Thanks Thanks:  119
Likes Likes:  297
Dislikes Dislikes:  6
Page 2 of 18 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 439
  1. #26
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,752
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Bam Bam View Post


    Think it is the Eagle

    Details from this old thread.

    http://forum.irishmilitaryonline.com...umvee-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

  2. #27
    Rittmeister Herald's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    786
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    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.

  3. #28
    Commander in Chief RoyalGreenJacket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Home of the British Army
    Posts
    7,757
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmití View Post
    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.
    Last edited by RoyalGreenJacket; 22nd May 2014 at 13:37.
    RGJ

    ...Once a Rifleman - Always a Rifleman... Celer et Audax

    The Rifles

  4. #29
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,752
    Post Thanks / Like
    HUMVEE gets around 17 mpg, Pajero gets around 21 mpg

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

  5. #30
    Captain Truck Driver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Here And There...
    Posts
    10,172
    Post Thanks / Like
    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...
    "Well, stone me! We've had cocaine, bribery and Arsenal scoring two goals at home. But just when you thought there were truly no surprises left in football, Vinnie Jones turns out to be an international player!" (Jimmy Greaves)!"

  6. #31
    Sergeant madmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    traveling to Cork
    Posts
    608
    Post Thanks / Like
    g-wagon range would be a good fit for the defence forces with the 4x4 and 6x6

    http://www.mb-military-vehicles.com/...ilitary_en.pdf
    Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.

  7. Likes ODIN liked this post
  8. #32
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    562
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Tango_Charlie View Post
    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.

  9. Likes spider pig, trellheim, ODIN liked this post
  10. #33
    Non Temetis Messor The real Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    3,192
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Fridge Magnet View Post
    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!
    Everyone who's ever loved you was wrong.

  11. #34
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    2,606
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Fridge Magnet View Post
    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.

  12. #35
    Lord Chief Bottlewasher trellheim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Cathal Brugha
    Posts
    9,121
    Post Thanks / Like
    lot of the civil staff in Parkgate St
    Newbridge surely now ?
    "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

    "No, they're trying to fly the tank"

  13. Thanks sofa thanked for this post
  14. #36
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    2,606
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by trellheim View Post
    Newbridge surely now ?
    It was around the time of the first white paper.

  15. Dislikes DeV disliked this post
  16. #37
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,752
    Post Thanks / Like
    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

  17. Likes apod liked this post
  18. #38
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    2,606
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    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 ?

  19. #39
    Friend Saab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    538
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmití View Post
    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?

  20. #40
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,138
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.
    Just visiting

  21. #41
    Sergeant madmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    traveling to Cork
    Posts
    608
    Post Thanks / Like
    G- wagon is mission adaptable from atcp to overseas one platform unlike what we have at the moment
    Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.

  22. Thanks hptmurphy thanked for this post
  23. #42
    Friend Saab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    538
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by madmark View Post
    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???
    Last edited by Saab; 25th May 2014 at 01:15.

  24. #43
    Sergeant madmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    traveling to Cork
    Posts
    608
    Post Thanks / Like
    http://greendef.blogspot.ie/2013/10/...-g-wagons.html

    http://www.army-armee.forces.gc.ca/e...s/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
    Last edited by madmark; 25th May 2014 at 01:52.
    Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.

  25. Likes hptmurphy, DeV liked this post
  26. #44
    C/S FMP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    UK and Tanzania
    Posts
    361
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.



    Attachment 7483
    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.

  27. #45
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    2,606
    Post Thanks / Like
    Britain used a number of G-Wagons during the Falklands conflick

  28. #46
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,752
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  29. Thanks apod thanked for this post
    Likes apod liked this post
  30. #47
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,358
    Post Thanks / Like
    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

  31. Thanks sofa thanked for this post
  32. #48
    Commandant Come-quickly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    2,753
    Post Thanks / Like
    Pinz or duro would make an awful lot of sense as long as they can be made reasonably comfortable for ATCP.
    "It is a general popular error to imagine that loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for it's welfare" Edmund Burke

  33. #49
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,752
    Post Thanks / Like
    They are are a light-medium 4x4 truck, not a utility 4x4 like a Landrover

  34. #50
    C/S
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    3,031
    Post Thanks / Like
    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/d...pts-for-amarok

  35. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •