Pajero Replacement?

[FMP]

Agree 100%. No one gets it right all the time (and I have never implied that other's do, just highlighted where some have), no matter how big your budget is. Problem is the DF don't ever seem to get it right.

[DeV]

You talk about CIT as a reason not to have a MOTS vehicle, what do we need it for when all we do is drive from town to town? This is a role handled by police and private security the world over. Not by the national Defense force. Its a poor excuse.

In fairness, escorts and duties are what some of the fleet spend the vast majority of the time doing.

You talk of economy of scale as a reason not to standardise the various fleets with MOTS vehicles. The DF is too small and does not have enough vehicles to make it viable. Correct? That is what you said is it not?

New Zealand has a land force half the size of Ireland's, +/- 4.500 all in. Yet they can do it. Their light green fleet is comprised of over 300 6 x 6 Pinzgauger's. Covering roles from GS soft top, to Hard Top C2, FFR, SRV, LAD, and Armoured. Their HGV fleet is made up entirely of MB unimogs again filling numerous roles, TCV, Ambulance, Hiab, C2, Wrecker, Prime movers. Their high mobility HGV fleet (being revitalized and will replace a lot of the Unimogs) will comprises 200 Rheinmatall MAN trucks in 4 x 4, 6 x 6 and 8 x 8, in numerous roles, TCV, DROPS, Tractor/Semi trailer, dumper and wrecker models. And yes, they do also have a "white fleet".

+1
Excellent example

Smaller militaries have all the more reason to standardise

[FMP]

In fairness, escorts and duties are what some of the fleet spend the vast majority of the time doing.

I agree with you DeV, my point (in my usual roundabout way) is that to choose a vehicle based on "white" roles alone would be foolish (and it is an excuse used here often), when there are other roles that need to be considered as well. One vehicle that could complete many tasks even if it were considered a bit grizzly for the "white" roles makes sense (I think you agree with me there). To say a particular vehicle is not suitable because Joe public would be scared is not a good enough reason to disregard it. The DF first and foremost need to take care of their primary role.

We have on many occasions mentioned the transit, so here is an idea. There are plenty of them (transits) in the DF and are a useful and necessary vehicle. Everyone has their "white fleet". What I'm saying is do not buy "white fleet" to apply them to a military role. Take care of your military role first and use your "white fleet" to take care of your "white" role. By that I mean for CIT, prison escorts etc, use the transit. Why not? Its the same size as the CIT and prison vans, no more imposing or threatening than a police van (I would say less imposing or threatening) will never need to go off road, pull a 105 or have a javelin crew dismount from it to take out whatever. It will still fulfill many other roles in the DF but all "white". And it keeps grizzly bears away from Joe public.

So, where am I going with this? Simple really. Lets not replace the Pajero, the GR and the other mishmash of vehicles about the place in "white" roles. Lets instead let them fade away into oblivion and allow the trusty transit (or similar provided it becomes a standardised vehicle) to pick up the slack.

Then look at the "military" role and get a single multi role light vehicle, single multi role HGV's and a single multi role high mobility HGV's. Not adding to the fleet, just standardising it (but removing the odd's and sod's at the same time). Refresh my memory, was it over 100 different makes and models eight years ago?

Applying the above reasoning you could reduce that frightening figure of 100+ to a dozen or so (guesstimate (not including armour). By utilising multi role chassis across all areas "green/white". I wont give examples as many have been covered here already and I no doubt will attract the wrath of Saab if I do .

There will always be a need for staff cars, light vans, motorbikes, firetrucks, fuel bowser's, SRV's, wrecker's, DROPS, TCV's, Prime Movers, and on and on. The thing is not to have multiple vehicles doing the same job.

It can and should be done. As you said DeV, its even more important with small forces with small budgets. The fact is vehicles/procurement policy/ConOps/compatibility all go hand in hand. You cant discuss one with the others. Unfortunately the DF are in a position that after decades of getting it wrong, getting it right will take effort and commitment. Is that commitment really there?

[Saab]

FMP the Defence forces uses the same standard to procure vehicles as in the UK.

Therefor I can only assume that some where in those specifications for the procurement of military vehicles they look at the expected duty of the vehicles.
If that duty does not warrant the vehicles that you describe then they are not bought.

As I asked if G Wagons are Purpose built from the ground up to military specifications then why did the french have to militarize them.

The Irish HGV fleet, by the looks of things is being standardised as Scania.
IF the DF found the Pajeros suitable for 90% of their primary operations then I am sure in 30 years we will only have one type of LTCV.
I am sure IF Nissan had been more competitive or way back IF Landrover had been more competitive then today we would only have one type of vehicle.

I am totally in agreement that a single vehicle concept is great.
But if our bread and butter is a role handled by police and private security the world over then the vehicles we use will also be those used by police and private security the world over.

At the end of the day it comes to the fact that Defence spending does not get votes.

[hptmurphy]

FMP the Defence forces uses the same standard to procure vehicles as in the UK.

Yeah.. how come they didn't end up with a fcuking Pajero!

Everyone has their "white fleet". What I'm saying is do not buy "white fleet" to apply them to a military role. Take care of your military role first and use your "white fleet" to take care of your "white" role

Sums it up.

Had someone bought into that we wouldn't have pajero!

FFR Transit Mini bus....better standard of comfort for CIT, as fast as if not faster than the pajeros. And can be be better utilized outside of the CIT role.

Refresh my memory, was it over 100 different makes and models eight years ago?

Even Karl Martin in his book on Irish Army Vehicles missed out on some types!!

What hope have you!

Sorry Saab the thumbs up wasn't intended.

[Saab]

Yeah.. how come they didn't end up with a fcuking Pajero!

More to spend???????????????

Had someone bought into that we wouldn't have pajero!

FFR Transit Mini bus....better standard of comfort for CIT, as fast as if not faster than the pajeros. And can be be better utilized outside of the CIT role.

But then the full sized transit 4x4 isn't as stable. What would you do for sheep chasing?

But then you could go for the connect. Isn't that what is used for fridge vans?

[DeV]

If the DF could afford to the should have 50 x G-Wagen per battalion for the green role and 50 x Pajero for the rest (IMHO unless you are deploying them all the time it is not good VFM). we can't so we need 1 vehicle suitable for both that is
Fast
Safe
Can be an FFR
Economical to run and maintain
Cheap
Rugged
Good on road
Good off road
Etc

But we can't!
Nor can we afford 5 makes & models where 1 would do, 2 would be an improve but is still not ideal.

The DF needs to find a vehicle, enter a contract for 500-1000 vehicles over 15 years including full life support
Phase out the existing as they need replacing and you have a single type over 5-10 years

[Saab]

The DF needs to find a vehicle, enter a contract for 500-1000 vehicles over 15 years including full life support
Phase out the existing as they need replacing and you have a single type over 5-10 years

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.

As was said the g-wagon is considered a better vehicle but it fals foul of the 2 biggest complaints i.e. it doesn't cater for 5 men plus gear and it is low to the ground.
Yes it can be fitted with bigger wheels and tyres but then so can the Pajero.
If the DF hasn't done it for the Pajero (or previous vehicles) then they are not going to do it for any other vehicle.

BTW ground clearance is the shortest distance between the vehicle and the ground.
With a fixed axle its the lowest point of the axle housing, normally the differential.
Vehicles fitted with independent suspension however, the wheels go up/down independently from each other.
This means that the lowest point can vary greatly.

I don't know what our Pajeros are fitted with. I guess independent as it is the safer option for on road driving.
Again, I suspect if we were to go g-wagon it would be the same.

So although we might get what some consider the better option we would not be improving on the two identified problems.

[hptmurphy]

But then the full sized transit 4x4 isn't as stable. What would you do for sheep chasing?

Transit minibus....use as per pajero in CIT role !!!..wtf said anything about vans or sexual preferences?

Not beyond the realms of possibility. Once upon a life time ago 4 x 4 were in very short supply in the army, so much so a certain Cavalry unit reverted to using AML 60s for CITs!..I watched them go out the gate!!!

Fast
Safe
Can be an FFR
Economical to run and maintain
Cheap
Rugged
Good on road
Good off road
Etc

Try Otokar.....

[Saab]

Once upon a life time ago 4 x 4 were in very short supply in the army, so much so a certain Cavalry unit reverted to using AML 60s for CITs!..I watched them go out the gate!!!

Could imagine the sh1tfit the media would have if you did that today!!!!

Try Otokar.....

Turkish Landrovers?
Why not by local?

[DeV]

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

[Saab]

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.

[DeV]

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.

[Saab]

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.

[DeV]

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).