Pajero Replacement?

[FMP]

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 . 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]

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]

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]

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 . 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]

Would either config make sense/be practical for the CIT role? Slide doors both sides, 360 visibility.



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]

...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:







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:


(yes that is me in the pic)

i would not want to conduct Escort Duties in this:



or even worse this!:



ONH are so far very fortunate in this task - because they've never been bitten.

[FMP]

Would either config make sense/be practical for the CIT role? Slide doors both sides, 360 visibility.

[ATTACH]7571[/ATTACH]

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]

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]

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]

A few more, use your imagination .

[FMP]

More yet

[FMP]

Last but not least!

[DeV]

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]

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:







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:


(yes that is me in the pic)

i would not want to conduct Escort Duties in this:



or even worse this!:



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]

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.