response vehicle.

But of course armoured vehicles, developed in Australia by Ford and the Australian defence industry aren't military vehicles.

Yes I have a driving licence.
I even have what the Irish Defence Forces call an AF154 that allows me to drive small vehicles.
Like the ones we are talking about.

Hasn't the Irish Army rangers been using them for some time?
The US sent a load of them to Afghanistan for both army and police. Single cab, crew cab and even ones with HMG mounted.
Oh and the Malaysian army too.
But if you say its not a military vehicle I am sure you know best.

Funnily enough army-technology also has articles on the G-wagon and how it has not developed over the years. Like the land rover it's military strength lies in its simplicity.
However the modern version, sold to civilians uses more complicated suspension and is build as a high end SUV.


Saab, just because you stick armour on/in a vehicle does not make it a military vehicle. I have spent over a decade cutting about in land cruisers that were armoured, they were not military vehicles. They had comms suits that could talk to someone on the moon and ECM kit, they were not military vehicles. We also had a few armoured G Wagons, not military.

There is a huge market out there and it has been dominated by players that use Land cruiser almost exclusively, that market is aimed at NGO's, Government agencies, Journalists, Private Security Contractors, oil and gas companies all working in hostile environments. It is worth Billions of dollars. That is the market Ford is trying to enter. Not military. They would love some "military" contracts but do not have the infrastructure as yet because no one is interested.

The Israelis have in their own defense industry used fords as base vehicles to create "concepts" not yet in mass production and if they do go that way it will be in the home market only. But the difference is they will be ground up built, not civilian models later converted.

Cash in transit and emergency response, not military.

The ANA and ANP were given ford rangers, bull bars, radios and a PKM on the back do not make them military vehicles. They were also given Hummers (which is a military vehicle) and drove them into the ground as they could not maintain them. They wanted LC hilux but there was no way in the world the yanks were going to give them a Japanese product.

Every Jihadist and lunatic from Africa to the middle east to central aisa is cutting about in 70 series and hilux landcruiser's, all armed with something or other. Does that also make them military vehicles?

The fords used by the ARW are just another version of the Land Rovers they used. Civilian vehicles with a WMIK. That's why one rolled and that's why Sergeant Derek Mooney was killed. Completely unsuitable, they took short cuts to save money and thought whats the difference? A land rover is a land rover. Their not. That's what happens when you buy a civilian vehicle and try and assign it a military task. Please find me some photos of another "western" Tier 1 SF unit using the same fords in the same role and I will give you that point.

You can take any vehicle, paint it whatever colour you like, stick a radio in it and fill it with soldiers. Does that make it a military vehicle? By that reasoning the Pajero is a military vehicle. Green, comms kit, soldiers! Would you agree? Its "white fleet" not painted white.

Because a military organisation owns a vehicle it does not make it a military vehicle. A military vehicle is one that has been built from the ground up to suit a specific purpose. Land Rover Defender is a civilian vehicle, the Land Rover wolf XD is not. Mr football players G Wagon is a civilian vehicle, The Canadian army one is not. They have been built to military specifications. Those specifications are a long way from painting it green and sticking a radio and some soldiers in it.

The driving licence question was to try and assess your age and experience Saab. Some of your comments appear blinkered and seem to show a lack of understanding on basic fundamentals in relation to vehicle's purpose built for military use and vehicles owned by the military to make up their "white fleet" even if their painted green, brown or whatever. They are two very different beasts.

There is a post on this forum somewhere and I cant for the life of me find it and don't have the time to look (I don't actually have the time for this but,,,,). It goes back sometime and was in relation to the initial selection of the GR or possibly the Pajero. Maybe someone else will remember it. It contained a phrase that springs to mind when I read some of your posts, some not all. And if that phrase is an indication of the understanding or lack of, as to what makes a vehicle fit for purpose in a military environment, the DF is totally fcuked. It went like "Reasons to choose X vehicle, 10,000 farmers cant be wrong".


Yes I am being picky and pedantic, and maybe if more people in the DF / DoD were they might actually get some fit for purpose vehicles for a change and not some civilian thing dressed up to look the part. Like the ANA and ANP and the Iraqi police, army etc. etc. etc.

The real Jack
7th June 2014, 09:49
Eh.. No.
Does != mean something different to you?

na grohmiti
7th June 2014, 09:55
It means nothing mathematically.

The real Jack
7th June 2014, 10:09
It means nothing mathematically.

So F350 = ford ranger/Mazda whatever??

!= is used in C as an operator in some pretty mathematical cases so I'm not sure where you're going with this.

na grohmiti
7th June 2014, 12:23
Ford F350
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Ford_F-350_King_Ranch_--_09-12-2010.jpg

Ford/Mazda Ranger
http://www.4x4ni.com/dat/image/cesar/Ford%20ranger%20T6.jpg

Ford F350 Modified for ARW use
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/15/Irish_Army_Rangers_on_Parade.JPG

so Ford F350 Modified for use by Irish rangers /= Ford ranger.

The real Jack
7th June 2014, 12:42
so Ford F350 Modified for use by Irish rangers /= Ford ranger.

Which is what I said from the start, != means not equal to...

na grohmiti
7th June 2014, 14:49
no it doesn't.

The real Jack
7th June 2014, 14:52
<tbody>
Operator name
Syntax
Can overload
Included
in C (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_(programming_language))
Prototype examples


As member of K
Outside class definitions


Equal to
<code style="font-family: monospace, Courier;">a == b</code>
Yes
Yes
R K::operator ==(S b);
R operator ==(K a, S b);


Not equal to
<code style="font-family: monospace, Courier;">a != b</code>
<code style="font-family: monospace, Courier;">a not_eq b</code>[b] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operators_in_C_and_C%2B%2B#cite_note-synonyms-2)
Yes
Yes
R K::operator !=(S b);
R operator !=(K a, S b);


Greater than
<code style="font-family: monospace, Courier;">a > b</code>
Yes
Yes
R K::operator >(S b);
R operator >(K a, S b);


Less than
<code style="font-family: monospace, Courier;">a < b</code>
Yes
Yes
R K::operator <(S b);
R operator <(K a, S b);


Greater than or equal to
<code style="font-family: monospace, Courier;">a >= b</code>
Yes
Yes
R K::operator >=(S b);
R operator >=(K a, S b);


Less than or equal to
<code style="font-family: monospace, Courier;">a <= b</code>
Yes
Yes
R K::operator <=(S b);
R operator <=(K a, S b);

</tbody>

na grohmiti
7th June 2014, 14:54
And for the rest of the world, who are not computer programming nerds, it means "Oh Shit! Its the same as!"

Captain Edmund Blackadder
8th June 2014, 06:38
http://emotibot.net/pix/1516.jpg

CTU
8th June 2014, 17:45
And for the rest of the world, who are not computer programming nerds, it means "Oh Shit! Its the same as!"

For the computer nerds who are not mathematical nerds.

The notation a ≠ b means that a is not equal to b

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_equal

Flamingo
8th June 2014, 19:47
I think this thread has gone off on a tangent...

madmark
8th June 2014, 20:05
this thread has been the best debate in a while......... im glad it has not gone off the rails much....

trellheim
8th June 2014, 23:43
Kindly remain on-topic.
That said, it might behove a lot of people here to read an average e-tenders tender from any government department and look at the awarding criteria and realise what actually happens.

Saab
9th June 2014, 00:06
Actually the Ford Ranger was, until 1981 the name of the F series range.

It was only in 83 that it was decided that only the compact version of the truck should be called ranger and the others go by their F series number.

But, FMP

since we are getting to definitions

A military vehicle is any vehicle used by armed forces.
However there are also combat vehicles, which of course although combat vehicles are military vehicles not all military vehicles are combat vehicles.

The Chevi M1009 used by Sweden and the US military are "militarised commercial vehicles".
They are light service support vehicles
They came into service in the 70s when the US Defence department realised that the military needed what I guess you call a white fleet.

The fact of the matter is that the DF is not generally in a combat situation. As you pointed out CIT etc are not what you consider military roles but are in fact the roles the vehicles we are using are tasked to do. The Ford ranger has in fact a better safety record than the g-wagon.
Maybe the problem is for most of what we do we need this white fleet.

You talk about Australian and Canadian fleets but fail to realise that they are spending on their light vehicle fleet what the DF has to spend on its annual budget.

Maybe you can explain what wiki mean by

The P4 is a militarised Mercedes Geländewagen marketed by Peugeot for the French military.
isn't the Mercedes Geländewagen the g-wagon?
How can the french militarize an vehicle that you claim is a military vehicle already??

Or is it all back to the original definition?

hptmurphy
9th June 2014, 16:37
A military vehicle is any vehicle used by armed forces.

Therein lies the problem, what we need is milspec vehicles.


We used Toyota Lite ace and Renault Vans in the past, while painted green and used by the DF they didn't meet any recognized Mil Spec.

By the same logic Mil Spec doesn't mean 'combat capable'

Pajero has the same problem.


isn't the Mercedes Geländewagen the g-wagon?
How can the french militarize an vehicle that you claim is a military vehicle already?

They modify it to meet there own published Mil Spec.

The Mercedes G wagen was originally marketed as a Civilian 4 x 4 and upgraded according to the users requirements.....as opposed to buying them off the shelf and fcuking them up as we did with Landrovers for those who remember that saga.

trellheim
9th June 2014, 22:47
what is milspec ? Usually means somewhat soldier proof in my experience or its painted green .... Facetiousness aside a lot of people are getting hung up on possibly unfamiliar terminology. Does anyone have a link to a station-wagon type tender doc for any commonwealth forces ?

DeV
9th June 2014, 23:11
Why does the Artillery Corps use the yellow surveying equipment (that is used on building sites)?

Because the exact same equipment, that is painted green and tested to NATO standards is 4 times the price

Rhodes
9th June 2014, 23:16
Why does the Artillery Corps use the yellow surveying equipment (that is used on building sites)?

Because the exact same equipment, that is painted green and tested to NATO standards is 4 times the price

Its also made in Ireland.

Saab
9th June 2014, 23:59
what is milspec ?

Actually in the USA Milspec is


MILITARY SPECIFICATIONS PROMULGATED BY MILITARY DEPARTMENTS/ AGENCIES UNDER AUTHORITY OF DEFENSE STANDARIZATION MANUAL 4120 3-M
there are some here http://siri.org/msds/gn.cgi?query=promulgated

So if the DF produces a spec for military equipment in Ireland any equipment bought to that spec is Irish Mil Spec.

I am sure many other countries have the same.

Murph according to FMP's earlier posts the g-wagon is a purpose built military vehicle.
Are you contradicting that?
Or is a German military vehicle not a military vehicle in France until it gets the right coat of paint.

Funnily enough, since the Italians only buy from their own industry where possible I am sure that their mil specs would say the all military trucks must be made by Iveco or Fiat.
So by their standard the g-wagon is not a military vehicle.:-D:-D:-D:-D

What was the LR saga?
I was only told they were crap on the road. Something about dodgy steering but weren't they supposed to be great off road?

hptmurphy
10th June 2014, 16:35
Murph according to FMP's earlier posts the g-wagon is a purpose built military vehicle.
Are you contradicting that?

Mercedes had a 4 x 4 comercially available during the 70's was popular amongst the horsey crowd and was for sale on the open market before it became popular as the basis for a military vehicle that was adapated to meet a military vehicle specification.

!972 vs 1979 for the G wagen

Check out the article

http://3d-car-shows.com/from-the-dernburg-wagen-to-the-a-45-amg-105-years-on-the-original-four-wheel-drive-inspires-a-new-generation/

Land Rover original was an agricultural vehicle built fro Jeep spare parts that evolved into the byword for 4x4 vehicles but no one ever said it was a tractor!

The Germans used the Volkswagen Iltis as did the Canadians, the French the Hotchkiss M201


What was the LR saga?

We tried to convert the original series 109 111 series to diesel and made an arse of it using factory supplied kits, straight forward you might think, not so.

We then tried to introduce an extra frive belt as an alternator/ generator for Radio equipment and tore the bejaysus out of the engine.


So if the DF produces a spec for military equipment in Ireland any equipment bought to that spec is Irish Mil Spec.

As opposed to buying a commercial vehicle off the shelf and painting it green......

Inclusion of a 24 volt electrical system with be working toward, draw up a specification for a vehicle as opposed to a tender requirement and insist on that which makes it functional in military environment.Inclusion of the upper rear window in the Nissans these were specifications unique to the military , and thus the production runs were unique to an Irish Mil Spec.. nothing facetious in that.

Inclusion of standard NATO hitches on all vehicles, recognized military standards.

Don't even think of Iveco / Ford Trucks.... a saga unto its elf. The parent company is a 52% holding in Ford Europe and the vehicle is a Ford Cargo, so is it actually purely Italian apart from being a heap of shite!

FMP
11th June 2014, 07:47
Saab

Before you start crying "contradiction" I suggest you read all my posts on this topic again. This time read them for the information contained within and not for the purpose of trying to pick holes in them.

I have never once stated that either Land Rover or G Wagon were conceived as military vehicles. Never even hinted at it. I have however gone to great lengths to try and explain to you the difference between the civilian Land Rovers (which have been about from the late 40's) and their military counterparts. The difference between the civilian G Wagon and the Canadian and Australian military counterparts (As well as reference to some french built ones).

All of this is completely ignored by you.

Do I have to go through it again? I suggest instead you reread my posts.

Both the Land Rover Wolf and the Canadian and Australian G Wagons are Purpose built from the ground up to military specifications. They do not start life as a high end SUV or Chelsea tractors and are then "converted". They start life on a production line set up by MB and LR to build vehicles for military costumers. To their required specifications. From a rolling chassis which is different to their civilian counterparts, and bit by bit, nut by nut, bolt by bolt are built from the ground up, to suit their intended purpose. They did NOT start life as an SUV and were later "converted".

Just how hard is that to understand?

I have explained in black and white on these pages time and time again what the difference is. You still don't seem to be able to grasp it. Perhaps you consider the vehicles used in the DF like the GR or the Pajero as military specification vehicles, because there green, because they have radios in, etc. Perhaps you think the DF's idea of a vehicle fit for military use is the same as every other armies? Again I have tried to highlight the difference, which you completely ignore.

You talk about CIT as a reason not to have a MOTS vehicle, what do we need it for when all we do is drive from town to town? This is a role handled by police and private security the world over. Not by the national Defense force. Its a poor excuse.

You talk of economy of scale as a reason not to standardise the various fleets with MOTS vehicles. The DF is too small and does not have enough vehicles to make it viable. Correct? That is what you said is it not?

New Zealand has a land force half the size of Ireland's, +/- 4.500 all in. Yet they can do it. Their light green fleet is comprised of over 300 6 x 6 Pinzgauger's. Covering roles from GS soft top, to Hard Top C2, FFR, SRV, LAD, and Armoured. Their HGV fleet is made up entirely of MB unimogs again filling numerous roles, TCV, Ambulance, Hiab, C2, Wrecker, Prime movers. Their high mobility HGV fleet (being revitalized and will replace a lot of the Unimogs) will comprises 200 Rheinmatall MAN trucks in 4 x 4, 6 x 6 and 8 x 8, in numerous roles, TCV, DROPS, Tractor/Semi trailer, dumper and wrecker models. And yes, they do also have a "white fleet".

So whats our excuse now? Were too big!

Saab, your arguments don't make sense mate. If you listen to what people here are saying (not just me) you will see that. Your trying to defend the undefendable. Your trying to pick holes and put words in peoples posts in order to contradict them instead of taking in what their saying. Instead of looking at the big problem, the various fleets in the DF are in shite state, because of lack of foresight, lack of understanding of how the system works elsewhere and because of penny packet procurement. A total disaster and there is NO excuse for it, so stop making excuses.

We are however still no further along to finding a Pajero replacement (on these pages). Whatever the DF do eventually decide upon I can only guess. Past performance being a good indicator of future performance I have no doubt what so ever that it will again prove to be a disaster unless they learn from others, redefine their Concept of Operations and buy into long contracts for proven, tested and in use vehicles. Most importantly, learn from their countless mistakes.

But then again, pig's might one day fly.

GoneToTheCanner
11th June 2014, 12:19
we're not the only ones that **** up. Look at the saga of the Reynolds-Boughton in the British Army. It ate money and resources like a savage and ended up being taken out of service. Im quite sure that the NZ, German, Italian and French armies also have their own procurement horrors. Sometimes, buying off the shelf works because militaries don't get to dick around. Rule 1: never buy the mark 1 of anything. The DF and DoD forgot that several times and paid the price, literally.

regards
GttC

FMP
11th June 2014, 12:37
Agree 100%. No one gets it right all the time (and I have never implied that other's do, just highlighted where some have), no matter how big your budget is. Problem is the DF don't ever seem to get it right. ;)

DeV
11th June 2014, 13:29
You talk about CIT as a reason not to have a MOTS vehicle, what do we need it for when all we do is drive from town to town? This is a role handled by police and private security the world over. Not by the national Defense force. Its a poor excuse.
In fairness, escorts and duties are what some of the fleet spend the vast majority of the time doing.



You talk of economy of scale as a reason not to standardise the various fleets with MOTS vehicles. The DF is too small and does not have enough vehicles to make it viable. Correct? That is what you said is it not?

New Zealand has a land force half the size of Ireland's, +/- 4.500 all in. Yet they can do it. Their light green fleet is comprised of over 300 6 x 6 Pinzgauger's. Covering roles from GS soft top, to Hard Top C2, FFR, SRV, LAD, and Armoured. Their HGV fleet is made up entirely of MB unimogs again filling numerous roles, TCV, Ambulance, Hiab, C2, Wrecker, Prime movers. Their high mobility HGV fleet (being revitalized and will replace a lot of the Unimogs) will comprises 200 Rheinmatall MAN trucks in 4 x 4, 6 x 6 and 8 x 8, in numerous roles, TCV, DROPS, Tractor/Semi trailer, dumper and wrecker models. And yes, they do also have a "white fleet".

+1
Excellent example

Smaller militaries have all the more reason to standardise

FMP
11th June 2014, 15:58
In fairness, escorts and duties are what some of the fleet spend the vast majority of the time doing.

I agree with you DeV, my point (in my usual roundabout way) is that to choose a vehicle based on "white" roles alone would be foolish (and it is an excuse used here often), when there are other roles that need to be considered as well. One vehicle that could complete many tasks even if it were considered a bit grizzly for the "white" roles makes sense (I think you agree with me there). To say a particular vehicle is not suitable because Joe public would be scared is not a good enough reason to disregard it. The DF first and foremost need to take care of their primary role.

We have on many occasions mentioned the transit, so here is an idea. There are plenty of them (transits) in the DF and are a useful and necessary vehicle. Everyone has their "white fleet". What I'm saying is do not buy "white fleet" to apply them to a military role. Take care of your military role first and use your "white fleet" to take care of your "white" role. By that I mean for CIT, prison escorts etc, use the transit. Why not? Its the same size as the CIT and prison vans, no more imposing or threatening than a police van (I would say less imposing or threatening) will never need to go off road, pull a 105 or have a javelin crew dismount from it to take out whatever. It will still fulfill many other roles in the DF but all "white". And it keeps grizzly bears away from Joe public.

So, where am I going with this? Simple really. Lets not replace the Pajero, the GR and the other mishmash of vehicles about the place in "white" roles. Lets instead let them fade away into oblivion and allow the trusty transit (or similar provided it becomes a standardised vehicle) to pick up the slack.

Then look at the "military" role and get a single multi role light vehicle, single multi role HGV's and a single multi role high mobility HGV's. Not adding to the fleet, just standardising it (but removing the odd's and sod's at the same time). Refresh my memory, was it over 100 different makes and models eight years ago?

Applying the above reasoning you could reduce that frightening figure of 100+ to a dozen or so (guesstimate (not including armour). By utilising multi role chassis across all areas "green/white". I wont give examples as many have been covered here already and I no doubt will attract the wrath of Saab if I do ;).

There will always be a need for staff cars, light vans, motorbikes, firetrucks, fuel bowser's, SRV's, wrecker's, DROPS, TCV's, Prime Movers, and on and on. The thing is not to have multiple vehicles doing the same job.

It can and should be done. As you said DeV, its even more important with small forces with small budgets. The fact is vehicles/procurement policy/ConOps/compatibility all go hand in hand. You cant discuss one with the others. Unfortunately the DF are in a position that after decades of getting it wrong, getting it right will take effort and commitment. Is that commitment really there?

Saab
11th June 2014, 15:59
FMP the Defence forces uses the same standard to procure vehicles as in the UK.

Therefor I can only assume that some where in those specifications for the procurement of military vehicles they look at the expected duty of the vehicles.
If that duty does not warrant the vehicles that you describe then they are not bought.

As I asked if G Wagons are Purpose built from the ground up to military specifications then why did the french have to militarize them.

The Irish HGV fleet, by the looks of things is being standardised as Scania.
IF the DF found the Pajeros suitable for 90% of their primary operations then I am sure in 30 years we will only have one type of LTCV.
I am sure IF Nissan had been more competitive or way back IF Landrover had been more competitive then today we would only have one type of vehicle.

I am totally in agreement that a single vehicle concept is great.
But if our bread and butter is a role handled by police and private security the world over then the vehicles we use will also be those used by police and private security the world over.

At the end of the day it comes to the fact that Defence spending does not get votes.

hptmurphy
11th June 2014, 16:54
FMP the Defence forces uses the same standard to procure vehicles as in the UK.

Yeah.. how come they didn't end up with a fcuking Pajero!


Everyone has their "white fleet". What I'm saying is do not buy "white fleet" to apply them to a military role. Take care of your military role first and use your "white fleet" to take care of your "white" role

Sums it up.

Had someone bought into that we wouldn't have pajero!

FFR Transit Mini bus....better standard of comfort for CIT, as fast as if not faster than the pajeros. And can be be better utilized outside of the CIT role.


Refresh my memory, was it over 100 different makes and models eight years ago?

Even Karl Martin in his book on Irish Army Vehicles missed out on some types!!

What hope have you!

Sorry Saab the thumbs up wasn't intended.

Saab
11th June 2014, 17:11
Yeah.. how come they didn't end up with a fcuking Pajero!

More to spend???????????????


Had someone bought into that we wouldn't have pajero!

FFR Transit Mini bus....better standard of comfort for CIT, as fast as if not faster than the pajeros. And can be be better utilized outside of the CIT role.
But then the full sized transit 4x4 isn't as stable. What would you do for sheep chasing?

But then you could go for the connect. Isn't that what is used for fridge vans?

DeV
11th June 2014, 19:02
If the DF could afford to the should have 50 x G-Wagen per battalion for the green role and 50 x Pajero for the rest (IMHO unless you are deploying them all the time it is not good VFM). we can't so we need 1 vehicle suitable for both that is
Fast
Safe
Can be an FFR
Economical to run and maintain
Cheap
Rugged
Good on road
Good off road
Etc

But we can't!
Nor can we afford 5 makes & models where 1 would do, 2 would be an improve but is still not ideal.

The DF needs to find a vehicle, enter a contract for 500-1000 vehicles over 15 years including full life support
Phase out the existing as they need replacing and you have a single type over 5-10 years

Saab
11th June 2014, 21:39
The DF needs to find a vehicle, enter a contract for 500-1000 vehicles over 15 years including full life support
Phase out the existing as they need replacing and you have a single type over 5-10 years

But isn't that kida what the DF tries to do?
i.e. vehicles are to last 15 years then if not economical to keep on the road, boarded.
It used to be 10 years then boarded.
If the Pajero serves to the satisfaction of the boffins then there is no reason not to get it again.

What was the Pajero cantract?
60 a year for 5 years.
IF all the complaining about the unsuitability is founded then isn't it just as well that the contract is only 5 years.

As was said the g-wagon is considered a better vehicle but it fals foul of the 2 biggest complaints i.e. it doesn't cater for 5 men plus gear and it is low to the ground.
Yes it can be fitted with bigger wheels and tyres but then so can the Pajero.
If the DF hasn't done it for the Pajero (or previous vehicles) then they are not going to do it for any other vehicle.

BTW ground clearance is the shortest distance between the vehicle and the ground.
With a fixed axle its the lowest point of the axle housing, normally the differential.
Vehicles fitted with independent suspension however, the wheels go up/down independently from each other.
This means that the lowest point can vary greatly.

I don't know what our Pajeros are fitted with. I guess independent as it is the safer option for on road driving.
Again, I suspect if we were to go g-wagon it would be the same.

So although we might get what some consider the better option we would not be improving on the two identified problems.

hptmurphy
11th June 2014, 21:51
But then the full sized transit 4x4 isn't as stable. What would you do for sheep chasing?

Transit minibus....use as per pajero in CIT role !!!..wtf said anything about vans or sexual preferences?:-D

Not beyond the realms of possibility. Once upon a life time ago 4 x 4 were in very short supply in the army, so much so a certain Cavalry unit reverted to using AML 60s for CITs!..I watched them go out the gate!!!


Fast
Safe
Can be an FFR
Economical to run and maintain
Cheap
Rugged
Good on road
Good off road
Etc

Try Otokar.....

Saab
11th June 2014, 22:15
Once upon a life time ago 4 x 4 were in very short supply in the army, so much so a certain Cavalry unit reverted to using AML 60s for CITs!..I watched them go out the gate!!!
Could imagine the sh1tfit the media would have if you did that today!!!!


Try Otokar.....
Turkish Landrovers?
Why not by local?

DeV
11th June 2014, 22:40
But isn't that kida what the DF tries to do?
i.e. vehicles are to last 15 years then if not economical to keep on the road, boarded.
It used to be 10 years then boarded.
If the Pajero serves to the satisfaction of the boffins then there is no reason not to get it again.

What was the Pajero cantract?
60 a year for 5 years.
IF all the complaining about the unsuitability is founded then isn't it just as well that the contract is only 5 years.

With testing over an extended period of time and writing a good spec into the tender we should end up with a good suitable vehicle

No what we have is:
2015 enter contract to buy a-b of vehicle x over next m years
2020 enter contract to buy c-d of vehicle y over next n years (but some of vehicle x will be retained)
2025 enter contract to buy e-f of vehicle y over next o years (but some of vehicle x & y will be retained)

Result is 3 different types of vehicle is service

What I suggest is over the course of the first 5-10 years you replace the complete 4x4 3/4 tonne fleet (consisting of at least 3 very different vehicles) with a single model, which then stays in service for at least 5 years. During those 5 years you only have a single type in service.

When a contract is signed for the following 15 years, at most you will have 2 types in service.

Also currently the spares are on separate contracts

Saab
12th June 2014, 00:24
I get the concept.

So lets for arguments sake say that this was done.
That the boffins decided that the Pajero was exactly the vehicle we need. As it is in budget and can fulfill the rolls most likely demanded of it.
You can have SUV, Pick-up and Parcel van.
We would be stuck with it for 15 years?
Then what?
Buy enough of another vehicle so we can scrap the lot again?

In an ideal world we could pick the right vehicle for the right job but we are not in an ideal world.

DeV
12th June 2014, 06:54
In 15 years, you go to tender again (having a proven reliable (ideally spec'ed) vehicle. You built in options.

The manufacturer is tied in to provide that model at a set price for 15 years and ensure spares availability.

In 15 years, the newest vehicles are probably 10 years old and due for replacement anyway.

Saab
12th June 2014, 08:27
In 15 years, you go to tender again (having a proven reliable (ideally spec'ed) vehicle. You built in options.

The manufacturer is tied in to provide that model at a set price for 15 years and ensure spares availability.

In 15 years, the newest vehicles are probably 10 years old and due for replacement anyway.

You are assuming the boffins get it right.
As was pointed out earlier, unlike we look for a one vehicle fits all solution.

Lets say there are 10 boxes to tick in order to find "the right vehicle" for the service requirements.
LR ticks 7, G-wagon ticks 7, Nissan ticks 7 and Pajero ticks 7.
So the next consideration will be price.
So if they go g-wagon and then there are the complaints about vehicle width, ground clearance and colour then you have to wait 15 years to do anything about it as you have agreed it is the vehicle for you.
So far I haven't heard of a vehicle the DF has used that wasn't complained about for some reason.
110 - steering problems
Land cruiser - unstable off road - roll over
Nissan - poor off road handling
Pajero - too small - GC and width.

IF it was possible to get 60 of each available vehicle and run them for 2 years, find the least annoying vehicle then go for the 15 year contract.

DeV
12th June 2014, 10:15
Absolutely which is why there are 3 key elements tags must be got right (what the public sector is bad at):
- the spec
- the testing
- the contract

You can put a min ground clearance into the spec etc

The end users have to be involved in the spec and testing. Find out what the issues with the current fleet and what both units and drivers need, are from the vehicles. If you want tender you must provide 5 vehicles to the correct spec for 6-12 months for testing at home and overseas in all roles by various personnel.

The contract must have clauses to protect us if we buy magic beans.

A long term contract with a large amount of vehicles like this gives the buyer more power in the relationship.

As I said the spares and whole life support must be built in. This guarantees supply and also means it doesn't have to go to tender every 2-3 years. It could also mean if a fault develops across the fleet it will be fixed (as you have a long term relationship with the supplier). In case of a major design flaw (eg electrics) manufacturers engineers must be in site within 72 hours to assess the issue (if deemed necessary) and fix at cost. You could have a manufacturer's engineer on site part/full time for the first year.

It also means you could use more up to date work practices if you wish, eg for spares you could do a kanban (when bin a of brake pads is finished, you start bin b and the supplier restocked bin a) or consignment stock (the supplier owns all the windscreens in stores until they are taken out for use).

morpheus
12th June 2014, 10:45
Where are we going with this?
Are we actually saying that there are serious steps being taken to submit a new tender to replace the FFR fleet?

Saab
12th June 2014, 13:48
Where are we going with this?
Are we actually saying that there are serious steps being taken to submit a new tender to replace the FFR fleet?

There should be one coming soon.

I was talking to one of the mechanics in the job today about 4wds.
He is ex-BA and has had a lot of experience with "mil spec" vehicles.
Actually he laughed at me when I mentioned mil spec. To the best of his knowledge the only mil spec on vehicles is ballistic protection.
Level 1 is provided by flack jackets not by the vehicle.
But more interestingly he claimed that DF does tender for spares and support for all vehicles.
The supplier must hold a reserve of spare parts ready to be drawn.
Ireland will never get Mercs of any description again because the Merc fleet management company in Ireland can't give them the level of service required in the tender. We would have to be supported by the UK or European network.

DeV
12th June 2014, 14:09
There should be one coming soon.

I was talking to one of the mechanics in the job today about 4wds.
He is ex-BA and has had a lot of experience with "mil spec" vehicles.
Actually he laughed at me when I mentioned mil spec. To the best of his knowledge the only mil spec on vehicles is ballistic protection.
Level 1 is provided by flack jackets not by the vehicle.
But more interestingly he claimed that DF does tender for spares and support for all vehicles.
The supplier must hold a reserve of spare parts ready to be drawn.
Ireland will never get Mercs of any description again because the Merc fleet management company in Ireland can't give them the level of service required in the tender. We would have to be supported by the UK or European network.

I suppose it would be a vehicle that meets some/all mil spec really

There are STANAGs for everything, that is a spec issued by NATO.

As I said a number of times, the DF issues separate tenders for spares separately, here is the contract award notice for Ford spares http://ireland-tenders.eu/2052_Supply_and_Delivery_of_Ford_Vehicle_Spare_Par ts_2013_Dublin

hptmurphy
12th June 2014, 14:25
So far I haven't heard of a vehicle the DF has used that wasn't complained about for some reason

Mercedes 1180 TCV....

MAN 4 x 4 TCV

There were some very good purchases, again the First series Nissan were excellent, off road they were very capable if you had the right driver and had done the right preparation, so much so Nissan re opened the production line to cater for the DFs needs!

DeV
12th June 2014, 16:00
The new "beast" is a MAN isn't it?

RoyalGreenJacket
12th June 2014, 16:38
So far I haven't heard of a vehicle the DF has used that wasn't complained about for some reason.
110 - steering problems
Land cruiser - unstable off road - roll over
Nissan - poor off road handling
Pajero - too small - GC and width.

it might be crude - but the Land Rover Wolf overcomes all of those problems - and it looks like a military vehicle because it is one.

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/1001/wlf03yf1.jpg

you can bolt anything to them as and when required and they're a decent workhorse, or utility vehicle or anything you want really - strip it down and turn it into a Recce vehicle or beef it up and turn it into a WMIK.

Saab
12th June 2014, 16:42
Mercedes 1180 TCV....#
you mean the ones that were all off the road within 6 months?


MAN 4 x 4 TCV
Do you mean the original ones that were considered total heaps. With their squat VW cab??
Or the next generation with the square cabs that had no isolater and the batteries kept going dead?

But they are not LTCVs they are HTCVs


First series Nissan were excellent
I know at least 3 drivers from Bde Tpt that would say otherwise.

But then I never said any of the moaning was legitimate.
IMHO liking a vehicle is a personal thing.
I learned in the Nissan. I liked it. Even though it had starting trouble.

RGJ that reminds me of a story one of our Sgts tells about the Bedford 4x4
The Df bought the same as the BA.
Only where as the BA bought the gear to build up the trucks the DF never did.
The then decided that since they didn't have the build up gear they could get a smaller engine.
Which in turn meant they could never be built up.
My money is if they went for the wolf exactly the same would happen.

na grohmiti
12th June 2014, 19:16
it might be crude - but the Land Rover Wolf overcomes all of those problems - and it looks like a military vehicle because it is one.

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/1001/wlf03yf1.jpg

you can bolt anything to them as and when required and they're a decent workhorse, or utility vehicle or anything you want really - strip it down and turn it into a Recce vehicle or beef it up and turn it into a WMIK.

The ARW would seriously disagree with you. A converted landie killed one operator, seriously injured another 2 with career changing injuries.
Its no more a military vehicle than the Patrol, Land Cruiser or Pajero. Even the BA don't use the provided engine.

DeV
12th June 2014, 19:36
it might be crude - but the Land Rover Wolf overcomes all of those problems - and it looks like a military vehicle because it is one.

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/1001/wlf03yf1.jpg

you can bolt anything to them as and when required and they're a decent workhorse, or utility vehicle or anything you want really - strip it down and turn it into a Recce vehicle or beef it up and turn it into a WMIK.

Does it come as a station wagon?
The DF has lost people at home and in Lebanon in soft tops?

What kind of seats in the rear?

As Saab said it would tick the overseas and tactical boxes but not the ATCP, what about the troops in the back when it's doing 100, from Dublin to Portlaoise? The noise, the risk of rollover, no visibility to the sides

DeV
12th June 2014, 19:40
#
you mean the ones that were all off the road within 6 months?


Do you mean the original ones that were considered total heaps. With their squat VW cab??
Or the next generation with the square cabs that had no isolater and the batteries kept going dead?

But they are not LTCVs they are HTCVs


I know at least 3 drivers from Bde Tpt that would say otherwise.

But then I never said any of the moaning was legitimate.
IMHO liking a vehicle is a personal thing.
I learned in the Nissan. I liked it. Even though it had starting trouble.

RGJ that reminds me of a story one of our Sgts tells about the Bedford 4x4
The Df bought the same as the BA.
Only where as the BA bought the gear to build up the trucks the DF never did.
The then decided that since they didn't have the build up gear they could get a smaller engine.
Which in turn meant they could never be built up.
My money is if they went for the wolf exactly the same would happen.
Which Bedfords?

The ones bought in 1970 were the MFR2

The British Army had MKs (very different)

DeV
12th June 2014, 19:42
The ARW would seriously disagree with you. A converted landie killed one operator, seriously injured another 2 with career changing injuries.
Its no more a military vehicle than the Patrol, Land Cruiser or Pajero. Even the BA don't use the provided engine.

Wolf wasn't around then in fairness

FMP
12th June 2014, 20:48
The ARW would seriously disagree with you. A converted landie killed one operator, seriously injured another 2 with career changing injuries.
Its no more a military vehicle than the Patrol, Land Cruiser or Pajero. Even the BA don't use the provided engine.

The ARW were using a converted civilian Land Rover. Nothing like the one the MOB use. Course it did not work, resulting is a death.

MOB's have different running gear, axles, chassis, etc etc ad nauseum. DF did what they always do. Took the cheap option, didn't work (again) someone died.

REX
12th June 2014, 20:51
Wolf wasn't around then in fairness

The Land rover that overturned in Liberia was ordered as a "Wolf" variant. whether that's what was delivered i'll leave to others, but the ones that are still in the fleet are, ironically enough, being used as funeral vehicles for towing the gun carriage etc. and are nothing to right home about.

As someone who actually is involved with the maintenance of our fleet I have kept out of this discussion under the heading "don't get me started", but all i'll say is we've bought some serious sh*te in the last 10 years but the suggestions in this discussion fit into the Walter Mitty category. We don't have the money as country and even if we did there is no way it would be spent on DF vehicles.

The only suggestion that made any sense was the inclusion of a maintenance contract when buying the vehicles. But this was tried before, after we began getting the old Nissan Patrol 260's in '89 it was suggested that we would lease vehicles on either a 3 or 5 year term, and anything other than basic servicing would be the responsibility of the Manufacturer. The contract price was trashed out but when they Dept of Finance saw the price they shot it down immediately. FMP is full of examples of procurement tales from other Military organisations but he forgets to take into account that (AFAIR) the DF are the least resourced military in Europe as a percentage of GNP.

When it's time for cuts we're first on the block, and we will never have the money, or political will to buy vehicles in the numbers required to replace the entire fleet over the next 5 years. When you only buy 50 odd of the more numerous vehicles each year, by the time you reach the end of the contract the vehicle will have gone through changes as a result of the manufacturer upgrading models (the Patrol GR being a prime case). The cure for this to specify that all the vehicles for the life of the contract be the same, but this leads to other problems, we have such a small fleet that what happens is that they do a production run to our specs, all in one go (400-500), and you end up getting 5 year old vehicles being delivered as new, this is what happened with the last 2 years of Patrol 260 deliveries, although that was because they no longer made them, rather than any contractual stipulation. For whatever reason we ended up getting vehicles that had spent 5 years sitting in a yard somewhere



As i said " Don't get me started" we could be here all night.

FMP
12th June 2014, 21:14
The Land rover that overturned in Liberia was ordered as a "Wolf" variant. whether that's what was delivered i'll leave to others, but the ones that are still in the fleet are, ironically enough, being used as funeral vehicles for towing the gun carriage etc. and are nothing to right home about.

As someone who actually is involved with the maintenance of our fleet I have kept out of this discussion under the heading "don't get me started", but all i'll say is we've bought some serious sh*te in the last 10 years but the suggestions in this discussion fit into the Walter Mitty category. We don't have the money as country and even if we did there is no way it would be spent on DF vehicles.

The only suggestion that made any sense was the inclusion of a maintenance contract when buying the vehicles. But this was tried before, after we began getting the old Nissan Patrol 260's in '89 it was suggested that we would lease vehicles on either a 3 or 5 year term, and anything other than basic servicing would be the responsibility of the Manufacturer. The contract price was trashed out but when they Dept of Finance saw the price they shot it down immediately. FMP is full of examples of procurement tales from other Military organisations but he forgets to take into account that (AFAIR) the DF are the least resourced military in Europe as a percentage of GNP.

When it's time for cuts we're first on the block, and we will never have the money, or political will to buy vehicles in the numbers required to replace the entire fleet over the next 5 years. When you only buy 50 odd of the more numerous vehicles each year, by the time you reach the end of the contract the vehicle will have gone through changes as a result of the manufacturer upgrading models (the Patrol GR being a prime case). The cure for this to specify that all the vehicles for the life of the contract be the same, but this leads to other problems, we have such a small fleet that what happens is that they do a production run to our specs, all in one go (400-500), and you end up getting 5 year old vehicles being delivered as new, this is what happened with the last 2 years of Patrol 260 deliveries, although that was because they no longer made them, rather than any contractual stipulation. For whatever reason we ended up getting vehicles that had spent 5 years sitting in a yard somewhere

Perhaps you should read my post on the NZ Army. A tiny little army half the size of Ireland's, if they can do it,,,,,,,. I threw my cards on the table as a suggestion and have highlighted how it could be done. How it should be done. Or let me guess, everyone else is wrong and the DF is the only one to actually really get it right. I know that's not true!

No offence to the majority because this is highly enjoyable but the whole forum is Walter. Do you not realise that? Its a bunch of lads having a natter about this and that which they will have absolutely no influence over whatsoever. Things that interest them. The majority enjoy the banter and maybe one or two even learn something new. I'm 46 and learn something new every day. I enjoy the banter. Whats the problem?

We all know procurement is kak. We all know just about every vehicle ever bought was a disaster. We all know they will keep buying civilian vehicles, paint them green and call them MOB. We all know they will never get it right. We have been saying it for the last 7 or 8 pages. So Walter away a brew break why don't you!

REX
12th June 2014, 21:40
Perhaps you should read my post on the NZ Army. Or are you a bit like Saab and only see and quote what will help support your argument. I threw my cards on the table as a suggestion and have highlighted how it could be done. How it should be done. Or let me guess, everyone else is wrong and the DF is the only one to actually really get it right.

No offence to the majority because it is highly enjoyable but the whole forum is "Walter". Do you not realise that? Its a bunch of lads having a natter about this and that which they will have absolutely no influence over whatsoever. Things that interest them, if your upset by it,,,, leave. The majority enjoy the banter and maybe one or two even learn something new. I'm 46 and learn something new every day.

My God you're a touchy bugger! I referred to all the examples you gave (which of course includes NZ), these are examples of doing it the right way, but with our financial reality it's just pie in the sky to suggest we follow their example. I never said that everyone else is wrong and the DF is right, just the opposite I would have thought, although I restrained myself as, unlike many here, I have to go into Bks every day and face the music if i type something too harsh.

As for the whole Forum being "Walter", speak for yourself, there have been many interesting & informative discussions here. As a comparative red arse at only 45 I would have to say you've been very chilidsh in your reply attacking any body who does not row in behind your buy German campaign, some of us want to keep in the real world about solutions that could actually happen, and the G-wagon does not fall into that category. You might at some stage see one off purchases for very specialised roles, but I'll eat my Beret if we ever see a fleet replacement based on the G-Wagon! You'll have to wait for your sales commission:tongue:

FMP
12th June 2014, 21:56
My God you're a touchy bugger! I referred to all the examples you gave (which of course includes NZ), these are examples of doing it the right way, but with our financial reality it's just pie in the sky to suggest we follow their example. I never said that everyone else is wrong and the DF is right, just the opposite I would have thought, although I restrained myself as, unlike many here, I have to go into Bks every day and face the music if i type something too harsh.

As for the whole Forum being "Walter", speak for yourself, there have been many interesting & informative discussions here. As a comparative red arse at only 45 I would have to say you've been very chilidsh in your reply attacking any body who does not row in behind your buy German campaign, some of us want to keep in the real world about solutions that could actually happen, and the G-wagon does not fall into that category. You might at some stage see one off purchases for very specialised roles, but I'll eat my Beret if we ever see a fleet replacement based on the G-Wagon! You'll have to wait for your sales commission:tongue:

No commission here Rex, but I do like a G Wagon ;). My real world suggestion was transit. Ford Transit. Gave a paragraph or two on the transit, I have a liking for Transits too. What are your thoughts on that one.

I drive a VW T5 Camper which is German again,,,,,,,, Mrs drives a VW Golf,,,,,,,dammit! Maybe there is something of a pattern developing here.

Truck Driver
12th June 2014, 22:13
The new "beast" is a MAN isn't it?

Sure is

REX
12th June 2014, 22:17
No commission here Rex, but I do like a G Wagon ;). My real world suggestion was transit. Ford Transit. Gave a paragraph or two on the transit, I have a liking for Transits too. What are your thoughts on that one.

I drive a VW T5 Camper which is German again,,,,,,,, Mrs drives a VW Golf,,,,,,,dammit! Maybe there is something of a pattern developing here.

Big fan of transits, compared to the Pajero they are a piece of cake to maintain, they are better on fuel and unlike the Pajero don't eat Brake pads, tyres and headlight bulbs. We would be better off using the like of Transits and connects for most every day admin uses but I disagree about using Transits for CIT, debussing is compromised and as someone who has only a 28.5 inch inside leg I find the back of a transit a squeeze, I'd hate to be 6 footer spending the day on CIT. If they used it for that role it would require going for the 12 seat layout with sliding doors both side, so it could be done with some will from the right offices.

P.S. I told you, a Tuetonic fixation, and yes I also drive a vehicle from the VAG. (Volkwagon, AUDI Group for the info of any pervs reading)

FMP
12th June 2014, 22:24
Does it come as a station wagon?
The DF has lost people at home and in Lebanon in soft tops?

What kind of seats in the rear?

As Saab said it would tick the overseas and tactical boxes but not the ATCP, what about the troops in the back when it's doing 100, from Dublin to Portlaoise? The noise, the risk of rollover, no visibility to the sides

Have never seen a "wolf" station wagon I must say. More often than not the Disco makes an appearance it that type of role, senior rank staff transport.

UK company "Safetydevices" have been making ROPS / seats for the soft and hard tops for a number of years now. As well as other makes and models.

http://www.safetydevices.com/military/products/land-rover-wolf/

Windows have never been done in the MOB but Ex MOB civilian window conversion pic attached. Older model of LR but the hard top is "wolf".

FMP
12th June 2014, 22:43
Big fan of transits, compared to the Pajero they are a piece of cake to maintain, they are better on fuel and unlike the Pajero don't eat Brake pads, tyres and headlight bulbs. We would be better off using the like of Transits and connects for most every day admin uses but I disagree about using Transits for CIT, debussing is compromised and as someone who has only a 28.5 inch inside leg I find the back of a transit a squeeze, I'd hate to be 6 footer spending the day on CIT. If they used it for that role it would require going for the 12 seat layout with sliding doors both side, so it could be done with some will from the right offices.

P.S. I told you, a Tuetonic fixation, and yes I also drive a vehicle from the VAG. (Volkwagon, AUDI Group for the info of any pervs reading)

I do think it and its little brother should have a bigger part to play in the DF. It is a fine vehicle and as many have posted here already it fulfills many roles. Like the twin/double door idea, that was my one niggley point about a "van" in the CIT role, left side or rear doors. Would not be a huge leap to have the twin/double door models with less seating capacity. SWB single seats in the rear to carry 4/6 in kit. I'm waltering yes ;) but I'm enjoying it and believe it or not this particular idea/concept (G Wagons and all that madness aside) is actually (in my opinion) a very viable Pajero replacement. Even comes in 4 x 4.

DeV
12th June 2014, 22:44
We don't have the money as country and even if we did there is no way it would be spent on DF vehicles.
We are already spending it approx every 5 years, yet we still have vehicles from several contracts ago in service because they are better in some roles or have lower milage/are in good condition.

The ideas we're discussing here are to reduce costs (both initial purchase price per vehicle and whole life support).


The only suggestion that made any sense was the inclusion of a maintenance contract when buying the vehicles. But this was tried before, after we began getting the old Nissan Patrol 260's in '89 it was suggested that we would lease vehicles on either a 3 or 5 year term, and anything other than basic servicing would be the responsibility of the Manufacturer. The contract price was trashed out but when they Dept of Finance saw the price they shot it down immediately.

Of course they did they have trained and equipped soldiers to do it
I was referring to spares being built in to the purchasing contract.




FMP is full of examples of procurement tales from other Military organisations but he forgets to take into account that (AFAIR) the DF are the least resourced military in Europe as a percentage of GNP.+1


When it's time for cuts we're first on the block, and we will never have the money, or political will to buy vehicles in the numbers required to replace the entire fleet over the next 5 years. When you only buy 50 odd of the more numerous vehicles each year, by the time you reach the end of the contract the vehicle will have gone through changes as a result of the manufacturer upgrading models (the Patrol GR being a prime case). The cure for this to specify that all the vehicles for the life of the contract be the same, but this leads to other problems, we have such a small fleet that what happens is that they do a production run to our specs, all in one go (400-500), and you end up getting 5 year old vehicles being delivered as new, this is what happened with the last 2 years of Patrol 260 deliveries, although that was because they no longer made them, rather than any contractual stipulation. For whatever reason we ended up getting vehicles that had spent 5 years sitting in a yard somewhere

Which is one reason to go for COTS/MOTS

Depends on the upgrades I suppose, if it doesn't mean extra training, spares etc (then it isn't a major issue). Lets say it is front axles, it is an issue yes, say we ended up needing 2 different front axles in service on the same model vehicle, it is still better than having to keep 5+ different types in stores. Even if there are major upgrades you are still (possibly) going to have a fair degree of parts commonality.

The first 15 year contract would see a lot of the various models of Nissans and Pajeros taken out of service by the end of it, so in 15 years you have 1 model in service (say Toyota win it), you then go to tender again (say Mitsubishi win this time). You only have to keep spares for max 2 types of vehicle instead of 5+.



By the way, I'm not saying buy the expensive G-Wagon.
Buy something that ticks as many boxes as possible. Is good-very good on the roads for ATCP etc and is at the very least good cross-country.
If you can get a vehicle (like the G-Wagon), that will give you a lot of options (eg panel van, box body etc) all the better.



Not sure if I said it before but possibly the reason say a G-Wagon is more expensive than a Pajero is it is overspec'ed. Payload is 1180 kg verus region 620 kg.
Traditionally, it is a 3/4 tonne payload we are looking for.

DeV
12th June 2014, 22:55
Ok, ATCP vehicle?
http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=AwrB8pgbIJpTKj8A7oyJzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTIzcm 10OGMzBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDaW1nBG9pZANkNjRhNDBmNGJmYThl NTc0NjYwZmU1YTliNjcyMTNlOQRncG9zAzUyBGl0A2Jpbmc-?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearc h%2Fimages%3F_adv_prop%3Dimage%26va%3Dford%2Btrans it%2Bcrew%2Bcab%26fr%3Dmcafee%26tab%3Dorganic%26ri %3D52&w=500&h=332&imgurl=ycpi-farm8.staticflickr.com%2F7088%2F7286104298_01a807a 1e1_z.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Fshanec asey51%2F7286104298%2F&size=129.6KB&name=irish+defence+forces+%3Cb%3Eford+transit+%3C% 2Fb%3Eminibus+%3Cb%3Ecrew+cab+%3C%2Fb%3E2&p=ford+transit+crew+cab&oid=d64a40f4bfa8e574660fe5a9b67213e9&fr2=&fr=mcafee&tt=irish+defence+forces+%3Cb%3Eford+transit+%3C%2F b%3Eminibus+%3Cb%3Ecrew+cab+%3C%2Fb%3E2&b=0&ni=21&no=52&ts=&tab=organic&sigr=11lot5f98&sigb=13hkg8pie&sigi=11sb4ciad&sigt=122457328&sign=122457328&.crumb=WWi3ZjypjjQ&fr=mcafee
How many can it carry (comfortably in BVs) ?
Can it be fitted out as an FFR - probably but what about the aerial ?
Could the door issue be solved ?
All round observation ?
Will it carry large & small packs comfortable ? - definitely
Will it go around the "hollow" ? - no

Transit Connect is probably too small (see above)

We need a vehicle for the role that is multi-role

hptmurphy
12th June 2014, 23:11
you mean the ones that were all off the road within 6 months?

the ones that have been in service 14 years with both of their counter parts seen as inferior, despite the Leyland DAF being a very capable vehicle.

Again I was driving a Merc 1120f (4X4)the same vehicle 10 years before the DF bought them and always considered its performance excellent. One of the very few vehicles that could pull itself fully loaded out of being bogged to the axles with a good driver!


o you mean the original ones that were considered total heaps. With their squat VW cab??

So looks equate to performance for trucks that the DF bought in two batches and were so capable that the units screamed when they were finally retired!




I know at least 3 drivers from Bde Tpt that would say otherwise.

fcuking taxi drivers, try talking with people including myself and 'Madmark' who drove them over the tops of mountains , through rivers the same batch for three successive years without so much as a puncture.

Have an opinion based on what you have experienced and what you know through that as opposed to the bull shit other feed you.


The Df bought the same as the BA.

Bollocks they DF ones were a bastard version of three bedford models that could never work, again how do I know , I've driven all types we had them in the units, they were shite.

I've driven RLs, TKs, MFR 2s and MKs.. just about anything bedford have produced in truck form to include Green Godess Fire engines, the M series were a disaster and again because we went fcking around with the spec.

hptmurphy
12th June 2014, 23:24
P.S. I told you, a Tuetonic fixation, and yes I also drive a vehicle from the VAG. (Volkwagon, AUDI Group for the info of any pervs reading)

admit it..its an Octavia!!!!:tongue:


If they used it for that role it would require going for the 12 seat layout with sliding doors both side, so it could be done with some will from the right offices.

If they only listened. Are the seats on rails ? could be a quick fix.

I have deliberately stayed away from all the newer land rover products as have bad memories of the soft top type vehicle and having to do escorts in them. Nissans and anything in SUV mode is a vast improvement in comfort for 12 hours stuck in the back of a vehicle, but if its not capable of doing that is it the vehicle we do have to revisit how we ended up with it, and how we can prevent ending up with the same problems time and time again.

I'm a mitsubishi user, but its not worth a hat of crabs in comparrisson to the nissan product I previously drove.

madmark
12th June 2014, 23:43
id take and old nissan patrol anywhere fit 5 lads + gear for at least 48hrs and iv never had a problem except trying to superglue one back together

hptmurphy
12th June 2014, 23:43
Ok, ATCP vehicle?
http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=AwrB8pgbIJpTKj8A7oyJzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTIzcm 10OGMzBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDaW1nBG9pZANkNjRhNDBmNGJmYThl NTc0NjYwZmU1YTliNjcyMTNlOQRncG9zAzUyBGl0A2Jpbmc-?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearc h%2Fimages%3F_adv_prop%3Dimage%26va%3Dford%2Btrans it%2Bcrew%2Bcab%26fr%3Dmcafee%26tab%3Dorganic%26ri %3D52&w=500&h=332&imgurl=ycpi-farm8.staticflickr.com%2F7088%2F7286104298_01a807a 1e1_z.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Fshanec asey51%2F7286104298%2F&size=129.6KB&name=irish+defence+forces+%3Cb%3Eford+transit+%3C% 2Fb%3Eminibus+%3Cb%3Ecrew+cab+%3C%2Fb%3E2&p=ford+transit+crew+cab&oid=d64a40f4bfa8e574660fe5a9b67213e9&fr2=&fr=mcafee&tt=irish+defence+forces+%3Cb%3Eford+transit+%3C%2F b%3Eminibus+%3Cb%3Ecrew+cab+%3C%2Fb%3E2&b=0&ni=21&no=52&ts=&tab=organic&sigr=11lot5f98&sigb=13hkg8pie&sigi=11sb4ciad&sigt=122457328&sign=122457328&.crumb=WWi3ZjypjjQ&fr=mcafee
How many can it carry (comfortably in BVs) ?
Can it be fitted out as an FFR - probably but what about the aerial ?
Could the door issue be solved ?
All round observation ?
Will it carry large & small packs comfortable ? - definitely
Will it go around the "hollow" ? - no

Transit Connect is probably too small (see above)

We need a vehicle for the role that is multi-role

If it works commercially there is no reason it can't work in roles like CIT,
Its not one of the more capable vans on the road for nothing!

pym
12th June 2014, 23:48
How many can it carry (comfortably in BVs) ?
Can it be fitted out as an FFR - probably but what about the aerial ?
Could the door issue be solved ?
All round observation ?
Will it carry large & small packs comfortable ? - definitely
Will it go around the "hollow" ? - no

Transit Connect is probably too small (see above)

We need a vehicle for the role that is multi-role

Antennas would be no problem, but the 24V needed for some radios might be an issue - could be solved by adding a pair of 12V batteries that would go parallel for charging off the alternator & in series for operating the radios.
Doors - have them sliding on both sides & the seats facing out, 2 either side, set up in a similar fashion to the AW139's.
You could have a hatch in the roof for stationary observation.

Gonna stop now before I go into walting overdrive.

madmark
12th June 2014, 23:51
the problem with all DF vehicle procurement process is the wrong people are making the final assement and awarding of contracts ie DOD and officers that want somthing thats shinny cost the least amount and whats not in the best needs of the DF untill this is resolved we will find it hard to get a vehicle that is fit for the df needs

FMP
13th June 2014, 04:35
If it works commercially there is no reason it can't work in roles like CIT,
Its not one of the more capable vans on the road for nothing!


And as I have mentioned it comes in 4 x 4. So very capable off road as well.

DeV
13th June 2014, 07:14
Not a very taxing course
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vCRI1kV90_A

FMP
13th June 2014, 08:12
DeV


The transit. Why not? I mean it, why not look at the home role of the DF within the state. They come in 4 x 4 (with raised suspension on these models) and they would be quiet capable of fulfilling the majority of the roles mentioned. There will always be some role that a particular vehicle may not be suited for but, quickly running through them in my head, the old transit,,,,,, not a million miles away from what could in fact be the answer to the problem.

First, someone somewhere needs to sit down and decide "this is the road we must travel (no pun intended) a decision has been made and this is it lock stock and barrel for the next 15 to 20 years". Across the entire fleet, modified to suit and for the best part future and soldier proof.


Gents, it is interesting that the topic has turned to the transit. It is actually something myself and DeV spoke about in the early pages of this thread (abridged version above of post 65). It was and has again been put forward as a possible replacement for the problem Pajero. Funny how no one wishes to quote me on that post ;).

Lots of FMP bashing going on :-D. Old soldier, thick skinned and can take it. Most of that bashing has been in regrade to my allegedly not being aware of the DF's budgetary restraints, roles of the DF, lack of political will etc. I am well aware of all of these gents. The majority of my posts have concentrated on four topics: fleet commonality, procurement policy, Concept of Operations and long service support contracts.

I have used the Australian G Wagon fleet to highlight all of the above and made reference to many more examples of how it works. Some from forces much larger than Ireland's and others from forces much smaller (NZ). I have clearly expressed a personal admiration the the Aus G Wagon fleet but have on a number of occasions stated that it is a "pig's might fly" scenario where the DF is concerned. The various arguments against me all have a common denominator, "we cant afford it". It being the G Wagon or similar. As I have already mentioned I am using it to highlight a "system" and it is that system that the DF CANNOT afford not to have in place. We have bantered back and forth about the pro's and con's of the G. Because it was the vehicle mentioned, there have been very few others put forward that attracted the same attention. It became a topic of conversation and a lot of the comments against it focused on the vehicle and not the point's being made.

Fleet commonality: Single platform carrying out a multitude of tasks. Not one or more vehicles for a single task. Most on here will agree with this.

Procurement Policy: A joined up interdepartmental approach to trials, testing, selection and purchasing. DF/DoD/DoF. Most on here will agree with this.

Concept of Operations: How are we going to do what we are tasked to do, with what we have available to the best of our ability . (Loosely put). Most on here will agree with this.

Long service support contracts: A 15 year + agreement (with options to extend) with the manufacturer to guarantee parts availability and service support to keep that fleet current and functional. Getting value for money. Most on here will agree with this.

So contrary to popular belief (G Wagon wanderings aside) I have a very good grasp of the situation.

Personally I believe the Transit and Connect is the correct answer. But it needs to be done right. There are numerous roles they fill and many more they could fill in Homeland roles. 4x4, twin door, seating configuration, wiring, tow hitching etc would all need to be fit for purpose first.

Murph's link to the transit pic is a good example of what could conceivably be your CSW vehicle. Plenty room for 5 plus kit, separate compartment for the weapon systems. If it were the 4x4, twin door etc etc option.

The SWB 4x4, twin door, seating configuration etc etc,,,, CIT, FFR, GS, 120 prime mover etc etc.

Then there's ambulance, panel cargo, EOD, workshop, refrigerated, 12 seat mini bus,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, the list goes on.

Its about your ConOps. What do you want your home fleet to do. There are purely "white" roles and purely "green" roles and then there are the roles that migrate between the two. You will never get the perfect vehicle, no one does. Its deciding what vehicle is adaptable enough to fulfill many roles adequately, for the various task's you set it to.

The transit can be your "green" homeland fleet if the right adaptations are applied to it, working hand in hand with Ford to have them come off the production line as you want them and not trying to do them yourself in base workshops. Let the manufacture take the responsibility. Same for the Connect, same for the F150, same for the Mondeo.

Crikey!!! Is that the makings of a standardised fleet? Minimum number of makes and models doing many many different tasks.

Looking then to your overseas role. Company +, Battalion + deployments are the norm. Create your (to borrow a phrase used by someone else on here) expeditionary fleet with the required grizzly bears. Mowag's, LATV's, High mobility HGV's and a light (not civilian conversion) vehicle to do what you need it to do. Enough vehicles to equip that force, have a training cadre and a few spares,,,,,just in case. Very, very affordable. Very, very doable.

I'm saying the same thing I have been saying from the start. Just using a real world vehicle (REX ;)) the message is still the same. To reiterate, I personally feel having read all posts, mulled over them and digested the issues within that the above will work for the DF. If the correct system is applied.

FMP
13th June 2014, 08:20
Not a very taxing course
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vCRI1kV90_A

Not the right vehicle, one on film is a similar one to the 4 motion VW T5 I drive. Got 4 wheel drive but not true 4 x 4. Will have a look and see if I can find the one I'm suggesting.

FMP
13th June 2014, 08:46
Struggling to find it. It was a special conversion offered by ford with the conversions being carried out by contracted companies on behalf of ford. Below is some bumf lifted from the usual sources. Would appear the drive train has changed slightly and gone down the VW 4 Motion road. Question is, is it any worse than the Pajero? And can it fulfill more roles? As I have said in the past there is no perfect vehicle, but is it good enough to do the day to day work it's required to do?

"A handful of companies offered four-wheel-drive conversions, the most popular of which was provided by County Tractors of Knighton in Powys, who converted vans on behalf of Ford as a Special Vehicle Operations (SVO) factory option. The first Transit County models were based on the Mk2 Transit model, both long and short wheel base. The conversion used a Dana 44F front axle and a NP208 transfer box, both lifted from the Ford Bronco, coupled to the regular Transit engine, gearbox and rear axle using three custom propshafts. The Transit rear axle was retained, mounted to a rear subframe or 'lift cradle' to give the extra ride height. Other modifications were 16 inch wheel rims, locking front hubs, a heavy-duty steering box and 305mm diameter front brake discs.

With the introduction of the Mk3 Transit in 1986 came the next generation of the County 4x4. This would prove to be a very popular and successful version of the County Transit 4x4, and the last to use the Dana beam axle layout. Later County 4x4 models switched to using an independent front suspension setup which was inherently more complex in design than the earlier beam axle models. Later panel vans also lost the twin-wheel rear axle that had been fitted on earlier LWB versions.

Mainly used by utility companies like National Grid, the Ministry Of Defence, and by mountain rescue teams, the Transit County 4x4 proved to be a capable vehicle both on and off road, with the ability to carry both crew and equipment just about anywhere.

Design and supply of drivetrain components for County 4x4 models passed to Countytrac, a division of M.J. Allen Ltd, who are still involved in the development of the latest Mk7 AWD Transit and Connect models".

FMP
13th June 2014, 09:38
Gents, it is interesting that the topic has turned to the transit. It is actually something myself and DeV spoke about in the early pages of this thread (abridged version above of post 65). It was and has again been put forward as a possible replacement for the problem Pajero. Funny how no one wishes to quote me on that post ;).

Lots of FMP bashing going on :-D. Old soldier, thick skinned and can take it. Most of that bashing has been in regrade to my allegedly not being aware of the DF's budgetary restraints, roles of the DF, lack of political will etc. I am well aware of all of these gents. The majority of my posts have concentrated on four topics: fleet commonality, procurement policy, Concept of Operations and long service support contracts.

I have used the Australian G Wagon fleet to highlight all of the above and made reference to many more examples of how it works. Some from forces much larger than Ireland's and others from forces much smaller (NZ). I have clearly expressed a personal admiration the the Aus G Wagon fleet but have on a number of occasions stated that it is a "pig's might fly" scenario where the DF is concerned. The various arguments against me all have a common denominator, "we cant afford it". It being the G Wagon or similar. As I have already mentioned I am using it to highlight a "system" and it is that system that the DF CANNOT afford not to have in place. We have bantered back and forth about the pro's and con's of the G. Because it was the vehicle mentioned, there have been very few others put forward that attracted the same attention. It became a topic of conversation and a lot of the comments against it focused on the vehicle and not the point's being made.

Fleet commonality: Single platform carrying out a multitude of tasks. Not one or more vehicles for a single task. Most on here will agree with this.

Procurement Policy: A joined up interdepartmental approach to trials, testing, selection and purchasing. DF/DoD/DoF. Most on here will agree with this.

Concept of Operations: How are we going to do what we are tasked to do, with what we have available to the best of our ability . (Loosely put). Most on here will agree with this.

Long service support contracts: A 15 year + agreement (with options to extend) with the manufacturer to guarantee parts availability and service support to keep that fleet current and functional. Getting value for money. Most on here will agree with this.

So contrary to popular belief (G Wagon wanderings aside) I have a very good grasp of the situation.

Personally I believe the Transit and Connect is the correct answer. But it needs to be done right. There are numerous roles they fill and many more they could fill in Homeland roles. 4x4, twin door, seating configuration, wiring, tow hitching etc would all need to be fit for purpose first.

Murph's link to the transit pic is a good example of what could conceivably be your CSW vehicle. Plenty room for 5 plus kit, separate compartment for the weapon systems. If it were the 4x4, twin door etc etc option.

The SWB 4x4, twin door, seating configuration etc etc,,,, CIT, FFR, GS, 120 prime mover etc etc.

Then there's ambulance, panel cargo, EOD, workshop, refrigerated, 12 seat mini bus,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, the list goes on.

Its about your ConOps. What do you want your home fleet to do. There are purely "white" roles and purely "green" roles and then there are the roles that migrate between the two. You will never get the perfect vehicle, no one does. Its deciding what vehicle is adaptable enough to fulfill many roles adequately, for the various task's you set it to.

The transit can be your "green" homeland fleet if the right adaptations are applied to it, working hand in hand with Ford to have them come off the production line as you want them and not trying to do them yourself in base workshops. Let the manufacture take the responsibility. Same for the Connect, same for the F150, same for the Mondeo.

Crikey!!! Is that the makings of a standardised fleet? Minimum number of makes and models doing many many different tasks.

Looking then to your overseas role. Company +, Battalion + deployments are the norm. Create your (to borrow a phrase used by someone else on here) expeditionary fleet with the required grizzly bears. Mowag's, LATV's, High mobility HGV's and a light (not civilian conversion) vehicle to do what you need it to do. Enough vehicles to equip that force, have a training cadre and a few spares,,,,,just in case. Very, very affordable. Very, very doable.

I'm saying the same thing I have been saying from the start. Just using a real world vehicle (REX ;)) the message is still the same. To reiterate, I personally feel having read all posts, mulled over them and digested the issues within that the above will work for the DF. If the correct system is applied.

Forgot the Transit Twin Cab pickup, Single Cab pickup, Hiab, Cherry picker, Dumper,,,,,, any more you can think of?

pym
13th June 2014, 10:43
Would either config make sense/be practical for the CIT role? Slide doors both sides, 360 visibility.

7571

As hpt said, ideally all the internals would be on rails so things could be swapped out.

Resisted the urge to put a red stripe down the side and a spoiler on the back :P

RoyalGreenJacket
13th June 2014, 11:37
...using Transits for CIT...

such a vehicle for such a task should be incomprehensible from the outset.

you cannot be 'on task' while sat in the back of a Transit - it is a means of getting from A to B and has no tactical value at all. one burst of automatic fire and men will be WIA / KIA.

as i have stated many many times before - you need a tactical vehicle you can actually return fire from with a degree of protection to carry out this task properly.

anything else (including the current fleet of green taxis being used for the job) should be considered unfit for purpose.

we've made lots of mistakes in equipment and learned through experience from getting bitten many times and adapting accordingly, but even back in the 70's, 80's and 90's we were always adapting vehicles to the task in hand:

http://i991.photobucket.com/albums/af33/roykinsella/ClarebelPigletRef002.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/South_Belfast_1981.jpg

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4640/388/1600/Land%20Rover%20Afghanistan.jpg

i am not saying Land Rover is the answer here (for CIT) - but a vehicle that you can sustain a few rounds in and survive and be able to return fire from immediately and at all times is (Snatch was the perfect Escort Vehicle in Northen Ireland).

given that CIT is a routine task for ONH, they should have a vehicle fit for purpose to complete this task successfully if ever put to the test and this should be a massive priority of the consideration for any new vehicle platform.

i conducted Escort Duties in Northern Ireland in this:

http://i835.photobucket.com/albums/zz273/SerjeantB/IMO/1976_134381465186_8044_n_zps8a325a72.jpg
(yes that is me in the pic)

i would not want to conduct Escort Duties in this:

http://i835.photobucket.com/albums/zz273/SerjeantB/IMO/nissan_zps5c971a0d.jpg

or even worse this!:

https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7088/7286104298_01a807a1e1_z.jpg

ONH are so far very fortunate in this task - because they've never been bitten.

FMP
13th June 2014, 11:41
Would either config make sense/be practical for the CIT role? Slide doors both sides, 360 visibility.

7571

As hpt said, ideally all the internals would be on rails so things could be swapped out.

Resisted the urge to put a red stripe down the side and a spoiler on the back :P

Either of those configurations would work well, plus you have all the other Transit roles and configurations all on the one Chassis (post 211 and amended in post 214). Commercially available, suitable to DF requirements, already in use and proven to be reliable. As I have been reminded here once or twice the fleet spends 90% of its time on tarmac. It (The Transit) is the perfect solution. The remain 10% covers training, range days etc. All very Transit friendly or at least it's not too taxing if the Transit bog's in on a range day.

Pre-deployment exercises is another thing. That is where you would utilise your limited grizzly bear fleet. Preparing for overseas operations in the vehicles you will be taking with you/heading out to, using the training cadre fleet. Exactly like you do with the Mowag and LATV now.

RoyalGreenJacket
13th June 2014, 12:56
Either of those configurations would work well, plus you have all the other Transit roles and configurations all on the one Chassis (post 211 and amended in post 214). Commercially available, suitable to DF requirements, already in use and proven to be reliable. As I have been reminded here once or twice the fleet spends 90% of its time on tarmac. It (The Transit) is the perfect solution. The remain 10% covers training, range days etc. All very Transit friendly or at least it's not too taxing if the Transit bog's in on a range day.

Pre-deployment exercises is another thing. That is where you would utilise your limited grizzly bear fleet. Preparing for overseas operations in the vehicles you will be taking with you/heading out to, using the training cadre fleet. Exactly like you do with the Mowag and LATV now.

i can't believe using a Ford Transit (in any basic configuration) is being considered as a vehicle fit to perform any sort of Armed Escort Duty.

unless you armour it up, put 2 men on Top Cover in the back compartment, stick bench seats in the middle with those in the passenger compartment facing outwards towards the armoured / bullet-proof glass doors - then NO!

FMP
13th June 2014, 13:38
Having mentioned some of the roles played by the Transit, lets put a few pictures to them.

Right, you have to use your imagination a bit, think green, radios, seating plans etc. I'm having a slow afternoon and trawled some photos.

Single chassis, multi role.

FMP
13th June 2014, 13:41
A few more, use your imagination ;).

FMP
13th June 2014, 13:43
More yet ;)

FMP
13th June 2014, 13:45
Last but not least!

DeV
13th June 2014, 13:52
i can't believe using a Ford Transit (in any basic configuration) is being considered as a vehicle fit to perform any sort of Armed Escort Duty.

unless you armour it up, put 2 men on Top Cover in the back compartment, stick bench seats in the middle with those in the passenger compartment facing outwards towards the armoured / bullet-proof glass doors - then NO!

It potentionally could, but only if it could also fill role of the vehicle it replacing (ie 4x4 cross country GS & FFR)

Unless it can adequately cope with this type of terrain (the vehicles it would replace can) then it isn't an option
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5QzY29YphW4

We don't need armoured bodies (but nice to have option), top cover etc
Bench seats aren't safe

DeV
13th June 2014, 14:01
such a vehicle for such a task should be incomprehensible from the outset.

you cannot be 'on task' while sat in the back of a Transit - it is a means of getting from A to B and has no tactical value at all. one burst of automatic fire and men will be WIA / KIA.

as i have stated many many times before - you need a tactical vehicle you can actually return fire from with a degree of protection to carry out this task properly.

anything else (including the current fleet of green taxis being used for the job) should be considered unfit for purpose.

we've made lots of mistakes in equipment and learned through experience from getting bitten many times and adapting accordingly, but even back in the 70's, 80's and 90's we were always adapting vehicles to the task in hand:

http://i991.photobucket.com/albums/af33/roykinsella/ClarebelPigletRef002.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/South_Belfast_1981.jpg

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4640/388/1600/Land%20Rover%20Afghanistan.jpg

i am not saying Land Rover is the answer here (for CIT) - but a vehicle that you can sustain a few rounds in and survive and be able to return fire from immediately and at all times is (Snatch was the perfect Escort Vehicle in Northen Ireland).

given that CIT is a routine task for ONH, they should have a vehicle fit for purpose to complete this task successfully if ever put to the test and this should be a massive priority of the consideration for any new vehicle platform.

i conducted Escort Duties in Northern Ireland in this:

http://i835.photobucket.com/albums/zz273/SerjeantB/IMO/1976_134381465186_8044_n_zps8a325a72.jpg
(yes that is me in the pic)

i would not want to conduct Escort Duties in this:

http://i835.photobucket.com/albums/zz273/SerjeantB/IMO/nissan_zps5c971a0d.jpg

or even worse this!:

https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7088/7286104298_01a807a1e1_z.jpg

ONH are so far very fortunate in this task - because they've never been bitten.

They have been doing it for 40 years plus without armour. But remember stick armour on it and you have a heavier slower less mobile target. Will a Snatch stop an RPG (considering it is designed to protect from small arms and grenades?

hptmurphy
13th June 2014, 14:02
given that CIT is a routine task for ONH, they should have a vehicle fit for purpose to complete this task successfully if ever put to the test and this should be a massive priority of the consideration for any new vehicle platform.

i conducted Escort Duties in Northern Ireland in this:

Threat level and potential threat being the key words plus time spent in task. Your armoured land rover thingy is not practical, given its weight it probably couldn't keep up with the Garda escort vehicle and and cash vehicle if they had to move fast. ....

In other News Ireland buys G wagens....................












was the news some years ago when two were purchased to use as ambulances, but again the bodies fitted were over ambitous and had poor off road as a result but the were considered well capable and remained in service for about 15 years.

hptmurphy
13th June 2014, 14:05
We don't need armoured bodies (but nice to have option), top cover etc

AML 127 did the same job ....:tongue:

hptmurphy
13th June 2014, 14:08
except trying to superglue one back together

yeah remember that alright, brush guards for lights were poor enough, but the bumpers were like railway tracks. A certainly lady with the same surname as an apc drove through a raised firing point with only paint damage to the bumper.. have photo some where, will post!!!

FMP
13th June 2014, 14:19
In other News Ireland buys G wagens....................

was the news some years ago when two were purchased to use as ambulances, but again the bodies fitted were over ambitous and had poor off road as a result but the were considered well capable and remained in service for about 15 years.

Mmmmmmmmmm,,,,,,,,G Wagen :tongue:

Herald
13th June 2014, 14:32
i can't believe using a Ford Transit (in any basic configuration) is being considered as a vehicle fit to perform any sort of Armed Escort Duty.

unless you armour it up, put 2 men on Top Cover in the back compartment, stick bench seats in the middle with those in the passenger compartment facing outwards towards the armoured / bullet-proof glass doors - then NO!

I'd tend to agree, and probably even better with an enclosed Armoured body, Ring mount or RWS on top,30" rims, run flats and maybe a turret?

All of a sudden your common or garden Transit is a Hover Transit.....................or the Mechanically propelled Vehicular version of Triggers brush.

FMP
13th June 2014, 15:09
You know what? Transit All Wheel Drive as its called is not that bad at all.

Its no MB Unimog but it would give old Pajero a run for its money on a decent set of tire's. GS, FFR, CSW,,,,,,,,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szRjuirXPiI

FMP
13th June 2014, 15:20
Not a very taxing course
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vCRI1kV90_A

DeV

Just had another look. That's actually quiet impressive. Look like normal road tires and it is after all a van. 20 seconds in has it doing a hill start on a 30 ish degree crap covered slope. Some of the ruts it wades through would test the Pajero ;). That's not bad going at all in fairness.

pym
13th June 2014, 15:38
DeV

Just had another look. That's actually quiet impressive. Look like normal road tires and it is after all a van. 20 seconds in has it doing a hill start on a 30 ish degree crap covered slope. Some of the ruts it wades through would test the Pajero ;). That's not bad going at all in fairness.

Now just marry the AWD to the dual rear wheels, add a snorkel - and yer all terrain frankentransit is complete :P

FMP
13th June 2014, 15:44
Now just marry the AWD to the dual rear wheels, add a snorkel - and yer all terrain frankentransit is complete :P

Well that is actually how they used to do the old Transit 4 x 4, big old rigid axles and coil springs too. All gone euro environment friendly 4 motion technology now.

DeV
13th June 2014, 16:23
In fairness to the DF, broadly speaking they have standardised on the Transit for a good few roles. But there is more they could take on (doing significant cross country work should not be 1 of them)

I'm sure there are a number of variants of the Transit in service (which isn't ideal but there will be some commonality).
They could take on other roles.

But it proves the advantages of it, they just have to do it for the GS/FFR

DeV
13th June 2014, 17:19
FMP
your transit is in the following roles in the DF including ambulance, EOD, MP van, cold van

na grohmiti
13th June 2014, 18:09
such a vehicle for such a task should be incomprehensible from the outset.

you cannot be 'on task' while sat in the back of a Transit - it is a means of getting from A to B and has no tactical value at all. one burst of automatic fire and men will be WIA / KIA.

as i have stated many many times before - you need a tactical vehicle you can actually return fire from with a degree of protection to carry out this task properly.

anything else (including the current fleet of green taxis being used for the job) should be considered unfit for purpose.

we've made lots of mistakes in equipment and learned through experience from getting bitten many times and adapting accordingly, but even back in the 70's, 80's and 90's we were always adapting vehicles to the task in hand:

http://i991.photobucket.com/albums/af33/roykinsella/ClarebelPigletRef002.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/South_Belfast_1981.jpg

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4640/388/1600/Land%20Rover%20Afghanistan.jpg

i am not saying Land Rover is the answer here (for CIT) - but a vehicle that you can sustain a few rounds in and survive and be able to return fire from immediately and at all times is (Snatch was the perfect Escort Vehicle in Northen Ireland).

given that CIT is a routine task for ONH, they should have a vehicle fit for purpose to complete this task successfully if ever put to the test and this should be a massive priority of the consideration for any new vehicle platform.

i conducted Escort Duties in Northern Ireland in this:

http://i835.photobucket.com/albums/zz273/SerjeantB/IMO/1976_134381465186_8044_n_zps8a325a72.jpg
(yes that is me in the pic)

i would not want to conduct Escort Duties in this:

http://i835.photobucket.com/albums/zz273/SerjeantB/IMO/nissan_zps5c971a0d.jpg

or even worse this!:

https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7088/7286104298_01a807a1e1_z.jpg

ONH are so far very fortunate in this task - because they've never been bitten.


What experience does your lot have in CIT? Genuine question.

paul g
13th June 2014, 18:25
This obsession with cit is funny, with emerging card and mobile technology there will be fewer cash duties in the years to come.

This g wagon obsession is also really puzzling, what people are forgetting is that G wagons and landrovers were essentially found out during the skirmishes in iraq and afghanistan, and are rarely used anymore outside of bases.

And if you look at armies like the Dutch who have a large fleet of g wagons, they're in the process of introducing civilian amarok crew cabs to replace them to save money that they can put towards protected light vehicles for overseas duties.

kaiser
13th June 2014, 18:31
There's no EOD tranny .
there's a few work shop trannies used by ordnance , crew cabs and normal van types.

Truck Driver
13th June 2014, 21:30
FMP
your transit is in the following roles in the DF including ambulance, EOD, MP van, cold van

...stores, band equipment...

Truck Driver
13th June 2014, 21:31
There's no EOD tranny .
there's a few work shop trannies used by ordnance , crew cabs and normal van types.

Of course even the IVECO Ord wagons are being gradually replaced by Scanias...

kaiser
13th June 2014, 22:10
Of course even the IVECO Ord wagons are being gradually replaced by Scanias...


what iveco,s TD??

DeV
13th June 2014, 22:11
There's no EOD tranny .
there's a few work shop trannies used by ordnance , crew cabs and normal van types.

Maybe they have got of it/them since
http://kildare.ie/defenceforces/ORG/org_images/cssc.h2.jpg

kaiser
13th June 2014, 22:22
Good spot dev that vehicle was belonging to robot workshops OBW
I think it might have seen service in kfor from 28 inf group on.
It was handy to lug kit around but when scaling down from a truck to 4x4 or van the problem is what to take what to leave.
Side note there was an eod mowag for a short amount of time

Saab
13th June 2014, 22:31
what iveco,s TD??
Probably the ones with the tail lifts.
Like the Merc and Scania 6x6.

I thought they were ordinance trucks as opposed to EOD trucks.

kaiser
13th June 2014, 22:42
The big armoured trucks are Man hx60,s they are for EOD overseas .

DeV
13th June 2014, 22:45
This obsession with cit is funny, with emerging card and mobile technology there will be fewer cash duties in the years to come.

It will take a long time

Banks have been looking to move away from cash for years
As long as there is a black economy, welfare, OAPs, mattresses, pocket money, parking meters there will be cash

Banks are now charging per debit card transaction (it they go to all epay they will start to charge for internet banking).

If your going for a few pints, do you go to the ATM or use the card?
Does the pub take cards (they have to pay for the machine)

How does the money get to the branch and the ATM?
How does the welfare money get to the PO?

This whole SEPA thing was suppose to make payments faster? It used to take up to 3 days, it now takes up to 5 (that that is from account to another with the same bank !!). Why? I think Because you money is having a little rest in the banks account (earning them interest) for a day or two

Be under no illusion, there is a very credible threat to CITs. If CIT escorts were taken away tomorrow there would be a huge increase in robberies.

By the way, the vehicle isn't just doing CIT, that is only one ATCP task:
- prisoner escorts
- EOD callouts
- Explosives escorts
- various patrols & rotations

GoneToTheCanner
13th June 2014, 23:42
I'm actually inclined to agree with RGJ, to a point. As long as the dissidents and the almost-but-not-quite-gone-away IRA (fuel smugglers 'r' us ) continue to exist, then there is a need for something a bit more bulletproof than a Transit to keep nasties out, just in case some toerag decides to chance it.

regards
GttC

sofa
14th June 2014, 00:24
Lads doing CIT in it's present form are sitting ducks. Steamed up windows, squashed in like mushy peas. heater on. not knowing what's a head or what's following,

a transit bingo bus would give a bit more room but not add one bit to doing the job correctly. Don't know why they have not being hit up yet.

RGJ knows what he is talking about on this one.

DeV
14th June 2014, 07:18
Lads doing CIT in it's present form are sitting ducks. Steamed up windows, squashed in like mushy peas. heater on. not knowing what's a head or what's following

The CIT will be doing more than 10mph a lot of the time.

So Snatch would be better because it doesn't have any windows to the side (you could get vision blocks but someone is going to have to get out of their seat and stand up at 100 kph on the dual carriageway) or to the rear (same argument or leaving the door open.

Situation awareness in Snatch is limited to the driver and front seat, the top cover (are you going to put someone standing up in a hatch with the rear door open doing 100 kph?

Or and it's max speed is 97 kph

http://www.mod-sales.com/direct/vehicle/,37,/44385/Land_Rover.htm
And armoured SUV or LTAV maybe but not Snatch

REX
14th June 2014, 12:50
This obsession with cit is funny, with emerging card and mobile technology there will be fewer cash duties in the years to come.

True, but a survey published recently revealed that Ireland is the most cash dependent Country in the Eurozone. No matter what technology is brought it a large proportion of people still want to feel cold, hard, cash in their hands. And recent events have not reinforced our trust of banks, while the Nixer economy will always have the better cash price.