Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pajero Replacement?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 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.

    Australia often gets called in to lend the British military a bit of a hand -- and we'll be marking some of those occasions with a minute's silence at 11am on November 11's Remembrance Day.But it seems that storied tradition carries over into our vehicle expertise, with the Aussie-designed and engineered Ford Ranger ute being chosen by the UK Ministry of Defence for roles with the British Army, Navy, Air Force and the ministry itself.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Saab View Post
      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...3#.U5HSJ3JdX1o
      RGJ posted about them, they're just part of their "white fleet" not Landie replacements.
      Everyone who's ever loved you was wrong.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Saab View Post
        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...3#.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?
        We travel not for trafficking alone,
        By hotter winds our fiery hearts are fanned,
        For lust of knowing what should not be known,
        We make the Golden Journey to Samarkand.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by FMP View Post
          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.

          Comment


          • Speaking of mil versions of ford stuff, heres an interesting israeli adaption of the F-350.



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

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Saab View Post
              Hasn't the Irish Army rangers been using them for some time?
              T
              Ford F350 modified for use by rangers != Ford ranger
              Everyone who's ever loved you was wrong.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by The real Jack View Post
                Ford F350 modified for use by rangers != Ford ranger
                Eh.. No.
                For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Saab View Post
                  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.
                  We travel not for trafficking alone,
                  By hotter winds our fiery hearts are fanned,
                  For lust of knowing what should not be known,
                  We make the Golden Journey to Samarkand.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
                    Eh.. No.
                    Does != mean something different to you?
                    Everyone who's ever loved you was wrong.

                    Comment


                    • It means nothing mathematically.
                      For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
                        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.
                        Last edited by The real Jack; 7 June 2014, 11:16.
                        Everyone who's ever loved you was wrong.

                        Comment


                        • Ford F350


                          Ford/Mazda Ranger


                          Ford F350 Modified for ARW use


                          so Ford F350 Modified for use by Irish rangers /= Ford ranger.
                          For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by na grohmití View Post

                            so Ford F350 Modified for use by Irish rangers /= Ford ranger.
                            Which is what I said from the start, != means not equal to...
                            Everyone who's ever loved you was wrong.

                            Comment


                            • no it doesn't.
                              For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                              Comment


                              • Equal to a == b Yes Yes R K::operator ==(S b); R operator ==(K a, S b);
                                Not equal to a != b
                                a not_eq b[b]
                                Yes Yes R K::operator !=(S b); R operator !=(K a, S b);
                                Greater than a > b Yes Yes R K::operator >(S b); R operator >(K a, S b);
                                Less than a < b Yes Yes R K::operator <(S b); R operator <(K a, S b);
                                Greater than or equal to a >= b Yes Yes R K::operator >=(S b); R operator >=(K a, S b);
                                Less than or equal to a <= b Yes Yes R K::operator <=(S b); R operator <=(K a, S b);
                                Everyone who's ever loved you was wrong.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X