Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pajero Replacement?

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

  • #31
    g-wagon range would be a good fit for the defence forces with the 4x4 and 6x6

    Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.

    Comment


    • #32
      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.

      Comment


      • #33
        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.

        Comment


        • #34
          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.

          Comment


          • #35
            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"

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by trellheim View Post
              Newbridge surely now ?
              It was around the time of the first white paper.

              Comment


              • #37
                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

                Comment


                • #38
                  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 ?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    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?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      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.
                      Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        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.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          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.
                          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; 25 May 2014, 01:15.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            The Australian Army will soon take delivery of the first Mercedes-Benz G-Wagon 6x6 surveillance reconnaissance vehicles (SRV) fitted with ...


                            Official Canadian Army website. News and photos about soldiers and Canadian Armed Forces. Jobs for Reservists.


                            Watch the Australian Defence Force driving instructors from the Land 121 Training Team go off-road in the Mercedes-Benz G-Wagen. And if you want to know a li...


                            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; 25 May 2014, 01:52.
                            Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              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.



                              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


                              • #45
                                Britain used a number of G-Wagons during the Falklands conflick

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X