Thanks Thanks:  119
Likes Likes:  297
Dislikes Dislikes:  6
Page 5 of 18 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 439
  1. #101
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,101
    Post Thanks / Like
    "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.
    Just visiting

  2. Thanks apod thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, Flamingo, FMP liked this post
  3. #102
    C/S FMP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    UK and Tanzania
    Posts
    361
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    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.
    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.

  4. #103
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,101
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.
    Just visiting

  5. #104
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,546
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    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

  6. #105
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,101
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    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.
    Just visiting

  7. Likes madmark, FMP liked this post
  8. #106
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,101
    Post Thanks / Like
    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
    Just visiting

  9. Likes FMP liked this post
  10. #107
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    959
    Post Thanks / Like
    Prepare for a lot more ford rangers
    Last edited by kaiser; 3rd June 2014 at 18:02.

  11. #108
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,546
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    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

  12. Likes FMP liked this post
  13. #109
    C/S FMP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    UK and Tanzania
    Posts
    361
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    +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.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Attached Files Attached Files
    Last edited by FMP; 4th June 2014 at 09:19.
    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.

  14. Likes DeV, madmark liked this post
  15. #110
    Friend Saab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    538
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    +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.

  16. Thanks DeV, Truck Driver thanked for this post
  17. #111
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,546
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Saab View Post
    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

  18. #112
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,546
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by FMP View Post
    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)

  19. #113
    Friend Saab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    538
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Saab; 4th June 2014 at 11:21.

  20. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
  21. #114
    C/S FMP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    UK and Tanzania
    Posts
    361
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Saab View Post
    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,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
    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.

  22. #115
    C/S FMP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    UK and Tanzania
    Posts
    361
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    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.
    Last edited by FMP; 4th June 2014 at 13:01.
    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.

  23. #116
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,546
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  24. Thanks FMP thanked for this post
  25. #117
    Friend Saab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    538
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  26. #118
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,546
    Post Thanks / Like
    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

  27. Thanks FMP thanked for this post
    Likes hptmurphy liked this post
  28. #119
    C/S FMP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    UK and Tanzania
    Posts
    361
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Saab View Post
    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
    Attached Files Attached Files
    Last edited by FMP; 4th June 2014 at 18:22.
    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.

  29. Likes DeV, The real Jack liked this post
  30. #120
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,101
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.
    Just visiting

  31. Likes FMP, ODIN liked this post
  32. #121
    Friend Saab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    538
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    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%
    Last edited by Saab; 5th June 2014 at 00:40.

  33. Thanks FMP thanked for this post
  34. #122
    C/S
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    518
    Post Thanks / Like
    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?

  35. Thanks FMP thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  36. #123
    Friend Saab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    538
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ias View Post
    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??

  37. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  38. #124
    Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,702
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  39. Likes FMP liked this post
  40. #125
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    959
    Post Thanks / Like
    Have the 28 or 27bn recieved ford rangers yet?? I'm informed they are the vehicle coming in as the pajero replacement

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
  •