Thanks Thanks:  119
Likes Likes:  297
Dislikes Dislikes:  6
Page 8 of 18 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 176 to 200 of 439
  1. #176
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,762
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Saab View Post
    But isn't that kida what the DF tries to do?
    i.e. vehicles are to last 15 years then if not economical to keep on the road, boarded.
    It used to be 10 years then boarded.
    If the Pajero serves to the satisfaction of the boffins then there is no reason not to get it again.

    What was the Pajero cantract?
    60 a year for 5 years.
    IF all the complaining about the unsuitability is founded then isn't it just as well that the contract is only 5 years.
    With testing over an extended period of time and writing a good spec into the tender we should end up with a good suitable vehicle

    No what we have is:
    2015 enter contract to buy a-b of vehicle x over next m years
    2020 enter contract to buy c-d of vehicle y over next n years (but some of vehicle x will be retained)
    2025 enter contract to buy e-f of vehicle y over next o years (but some of vehicle x & y will be retained)

    Result is 3 different types of vehicle is service

    What I suggest is over the course of the first 5-10 years you replace the complete 4x4 3/4 tonne fleet (consisting of at least 3 very different vehicles) with a single model, which then stays in service for at least 5 years. During those 5 years you only have a single type in service.

    When a contract is signed for the following 15 years, at most you will have 2 types in service.

    Also currently the spares are on separate contracts

  2. #177
    Friend Saab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    538
    Post Thanks / Like
    I get the concept.

    So lets for arguments sake say that this was done.
    That the boffins decided that the Pajero was exactly the vehicle we need. As it is in budget and can fulfill the rolls most likely demanded of it.
    You can have SUV, Pick-up and Parcel van.
    We would be stuck with it for 15 years?
    Then what?
    Buy enough of another vehicle so we can scrap the lot again?

    In an ideal world we could pick the right vehicle for the right job but we are not in an ideal world.

  3. #178
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,762
    Post Thanks / Like
    In 15 years, you go to tender again (having a proven reliable (ideally spec'ed) vehicle. You built in options.

    The manufacturer is tied in to provide that model at a set price for 15 years and ensure spares availability.

    In 15 years, the newest vehicles are probably 10 years old and due for replacement anyway.

  4. Likes FMP liked this post
    Dislikes FMolloy disliked this post
  5. #179
    Friend Saab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    538
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    In 15 years, you go to tender again (having a proven reliable (ideally spec'ed) vehicle. You built in options.

    The manufacturer is tied in to provide that model at a set price for 15 years and ensure spares availability.

    In 15 years, the newest vehicles are probably 10 years old and due for replacement anyway.
    You are assuming the boffins get it right.
    As was pointed out earlier, unlike we look for a one vehicle fits all solution.

    Lets say there are 10 boxes to tick in order to find "the right vehicle" for the service requirements.
    LR ticks 7, G-wagon ticks 7, Nissan ticks 7 and Pajero ticks 7.
    So the next consideration will be price.
    So if they go g-wagon and then there are the complaints about vehicle width, ground clearance and colour then you have to wait 15 years to do anything about it as you have agreed it is the vehicle for you.
    So far I haven't heard of a vehicle the DF has used that wasn't complained about for some reason.
    110 - steering problems
    Land cruiser - unstable off road - roll over
    Nissan - poor off road handling
    Pajero - too small - GC and width.

    IF it was possible to get 60 of each available vehicle and run them for 2 years, find the least annoying vehicle then go for the 15 year contract.

  6. #180
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,762
    Post Thanks / Like
    Absolutely which is why there are 3 key elements tags must be got right (what the public sector is bad at):
    - the spec
    - the testing
    - the contract

    You can put a min ground clearance into the spec etc

    The end users have to be involved in the spec and testing. Find out what the issues with the current fleet and what both units and drivers need, are from the vehicles. If you want tender you must provide 5 vehicles to the correct spec for 6-12 months for testing at home and overseas in all roles by various personnel.

    The contract must have clauses to protect us if we buy magic beans.

    A long term contract with a large amount of vehicles like this gives the buyer more power in the relationship.

    As I said the spares and whole life support must be built in. This guarantees supply and also means it doesn't have to go to tender every 2-3 years. It could also mean if a fault develops across the fleet it will be fixed (as you have a long term relationship with the supplier). In case of a major design flaw (eg electrics) manufacturers engineers must be in site within 72 hours to assess the issue (if deemed necessary) and fix at cost. You could have a manufacturer's engineer on site part/full time for the first year.

    It also means you could use more up to date work practices if you wish, eg for spares you could do a kanban (when bin a of brake pads is finished, you start bin b and the supplier restocked bin a) or consignment stock (the supplier owns all the windscreens in stores until they are taken out for use).
    Last edited by DeV; 12th June 2014 at 11:27.

  7. #181
    Space Lord of Terra morpheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Metropolis
    Posts
    2,984
    Post Thanks / Like
    Where are we going with this?
    Are we actually saying that there are serious steps being taken to submit a new tender to replace the FFR fleet?
    "He is an enemy officer taken in battle and entitled to fair treatment."
    "No, sir. He's a sergeant, and they don't deserve no respect at all, sir. I should know. They're cunning and artful, if they're any good. I wouldn't mind if he was an officer, sir. But sergeants are clever."

  8. #182
    Friend Saab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    538
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by morpheus View Post
    Where are we going with this?
    Are we actually saying that there are serious steps being taken to submit a new tender to replace the FFR fleet?
    There should be one coming soon.

    I was talking to one of the mechanics in the job today about 4wds.
    He is ex-BA and has had a lot of experience with "mil spec" vehicles.
    Actually he laughed at me when I mentioned mil spec. To the best of his knowledge the only mil spec on vehicles is ballistic protection.
    Level 1 is provided by flack jackets not by the vehicle.
    But more interestingly he claimed that DF does tender for spares and support for all vehicles.
    The supplier must hold a reserve of spare parts ready to be drawn.
    Ireland will never get Mercs of any description again because the Merc fleet management company in Ireland can't give them the level of service required in the tender. We would have to be supported by the UK or European network.

  9. #183
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,762
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Saab View Post
    There should be one coming soon.

    I was talking to one of the mechanics in the job today about 4wds.
    He is ex-BA and has had a lot of experience with "mil spec" vehicles.
    Actually he laughed at me when I mentioned mil spec. To the best of his knowledge the only mil spec on vehicles is ballistic protection.
    Level 1 is provided by flack jackets not by the vehicle.
    But more interestingly he claimed that DF does tender for spares and support for all vehicles.
    The supplier must hold a reserve of spare parts ready to be drawn.
    Ireland will never get Mercs of any description again because the Merc fleet management company in Ireland can't give them the level of service required in the tender. We would have to be supported by the UK or European network.
    I suppose it would be a vehicle that meets some/all mil spec really

    There are STANAGs for everything, that is a spec issued by NATO.

    As I said a number of times, the DF issues separate tenders for spares separately, here is the contract award notice for Ford spares http://ireland-tenders.eu/2052_Suppl...ts_2013_Dublin

  10. #184
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,138
    Post Thanks / Like
    So far I haven't heard of a vehicle the DF has used that wasn't complained about for some reason
    Mercedes 1180 TCV....

    MAN 4 x 4 TCV

    There were some very good purchases, again the First series Nissan were excellent, off road they were very capable if you had the right driver and had done the right preparation, so much so Nissan re opened the production line to cater for the DFs needs!
    Just visiting

  11. Thanks DeV, FMP thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, FMP liked this post
  12. #185
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,762
    Post Thanks / Like
    The new "beast" is a MAN isn't it?

  13. Likes FMP liked this post
  14. #186
    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 Saab View Post
    So far I haven't heard of a vehicle the DF has used that wasn't complained about for some reason.
    110 - steering problems
    Land cruiser - unstable off road - roll over
    Nissan - poor off road handling
    Pajero - too small - GC and width.
    it might be crude - but the Land Rover Wolf overcomes all of those problems - and it looks like a military vehicle because it is one.



    you can bolt anything to them as and when required and they're a decent workhorse, or utility vehicle or anything you want really - strip it down and turn it into a Recce vehicle or beef it up and turn it into a WMIK.
    Last edited by RoyalGreenJacket; 12th June 2014 at 17:39.
    RGJ

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

    The Rifles

  15. Thanks FMP thanked for this post
    Likes FMP, hptmurphy liked this post
  16. #187
    Friend Saab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    538
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    Mercedes 1180 TCV....
    #
    you mean the ones that were all off the road within 6 months?

    MAN 4 x 4 TCV
    Do you mean the original ones that were considered total heaps. With their squat VW cab??
    Or the next generation with the square cabs that had no isolater and the batteries kept going dead?

    But they are not LTCVs they are HTCVs

    First series Nissan were excellent
    I know at least 3 drivers from Bde Tpt that would say otherwise.

    But then I never said any of the moaning was legitimate.
    IMHO liking a vehicle is a personal thing.
    I learned in the Nissan. I liked it. Even though it had starting trouble.

    RGJ that reminds me of a story one of our Sgts tells about the Bedford 4x4
    The Df bought the same as the BA.
    Only where as the BA bought the gear to build up the trucks the DF never did.
    The then decided that since they didn't have the build up gear they could get a smaller engine.
    Which in turn meant they could never be built up.
    My money is if they went for the wolf exactly the same would happen.
    Last edited by Saab; 12th June 2014 at 17:46.

  17. #188
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,342
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by RoyalGreenJacket View Post
    it might be crude - but the Land Rover Wolf overcomes all of those problems - and it looks like a military vehicle because it is one.



    you can bolt anything to them as and when required and they're a decent workhorse, or utility vehicle or anything you want really - strip it down and turn it into a Recce vehicle or beef it up and turn it into a WMIK.
    The ARW would seriously disagree with you. A converted landie killed one operator, seriously injured another 2 with career changing injuries.
    Its no more a military vehicle than the Patrol, Land Cruiser or Pajero. Even the BA don't use the provided engine.

  18. #189
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,762
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by RoyalGreenJacket View Post
    it might be crude - but the Land Rover Wolf overcomes all of those problems - and it looks like a military vehicle because it is one.



    you can bolt anything to them as and when required and they're a decent workhorse, or utility vehicle or anything you want really - strip it down and turn it into a Recce vehicle or beef it up and turn it into a WMIK.
    Does it come as a station wagon?
    The DF has lost people at home and in Lebanon in soft tops?

    What kind of seats in the rear?

    As Saab said it would tick the overseas and tactical boxes but not the ATCP, what about the troops in the back when it's doing 100, from Dublin to Portlaoise? The noise, the risk of rollover, no visibility to the sides

  19. #190
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,762
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Saab View Post
    #
    you mean the ones that were all off the road within 6 months?


    Do you mean the original ones that were considered total heaps. With their squat VW cab??
    Or the next generation with the square cabs that had no isolater and the batteries kept going dead?

    But they are not LTCVs they are HTCVs


    I know at least 3 drivers from Bde Tpt that would say otherwise.

    But then I never said any of the moaning was legitimate.
    IMHO liking a vehicle is a personal thing.
    I learned in the Nissan. I liked it. Even though it had starting trouble.

    RGJ that reminds me of a story one of our Sgts tells about the Bedford 4x4
    The Df bought the same as the BA.
    Only where as the BA bought the gear to build up the trucks the DF never did.
    The then decided that since they didn't have the build up gear they could get a smaller engine.
    Which in turn meant they could never be built up.
    My money is if they went for the wolf exactly the same would happen.
    Which Bedfords?

    The ones bought in 1970 were the MFR2

    The British Army had MKs (very different)

  20. Likes FMP liked this post
  21. #191
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,762
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmití View Post
    The ARW would seriously disagree with you. A converted landie killed one operator, seriously injured another 2 with career changing injuries.
    Its no more a military vehicle than the Patrol, Land Cruiser or Pajero. Even the BA don't use the provided engine.
    Wolf wasn't around then in fairness

  22. #192
    C/S FMP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    UK and Tanzania
    Posts
    361
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmití View Post
    The ARW would seriously disagree with you. A converted landie killed one operator, seriously injured another 2 with career changing injuries.
    Its no more a military vehicle than the Patrol, Land Cruiser or Pajero. Even the BA don't use the provided engine.
    The ARW were using a converted civilian Land Rover. Nothing like the one the MOB use. Course it did not work, resulting is a death.

    MOB's have different running gear, axles, chassis, etc etc ad nauseum. DF did what they always do. Took the cheap option, didn't work (again) someone died.
    Last edited by FMP; 12th June 2014 at 21:53.
    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. #193
    private REX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Cloud Cuckoo Land
    Posts
    936
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Wolf wasn't around then in fairness
    The Land rover that overturned in Liberia was ordered as a "Wolf" variant. whether that's what was delivered i'll leave to others, but the ones that are still in the fleet are, ironically enough, being used as funeral vehicles for towing the gun carriage etc. and are nothing to right home about.

    As someone who actually is involved with the maintenance of our fleet I have kept out of this discussion under the heading "don't get me started", but all i'll say is we've bought some serious sh*te in the last 10 years but the suggestions in this discussion fit into the Walter Mitty category. We don't have the money as country and even if we did there is no way it would be spent on DF vehicles.

    The only suggestion that made any sense was the inclusion of a maintenance contract when buying the vehicles. But this was tried before, after we began getting the old Nissan Patrol 260's in '89 it was suggested that we would lease vehicles on either a 3 or 5 year term, and anything other than basic servicing would be the responsibility of the Manufacturer. The contract price was trashed out but when they Dept of Finance saw the price they shot it down immediately. FMP is full of examples of procurement tales from other Military organisations but he forgets to take into account that (AFAIR) the DF are the least resourced military in Europe as a percentage of GNP.

    When it's time for cuts we're first on the block, and we will never have the money, or political will to buy vehicles in the numbers required to replace the entire fleet over the next 5 years. When you only buy 50 odd of the more numerous vehicles each year, by the time you reach the end of the contract the vehicle will have gone through changes as a result of the manufacturer upgrading models (the Patrol GR being a prime case). The cure for this to specify that all the vehicles for the life of the contract be the same, but this leads to other problems, we have such a small fleet that what happens is that they do a production run to our specs, all in one go (400-500), and you end up getting 5 year old vehicles being delivered as new, this is what happened with the last 2 years of Patrol 260 deliveries, although that was because they no longer made them, rather than any contractual stipulation. For whatever reason we ended up getting vehicles that had spent 5 years sitting in a yard somewhere



    As i said " Don't get me started" we could be here all night.
    Last edited by REX; 12th June 2014 at 22:06.
    CRIME SCENE INSTIGATOR

  24. Thanks paul g, pym, Herald, hptmurphy thanked for this post
    Likes paul g liked this post
  25. #194
    C/S FMP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    UK and Tanzania
    Posts
    361
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by REX View Post
    The Land rover that overturned in Liberia was ordered as a "Wolf" variant. whether that's what was delivered i'll leave to others, but the ones that are still in the fleet are, ironically enough, being used as funeral vehicles for towing the gun carriage etc. and are nothing to right home about.

    As someone who actually is involved with the maintenance of our fleet I have kept out of this discussion under the heading "don't get me started", but all i'll say is we've bought some serious sh*te in the last 10 years but the suggestions in this discussion fit into the Walter Mitty category. We don't have the money as country and even if we did there is no way it would be spent on DF vehicles.

    The only suggestion that made any sense was the inclusion of a maintenance contract when buying the vehicles. But this was tried before, after we began getting the old Nissan Patrol 260's in '89 it was suggested that we would lease vehicles on either a 3 or 5 year term, and anything other than basic servicing would be the responsibility of the Manufacturer. The contract price was trashed out but when they Dept of Finance saw the price they shot it down immediately. FMP is full of examples of procurement tales from other Military organisations but he forgets to take into account that (AFAIR) the DF are the least resourced military in Europe as a percentage of GNP.

    When it's time for cuts we're first on the block, and we will never have the money, or political will to buy vehicles in the numbers required to replace the entire fleet over the next 5 years. When you only buy 50 odd of the more numerous vehicles each year, by the time you reach the end of the contract the vehicle will have gone through changes as a result of the manufacturer upgrading models (the Patrol GR being a prime case). The cure for this to specify that all the vehicles for the life of the contract be the same, but this leads to other problems, we have such a small fleet that what happens is that they do a production run to our specs, all in one go (400-500), and you end up getting 5 year old vehicles being delivered as new, this is what happened with the last 2 years of Patrol 260 deliveries, although that was because they no longer made them, rather than any contractual stipulation. For whatever reason we ended up getting vehicles that had spent 5 years sitting in a yard somewhere
    Perhaps you should read my post on the NZ Army. A tiny little army half the size of Ireland's, if they can do it,,,,,,,. I threw my cards on the table as a suggestion and have highlighted how it could be done. How it should be done. Or let me guess, everyone else is wrong and the DF is the only one to actually really get it right. I know that's not true!

    No offence to the majority because this is highly enjoyable but the whole forum is Walter. Do you not realise that? Its a bunch of lads having a natter about this and that which they will have absolutely no influence over whatsoever. Things that interest them. The majority enjoy the banter and maybe one or two even learn something new. I'm 46 and learn something new every day. I enjoy the banter. Whats the problem?

    We all know procurement is kak. We all know just about every vehicle ever bought was a disaster. We all know they will keep buying civilian vehicles, paint them green and call them MOB. We all know they will never get it right. We have been saying it for the last 7 or 8 pages. So Walter away a brew break why don't you!
    Last edited by FMP; 12th June 2014 at 22:45.
    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.

  26. #195
    private REX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Cloud Cuckoo Land
    Posts
    936
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by FMP View Post
    Perhaps you should read my post on the NZ Army. Or are you a bit like Saab and only see and quote what will help support your argument. I threw my cards on the table as a suggestion and have highlighted how it could be done. How it should be done. Or let me guess, everyone else is wrong and the DF is the only one to actually really get it right.

    No offence to the majority because it is highly enjoyable but the whole forum is "Walter". Do you not realise that? Its a bunch of lads having a natter about this and that which they will have absolutely no influence over whatsoever. Things that interest them, if your upset by it,,,, leave. The majority enjoy the banter and maybe one or two even learn something new. I'm 46 and learn something new every day.
    My God you're a touchy bugger! I referred to all the examples you gave (which of course includes NZ), these are examples of doing it the right way, but with our financial reality it's just pie in the sky to suggest we follow their example. I never said that everyone else is wrong and the DF is right, just the opposite I would have thought, although I restrained myself as, unlike many here, I have to go into Bks every day and face the music if i type something too harsh.

    As for the whole Forum being "Walter", speak for yourself, there have been many interesting & informative discussions here. As a comparative red arse at only 45 I would have to say you've been very chilidsh in your reply attacking any body who does not row in behind your buy German campaign, some of us want to keep in the real world about solutions that could actually happen, and the G-wagon does not fall into that category. You might at some stage see one off purchases for very specialised roles, but I'll eat my Beret if we ever see a fleet replacement based on the G-Wagon! You'll have to wait for your sales commission
    CRIME SCENE INSTIGATOR

  27. Likes FMP, Herald liked this post
  28. #196
    C/S FMP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    UK and Tanzania
    Posts
    361
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by REX View Post
    My God you're a touchy bugger! I referred to all the examples you gave (which of course includes NZ), these are examples of doing it the right way, but with our financial reality it's just pie in the sky to suggest we follow their example. I never said that everyone else is wrong and the DF is right, just the opposite I would have thought, although I restrained myself as, unlike many here, I have to go into Bks every day and face the music if i type something too harsh.

    As for the whole Forum being "Walter", speak for yourself, there have been many interesting & informative discussions here. As a comparative red arse at only 45 I would have to say you've been very chilidsh in your reply attacking any body who does not row in behind your buy German campaign, some of us want to keep in the real world about solutions that could actually happen, and the G-wagon does not fall into that category. You might at some stage see one off purchases for very specialised roles, but I'll eat my Beret if we ever see a fleet replacement based on the G-Wagon! You'll have to wait for your sales commission
    No commission here Rex, but I do like a G Wagon . My real world suggestion was transit. Ford Transit. Gave a paragraph or two on the transit, I have a liking for Transits too. What are your thoughts on that one.

    I drive a VW T5 Camper which is German again,,,,,,,, Mrs drives a VW Golf,,,,,,,dammit! Maybe there is something of a pattern developing here.
    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. #197
    Captain Truck Driver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Here And There...
    Posts
    10,172
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    The new "beast" is a MAN isn't it?
    Sure is
    "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)!"

  30. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
  31. #198
    private REX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Cloud Cuckoo Land
    Posts
    936
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by FMP View Post
    No commission here Rex, but I do like a G Wagon . My real world suggestion was transit. Ford Transit. Gave a paragraph or two on the transit, I have a liking for Transits too. What are your thoughts on that one.

    I drive a VW T5 Camper which is German again,,,,,,,, Mrs drives a VW Golf,,,,,,,dammit! Maybe there is something of a pattern developing here.
    Big fan of transits, compared to the Pajero they are a piece of cake to maintain, they are better on fuel and unlike the Pajero don't eat Brake pads, tyres and headlight bulbs. We would be better off using the like of Transits and connects for most every day admin uses but I disagree about using Transits for CIT, debussing is compromised and as someone who has only a 28.5 inch inside leg I find the back of a transit a squeeze, I'd hate to be 6 footer spending the day on CIT. If they used it for that role it would require going for the 12 seat layout with sliding doors both side, so it could be done with some will from the right offices.

    P.S. I told you, a Tuetonic fixation, and yes I also drive a vehicle from the VAG. (Volkwagon, AUDI Group for the info of any pervs reading)
    CRIME SCENE INSTIGATOR

  32. Likes FMP liked this post
  33. #199
    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
    Does it come as a station wagon?
    The DF has lost people at home and in Lebanon in soft tops?

    What kind of seats in the rear?

    As Saab said it would tick the overseas and tactical boxes but not the ATCP, what about the troops in the back when it's doing 100, from Dublin to Portlaoise? The noise, the risk of rollover, no visibility to the sides
    Have never seen a "wolf" station wagon I must say. More often than not the Disco makes an appearance it that type of role, senior rank staff transport.

    UK company "Safetydevices" have been making ROPS / seats for the soft and hard tops for a number of years now. As well as other makes and models.

    http://www.safetydevices.com/militar...nd-rover-wolf/

    Windows have never been done in the MOB but Ex MOB civilian window conversion pic attached. Older model of LR but the hard top is "wolf".
    Attached Images Attached Images
    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.

  34. #200
    C/S FMP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    UK and Tanzania
    Posts
    361
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by REX View Post
    Big fan of transits, compared to the Pajero they are a piece of cake to maintain, they are better on fuel and unlike the Pajero don't eat Brake pads, tyres and headlight bulbs. We would be better off using the like of Transits and connects for most every day admin uses but I disagree about using Transits for CIT, debussing is compromised and as someone who has only a 28.5 inch inside leg I find the back of a transit a squeeze, I'd hate to be 6 footer spending the day on CIT. If they used it for that role it would require going for the 12 seat layout with sliding doors both side, so it could be done with some will from the right offices.

    P.S. I told you, a Tuetonic fixation, and yes I also drive a vehicle from the VAG. (Volkwagon, AUDI Group for the info of any pervs reading)
    I do think it and its little brother should have a bigger part to play in the DF. It is a fine vehicle and as many have posted here already it fulfills many roles. Like the twin/double door idea, that was my one niggley point about a "van" in the CIT role, left side or rear doors. Would not be a huge leap to have the twin/double door models with less seating capacity. SWB single seats in the rear to carry 4/6 in kit. I'm waltering yes but I'm enjoying it and believe it or not this particular idea/concept (G Wagons and all that madness aside) is actually (in my opinion) a very viable Pajero replacement. Even comes in 4 x 4.
    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.

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
  •