Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pajero Replacement?

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

  • #76
    4/5 personnel is probably ok for most roles, in the run about/utility role the more the better though (old Nissan could seat 7, newer Nissan/Pajero can seat 6 (6th is uncomfortable).

    Questions:
    G-Wagon FFR where is the radio fitted? Between front and rear seats or in the "boot"?
    Is the 4 seats because of the cupola?
    Is there a 5 seat version (eg for carrying a 81 and 5 man crew)?

    With we got the better SINCGARS handsets if the radio is in the boot could all the operations be done from a back seat?
    Last edited by DeV; 29 May 2014, 21:22.

    Comment


    • #77
      FMP,
      The point was g-wagon has many variants.
      The poster shows variants that the DF could possibly use to replace the Transit.
      I am sure there is a role there.

      Then as Dev says we put 5 in and wonder why it is squashed.
      1.8m is more than wide enough for 2 people. That's the narrowest point of the rugby ball.
      Which is granted 50mm smaller than the g-wagon but really are you going to say that you would notice?
      The squareness makes the gwagon look bulkier but it is cosmetic.

      That look does make it a more imposing vehicle and I can see why it would be a military driver's wet dream.
      Also if you use google images you can see it in the soccer mum role too
      But the problem is the Pajero is used on the streets of Irish towns doing many jobs.
      Many more miles are covered with only 2-3 occupants not even armed let alone in full body armor.
      While in a CIT you might want a bulky threatening vehicle you certainly don't want it when nipping down to the local C&C to pick up mess supplies.

      THe problem then is that the DF isn't big enough to have a bolt on kit, let a lone a variant, to have a vehicle for every role.
      So what we do have is a vehicle for Irish roads that meets a little of the spec for each role it has to do.

      It would be nice it this was not the case but then there are a lot of things that would be so.

      Comment


      • #78
        Im inclined to agree with Saab. A G-wagon is expensive overkill for routine shuttling about and I'd mirror what he says about them tooling about with a handful of lads in them, plenty of them without FFR aerials fitted. Look at what happened in the past with utility vehicles; landrovers did everything until they were replaced by small commercial vans, which saved a fortune in fuel and maintenance.

        regards
        GttC

        Comment


        • #79
          DeV

          RF: Seating. The mods we have been discussing are all four seats. Based on the operators requirements having looked at the role's the G Wagon will undertake in their relevant forces. The station wagon will be employed as C2, FFR, GS, escorts, patrols, recce, Liaison, FIRES, etc. All pretty standard stuff. Operational experience since 2001 has influenced this 4 seats decision hugely. The concept is one soldier one door in light vehicles (and some not so light, think Hummer). Provides all round observation (or as best you can from inside a vehicle) rapid dismount and or bringing weapons to bear. The bod in the middle became redundant as he could do none of the aforementioned.

          Its back to the question, what exactly do we need our vehicles to do? Every unit MT for every army will have in its stables a fleet of vehicles that fit into the transit / bus bracket. Pottering about and general transport outside of primary duties (War fighting all the way down to ATCP. One can never do without these type of vehicles but your operational vehicles need to be able to do whats required of them in many roles and leave the pottering to a few "normal" ones.


          To answer your questions, as best i can.

          1. In the FFR, C2 role radio stacks for Aus and Can mods are in the "boot" . If you look at the Canadian versions you will see the rear left window blanked with a sheet metal panel with louvers in top right corner. The radio stack is against this panel and slaved to the front and or second row.

          2. The Aus Wagon will not have ring mount fitted but is still a four seat in the station wagon / twin cab variant. The Canadian GS model as well will go without. Its only the Armoured / Soft skin Recce, patrol, escort types that are fitted with the ring mount. All are devoid of that fifth seat. For the reasons mentioned above and no doubt fitting three lumberjacks kitted in body Armour, battle vest, helmet and weapon into a single row would be a bit of a squeeze . Saab will love this,,,, it is a tight fit (not with four, but any more, yes) So the long winded answer is all are without but not because of the ring mount, if you chose to incorporate on it does however make the space readily available for the operator.

          3. Yes mate it can be made to carry five, in the same way as most cars / SUV's but that center seat will be a tight fit. The two mobs mentioned wont be doing it so "IF" one was to buy into their production line and required it,,,,it would cost.

          Some limited pics of the Aus C2, no radio stack pic but one or two of their BMS (Blue force tracker by another name) slaved from the "boot".

          Did i mention the Canadian Armour version? Will fire some pics over, interesting story attached to a few of them.

          Cheers.
          Attached Files
          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


          • #80
            Just because its there ;-) im not saying it should replace the Pajero.

            The attached pic's are of the Canadian Armour G Wagon. Its actually very difficult to tell the difference externally as there is almost no difference whatsoever. The windscreen! It looks sunken or as if its got a "picture frame" around it. Easiest way of telling at a glance.

            Pictures Armd 1 through Armd 3 are of the same vehicle. Got smashed by a CWIED under the front axle on the way into Kandahar City. Pic 1 recovery to Kaf, Pic 2 on the ground in Kaf and Pic 3 same wagon in the Canadian armed forces museum in Lumberjack land. Three soldiers and a Journalist on board walked away with minor injuries. I'm not saying its the bestest most protected vehicle in the world EVER! I'm saying you put enough wallop into an IED and you will put a Challenger 2 on its roof. Its all relative. Fact is this time it did its job, other times it did not. Nothing is bomb proof.

            Last two pics are just Armour G Wagons, give you an indication of what i mean about the windscreen. Armour G Wagon,,,,,,,,perhaps another role filled. Were there not some Armour Nissan's kicking about the DF somewhere. Ohhhhh reasons to use the G Wagen as a Pajero replacement, the list goes on lol
            Attached Files
            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


            • #81
              That trip from Kabul to Kandahar was probably the last time the (Cdn) G wagons were used outside the wire. The only ones I have seen in Kandahar were in KAF.
              "On the plains of hesitation, bleach the bones of countless millions, who on the very dawn of victory, laid down to rest, and in resting died.

              Never give up!!"

              Comment


              • #82
                Gttc and Saab.

                Guys, I seem to have missed out on a major point here. From your last two posts I get the feeling we are not talking about replacing the Pajero because it fails in its military role, it simply does not have a "military" role. You are looking for something to cut about the place, with as little impact as possible and no primary operational overseas or home military role? Correct? Something straight forward.

                If that is the case it could in fact then be replaced by any number of vehicles, bring on the transit!! I'm all for that lad's honest to god I am.

                But Soccer Mums? Really? point missed again. Purpose built, ground up, military costumer. Aus and Canadian G's are a lifetime away from soccer .

                Great chatting lads, honest to god it is, but were chatting about two totally different things.

                I shall leave you in peace and I do hope you find the answer.

                Faugh a Ballagh!
                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


                • #83
                  The benefit of a common chassis to replace all the various makes and models of GS, FFR, panel vans, estate cars, possibly some staff cars, some specialist vehicles would be huge.

                  Tender cost - as in cost of arranging the paperwork, trials etc is a once off for a long term contract (instead of 3/4 contracts for GS/FFRs alone
                  Supplier management - much easier and cheaper as 1 to deal instead of say 4
                  Spares/tools - 1 set of spares to hold instead of 8+, purchase price is lower as you are buying more of a small range, easier to monitor usage and inventory
                  Training - training on 1 vehicle instead of 8+ for mechanics and drivers

                  As an organisation though the biggest benefit could be deployability (more rugged and capable vehicle) but your panel van (eg Ford Connect replaced with 4x4 panel van), it also means less vehicles are required.
                  Monday - collect ammo from Ammunition Stores
                  Tuesday - mobile ammo point across broken ground on LLFT
                  Wednesday - courier jobs for DFHQ
                  Thursday/Friday - Stores vehicle for CQ on Tac ex across broken ground

                  The DF should be using a common chassis to replace the vehicles that softskined tactical and the urban runabouts, would save a fortune!

                  The idea being to reduce the variety and size of the transport fleet (not add additional vehicled)
                  Last edited by DeV; 30 May 2014, 14:41.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by DeV View Post
                    The benefit of a common chassis to replace all the various makes and models of GS, FFR, panel vans, estate cars, possibly some staff cars, some specialist vehicles would be huge.

                    Tender cost - as in cost of arranging the paperwork, trials etc is a once off for a long term contract (instead of 3/4 contracts for GS/FFRs alone
                    Supplier management - much easier and cheaper as 1 to deal instead of say 4
                    Spares/tools - 1 set of spares to hold instead of 8+, purchase price is lower as you are buying more of a small range, easier to monitor usage and inventory
                    Training - training on 1 vehicle instead of 8+ for mechanics and drivers

                    As an organisation though the biggest benefit could be deployability (more rugged and capable vehicle) but your panel van (eg Ford Connect replaced with 4x4 panel van), it also means less vehicles are required.
                    Monday - collect ammo from Ammunition Stores
                    Tuesday - mobile ammo point across broken ground on LLFT
                    Wednesday - courier jobs for DFHQ
                    Thursday/Friday - Stores vehicle for CQ on Tac ex across broken ground

                    The DF should be using a common chassis to replace the vehicles that softskined tactical and the urban runabouts, would save a fortune!

                    The idea being to reduce the variety and size of the transport fleet (not add additional vehicled)

                    DeV.

                    Agree 100% with all your comments. You are hitting the nail on the head. You have got it mate. No question. You can see the huge cost benefits and the fact that because "A" vehicle spends one day being a capable military vehicle there is no reason in the world it cant spend the next day collecting mars bars from tescos to stock the camp tuck shop, but you cant do it the other way round. The DF is after all a military body.

                    My rather flippant but in good humor comment "Ohhhhh reasons to use the G Wagen as a Pajero replacement, the list goes on lol" I need to rephrase slightly, i was caught up in the Pajero discussion but have been trying to make a bigger point about the procurement/fleet shambles, same as yours actually.

                    "Reasons to use the G Wagon as a multi vehicle replacement and standardise the fleet, the list goes on!!".

                    One last picture
                    Attached Files
                    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


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by FMP View Post
                      Gttc and Saab.

                      Guys, I seem to have missed out on a major point here. From your last two posts I get the feeling we are not talking about replacing the Pajero because it fails in its military role, it simply does not have a "military" role. You are looking for something to cut about the place, with as little impact as possible and no primary operational overseas or home military role? Correct? Something straight forward.
                      And there lies the problem.
                      While the majority of the mileage is as such it is also wanted as a military vehicle. For maybe 10% of its life it will be doing rugged military duties.
                      As I said before the main whinge about the Pajero is too low to the ground and can't fit 3 full sized bods in the back.
                      As you admit the g-wagon is no different on these two points.

                      If we stay with Pajero next time we want a small 4x4 then we will have them standardised. but that ain't going to happen

                      IF someone decided that we need a 4x4 panel van and a 4x4 small truck then a whole new discussion would ensue. ie replacing all small vehicles ie under 3500kg with a single chassis capable of doing all roles.
                      We are talking about replacing the Pajero and not the transit, transit connect, renault what ever it is, landrover ambulance, transit ambulance, ford ranger, ford mandeo and what ever else comes into that category.
                      Single chassis would be the solution.
                      Also a rethink of the roles the vehicle is to do.

                      The Australians got their 4x4 and 6x6 g-wagons to replace the landrover 110. The life cycle to be 15 years. The average cost per vehicle about €140,000.
                      What does the DF spend on such vehicles?
                      Last edited by Saab; 30 May 2014, 18:34.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Cost, VFM and ability to do the job are the deciding factor

                        If that's the cost, even with all versions and full servicing, no way!

                        What do we need?
                        A vehicle that can do the job of the 3/4 models of Nissan Patrol (FFR & GS) the Pajero (FFR & GS), the small panal vans (Kangroo, Connect and Feista), some of the smaller specialist vehicles (eg CMU Estate), some of various staff saloons etc

                        In the form of 3 versions of a common chassis and engine etc:
                        GS
                        FFR
                        3 door van

                        With selectable 4x4 (to keep costs down)
                        Seating for min 5 personnel with kit (trailer if necessary)

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          As you admit the g-wagon is no different on these two points.
                          From the photo the G wagen certainly looks to have greater clearance than the Pajero.

                          Have to suggest that mitsubishi products seems a little 'soft' in comparison to Nissan products. The older generation of Nissan Patrol were very rugged and dependable and god knows I know , I tried hard enough to break them , including trying to drown a few of them. Limited in comparison to the G Wagens pictured but certainly paid for themselves.

                          The GRs weren't as capable but the mistake seems seems to have been trying to replace the GR with something cheaper as opposed to emulating the finer points of the earlier vehicle.

                          Pajero was wrong choice as was the GR.
                          Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
                            From the photo the G wagen certainly looks to have greater clearance than the Pajero.

                            Have to suggest that mitsubishi products seems a little 'soft' in comparison to Nissan products. The older generation of Nissan Patrol were very rugged and dependable and god knows I know , I tried hard enough to break them , including trying to drown a few of them. Limited in comparison to the G Wagens pictured but certainly paid for themselves.

                            The GRs weren't as capable but the mistake seems seems to have been trying to replace the GR with something cheaper as opposed to emulating the finer points of the earlier vehicle.

                            Pajero was wrong choice as was the GR.
                            Murph

                            Your right. It does look like that does it not .

                            General comments now, not aimed at you Murph, or anyone else for that matter, just general chit chat .

                            But a better way of putting is the G Wagon is a far more capable off road vehicle than the Pajero or vehicles built like it could ever be. Even if the manufactures stat's on one is "better" than on the other. And here's why. Will try and make this short .

                            Ground clearance is a measurement from the ground to the lowest point on the underside of a vehicle (not including the bottom of the tyres (bad joke).

                            Gents, sorry if this is egg sucking but some people cant seem to grasp this.

                            On the G Wagon that point is the bottom of the diff. (Someone remind me, what was it?)

                            On the Pajero its the body of the vehicle itself. I.e. its the lowest visible point.

                            Whats the difference you say, the P still has grater clearance than the G?

                            The difference is the way the two are put together. The G has an "external" axle, the body of the G sits above the axle. Making it higher off the ground. The P has an "internal" axle, its body is molded around the axle. Making it lower to the ground.

                            Despite the "clearance" the G is a better performer because of this. Anyone who has spent time off road will vouch that approach, grounding and departure angles are all important. You keep your track on the path of least resistance. That is, the width of your vehicle from left tyres to right tyres. Stay out of ruts as best you can, don't drive over large boulders or tree stumps,,, if you have to do so do it carefully, your diff and axle can take a knock but not at very high speeds. The body of your vehicle cant, the sump cant.

                            On undulating or rough ground, driving up inclines, over ridges, and down declines that "clearance" means nothing, for most off road driving it actually means very little if your vehicle is an "external" axle type. You will never get your diff more than a few hundred mm of the deck unless you fit tyres six foot in diameter on your vehicle, impracticable to say the least. Larger tyres help a bit but you will be restricted by your wheel arch as to how big you can go and the vehicle needs to be set up for it. The benefit of the G Wagon like Landrover, Land Cruiser 70 series and even the old Nissan is that "external" axle. Other makes and models apply but you see what I'm getting at.

                            Excuse the "commas " I actually have no idea what the axles are called, but I do know why one vehicle works and the other does not in an off road environment. Hopefully some petrol head out there may be able to tell us the correct terminology, and will correct me here and there. I just drive the bloody things, off road, every day of my work rotation.

                            They say a picture paints a thousand words, sometimes I really have my doubts. Plenty posted here and the basic principles of off road driving are being missed. Being able to see why one works and the other does not. At a glance, no manufactures stat's needed.

                            Experiment time! Everyone join in, not just Murph.

                            Three pics attached. One pajero, one Canadian G and one Aus G. Pics are roughly taken at similar angles but in reality it wont make any difference.

                            Get yourself one of those see through plastic rules we used in school.

                            Line the rule up on the center of the front wheel hub and the rear wheel hub of each vehicle. One at a time.

                            Then, now be honest, tell us which vehicle do you think is by far better built for off road work? More importantly, tell us why the other is not. Remember the closer the body to the hub the less capable the vehicle is off road. If the body is actually lower than the hub,,,,,,it's a car.

                            Gents I am having great craic with these posts, its good banter and some great discussions going on here. I wish the DF would listen to what is said on these pages. I am pulling my hair out, don't get me wrong, but that's what a good discussion does to you.

                            Murph, you are right again when you say the Pajero and GR were the wrong choice. The task now is not to repeat that mistake, again.

                            Cheers
                            Attached Files
                            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


                            • #89
                              I used the Pajero in Cyprus in 1992, as a patrol vehicle. It was ok, adapted to what we were doing.
                              THe model shown in the pic above is very different; while the 1992 model I used looked and felt like a Military vehicle, the current model looks like an urban AWD veh, not adapted to offroad conditions. It would not have been useful in the job I was doing in Cyprus in 1992.
                              "On the plains of hesitation, bleach the bones of countless millions, who on the very dawn of victory, laid down to rest, and in resting died.

                              Never give up!!"

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                I'm not a user of any of the vehicles anymore but Apod has suggested its problematic,that'll do for me.

                                The pictures paint the picture as it is, even without the clearance issue looking at the guys sitting in the Pajero they even look cramped.

                                the older Pajero was probably on par with the Nissan Patrol GRs, the newer one more like a Nissan Quasqhai.

                                Learn from our mistakes, you have got to be kidding me, more often that not we compound them and wander aimlessly into the future .

                                That settles it G Wagen or Puegeot P4 it is.....not that we'll see them in this lifetime.
                                Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X