Military 110 sales?

[Bodge]

Greetings all,

I've seen in the paper a couple of times recently that the Defence Force is starting to take delivery of the G-Wagen. Does anyone out there "in the know" have any idea if and when the retiring 110 military fleet will start being auctioned off? I've many fond memories of driving these things and I'm thinking one would make a fine weekend toy / non-family tourer (once power steering is sorted).

Cheers,
Bodge.

[THE BOOGER]

Delivery of production Gwagens starts at the end of the year so maybe 12 to 18 months away yet, there will be a line-up waiting for them if they are not to expensive:D

PS the ones delivered early this year were preproduction for testing and training

[JDNSW]

This has been discussed here a number of times, but as far as I know there is no definite answer. Seeing that at least some of them have been very recently refurbished to new condition (this may still be happening), I suspect that at best it will be several years before any find their way into the auction rooms. And there is always the possibility that they may be "gifted" to some other country (e.g. East Timor), which could see the numbers making it onto the market greatly reduced.

In short, just because there are replacements starting to be delivered does not mean that there will automatically be Perenties coming onto the market - I expect that initially the Landrovers will be held in reserve.

If you do a search you will find several threads discussing this, but none have come up with the answer you are after.

John

[Blknight.aus]

life of type is now out to 2015.

[THE BOOGER]

I,ll be old and grey, hang on I,am already grey. So what do you think Dave, 6 years might be close:(

[Bodge]

Cheers guys,

Yep, i did a search. As you say, plenty of speculation but the most recent posts I could find are from quite while ago. I was hoping for an update, if anyone out there actually knows something (and aren't sitting on the info until after they get themselves a good 110 :D).

In the past they haven't held old vehicles or equipment in reserve for too long once replacements have been rolled out. Old equipment still requires maintenance, needs to be stored somewhere and upsets the bean counters come end of FY.

Hopefully they won't all go to Timor...

[Blknight.aus]

honestly who knows... they've extended the life of type so many times now its almost like it'll be around in the service when I'm in the grave.

I think you might start seeing the first ones in drips and drabs shortly but I wouldnt reccomend you buy one of those (unless your after it for components) as they will be the ones that are beyond economical repair.

theres not as many Gwagens coming in as rovers going out. All the rear ech units will probabley wind up with white fleet vehicles.

[DeeJay]

honestly who knows... they've extended the life of type so many times now its almost like it'll be around in the service when I'm in the grave.

I think you might start seeing the first ones in drips and drabs shortly but I wouldnt reccomend you buy one of those (unless your after it for components) as they will be the ones that are beyond economical repair.

theres not as many Gwagens coming in as rovers going out. All the rear ech units will probabley wind up with white fleet vehicles.


There's some Dejavue!!
When I wore a green uniform in the early 70-'s the talk was of Mini Mokes & Holden utes for anything but front line.

[LRO53]

Does anyone have any insight into why Land Rover lost this contract?

Last i heard from the factory the PUMA has just been certified to EMP.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Does anyone have any insight into why Land Rover lost this contract?

Last i heard from the factory the PUMA has just been certified to EMP.Land Rover didn't submit a bid to the tender!

[1103.9TDI]

Does anyone have any insight into why Land Rover lost this contract?

Last i heard from the factory the PUMA has just been certified to EMP.

There was also the requirement that the vehicle be 'IED proof', the Merc's have removeable armour sheeting. Land Rover was asked to modify the existing fleet, but I think it was just too much for them or maybe as expensive as the vehicles themselves!.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

There was also the requirement that the vehicle be 'IED proof', the Merc's have removeable armour sheeting. Land Rover was asked to modify the existing fleet, but I think it was just too much for them or maybe as expensive as the vehicles themselves!.Land Rover have been producing armoured Land Rovers since the Northern Ireland conflict in the 1960's.

Land Rover didn't put in a bid because Ford was selling the Land Rover marque and it didn't know if the next owner would be able to honour the Australian Army contract.

[1103.9TDI]

Land Rover have been producing armoured Land Rovers since the Northern Ireland conflict in the 1960's.

Land Rover didn't put in a bid because Ford was selling the Land Rover marque and it didn't know if the next owner would be able to honour the Australian Army contract.

I don't believe I stated anywhere in my post that LR are not able to produce armoured vehicles. But to modify the existing fleet (especially the soft tops) to protect troops from various battlefield explosives would be expensive. Also, bear in mind I'm talking about the 'existing' vehicles, not new ones. You may well be correct about the change of ownership issues, but normally, I would have thought that if these contracts are successful, they are automatically passed on to the new owner. It's not as if these vehicles are particularily 'sensitive' in nature.

[Blknight.aus]

Does anyone have any insight into why Land Rover lost this contract?

Last i heard from the factory the PUMA has just been certified to EMP.

Landrover told the ADF to go jam it.

[JDNSW]

As stated, Landrover did not submit a bid. There are a number of possible reasons for this, including that the company was about to change ownership, and that Ford were not in a position to spend the money that would be needed to make a sensible bid. Another reason could have been that the tender called for a number of different vehicles to be supplied form a single supplier, and while Ford may have been able to supply these, Landrover itself could not.

But my suspicion is that Landrover Australia did not have the slightest interest in a military contract, and in fact regarded the military use of Landrovers (and, for that matter, the very existence of the Defender) as detracting from its view of itself as a purveyor of fine cars to the well heeled city dweller.

John

[Lotz-A-Landies]

John

I think you are very near the truth. Once Ford placed Land Rover in the PAG with Jaguar and Volvo there was an interest in marketing to the wealthy side of the city. We only have to see the dismantling of the Land Rover dealer network to realise that PAG was not interested in the Defender.

However I do believe that there were some at JLR who were quite frustrated in the decision.

On the IED protection, flat bottom vehicles are never going to be much chop against roadside bombs, they absorb too much energy for survival of the troops contained within. While Land Rover are supplying up armoured Land Rovers to the British Army, there is a lot of debate about it costing lives when the Brit troops should be in real armoured vehicles like the Bushmaster or LAV's.

I guess we'll never know, how it could have been! :( :(

[Blknight.aus]

For starters the Bushmaster isnt a real armoured vehicle, Its a BUS it can take a hit the crew will survive and its got a little bit of defensive weaponry....

LRA was invited to the table but essentially gave it Yeah, thanks, NO.

After some of the incidents early on in the contract Im hardly surprised...

[Lotz-A-Landies]

For starters the Bushmaster isnt a real armoured vehicle, Its a BUS it can take a hit the crew will survive and its got a little bit of defensive weaponry....<snip>...The Bushmaster is a significant upgrade in troop protection over a Humvee, Land Rover or G-Wagen with or without the "up armoured" kits!

[Blknight.aus]

yep but an armoured vehicle it aint, people who think that it is are in for a very rude shock when they try to use it like one.

Its had several name changes the current official title of the Busmaster is PMV Protected Mobility Vehicle.

The exceptional capability of the Busmaster at its designed role is its Achilles heel. People (public and people who outrank me included) have seen it in action and are using it to the limits of its ability rather than what it was designed to do.

For an anology that I think most people on this site will understand...

Its like using a shackle that has a 1T Safe working load to do a recovery that needs a 5T pull and thinking your going to get away with it because recovery gear has a 5x safety margin. You might get away with it a couple of times but then its going to bite you.

[slug_burner]

yep but an armoured vehicle it aint, people who think that it is are in for a very rude shock when they try to use it like one.

Its had several name changes the current official title of the Busmaster is PMV Protected Mobility Vehicle.

The exceptional capability of the Busmaster at its designed role is its Achilles heel. People (public and people who outrank me included) have seen it in action and are using it to the limits of its ability rather than what it was designed to do.

For an anology that I think most people on this site will understand...

Its like using a shackle that has a 1T Safe working load to do a recovery that needs a 5T pull and thinking your going to get away with it because recovery gear has a 5x safety margin. You might get away with it a couple of times but then its going to bite you.

If you have to do the recovery and that is all you have the 1T it is then! The current recovery kit doesn't have any 5T rated shackle in it.

No matter what you do the enemy will eventually overmatch your equipment. However until then if it makes it that little bit more difficult then it keeps you in the game a bit longer.

[Blknight.aus]

yes and then theres a lot of outcry as to why your defence force is using a bit of kit in a role that its not suited for.... theres a huge amount of money wasted on inquries, people commit suicide over it, familys get broken up officers quit/get quitted... and meanwhile back at the workshops theres a bunch of greasers standing round giving it "what?!, look we told ya but noooooo"

If you dont have the proper equipment you dont do it. You go and get the proper equipment.

something about the poms, and a vehicle whose name is synonymous with strap.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

The disconnect between the brass who make decisions and the troops that wear the kit and become machine gun fodder is nothing new. There are people that are good intentioned but it seems that things change so much that they end up staying the same, just the names and places change.

The thread hijack here is because I incorrectly stated that Bushmasters and LAVS were real armoured vehicles. My apologies - I should have said they were light armoured personnel carriers which offer the troops some degree of protection something which Land Rovers and G-Wagen will never compete with.

It was also the suggestion that Mercedes won the contract because they have removable armour.
There was also the requirement that the vehicle be 'IED proof', the Merc's have removeable armour sheeting. Land Rover was asked to modify the existing fleet, but I think it was just too much for them .... This was clearly not the case as the Land Rover 110 has had a "Vehicle Protection Kit" for some time. (see Snatch Land Rover - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) the lost of the Au Mil contract was for other reasons as stated previously

[1103.9TDI]

Some of us are unable to read, so......




I don't believe I stated anywhere in my post that LR are not able to produce armoured vehicles. But to modify the existing fleet (especially the soft tops) to protect troops from various battlefield explosives would be expensive. Also, bear in mind I'm talking about the 'existing' vehicles, not new ones. You may well be correct about the change of ownership issues, but normally, I would have thought that if these contracts are successful, they are automatically passed on to the new owner. It's not as if these vehicles are particularily 'sensitive' in nature.

And from your link:

The Snatch Land Rover is a protected patrol vehicle, based around the Land Rover Defender 110 chassis, intended for general patrolling in low-threat areas and is the successor to the Truck Utility Medium (TUM) with Vehicle Protection Kit (VPK). The vehicle was developed for use in the Northern Ireland area of operations in 1992, for use in rural patrolling and providing some degree of small arms protection for occupants and a limited level of protection from Improvised Explosive Devices and off-route mines.

The Snatch is one of a range of vehicles which remains in use in Northern Ireland as well as the Iraq and Afghanistan operational areas.

Use of the vehicle has been the subject of criticism as a consequence of a number of kinetic attacks which have exceeded the level of protection available, leading to occupant deaths.

.....Landy armour not quite up to scratch, I'm afraid, what!

[Lotz-A-Landies]

<snip>.....Landy armour not quite up to scratch, I'm afraid, what!and neither is the HMMWV. "The armor on most up-armored HMMWVs holds up well against lateral attacks, when the blast is distributed in all different directions, but offers little protection from a mine blast below the truck, such as buried IEDs and land mines. Explosively formed penetrators (EFPs) can also defeat the armor kits, causing casualties."

Nor the Armoured G-Wagen

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2010/05/252.jpg

"The G-wagon LUVW has come under closer scrutiny after a series of fatal incidents in Afghanistan. The G-wagon is an excellent light utility vehicle. What is in question is whether LUVWs are appropriate for combat patrols or other high-risk operations." Mercedes G-wagon - Add-on Armour - Afghanistan Patrols - Vehicle Vulnerability - Procurement Management - Vehicle Purchases - Government Military Contracts - Succession Planning - CASR Background (http://www.casr.ca/bg-gwagon-armour.htm)

So I guess the Armoured G-Wagon is not any better than the Snatch or even up to scratch, I'm afraid, What!

Addit: on the issue of passing the contract on. If FoMoCo did not find an acceptable buyer for Land Rover (which at the time was possible), and instead of losing money hand over fist, they may have chosen to wind the Land Rover company up. If they had an ongoing contract with the ADF this could have been a problem having to either continue production and support of the contract or buy out the contract a very expensive option and IMHO unpalatable for FoMoCo.

[1103.9TDI]

..........I agree, if they were serious about mine/IED resistance, they should have bought these: Cougar (vehicle) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cougar_(vehicle)). Why not just borrow a few of these, while conducting op's in Afganistan and Iraq. I can't understand why they would spend so much money replacing an entire fleet, with vehicles that are in no way superior to the Land Rovers.

[JDNSW]

..........I can't understand why they would spend so much money replacing an entire fleet, with vehicles that are in no way superior to the Land Rovers.

The main superiority is that almost all the Landrovers are at least twenty years old. (OK, some, perhaps most, have been refurbished). But apart from that, the new vehicles have some features the Landrovers do not, such as engines that meet current emissions standards.

As to why they did not replace Landrovers with similar but new vehicles - simply because Landrover was not interested. If they had been, there might have been some real competition and comparison.

John

[1103.9TDI]

The main superiority is that almost all the Landrovers are at least twenty years old. (OK, some, perhaps most, have been refurbished). But apart from that, the new vehicles have some features the Landrovers do not, such as engines that meet current emissions standards.

As to why they did not replace Landrovers with similar but new vehicles - simply because Landrover was not interested. If they had been, there might have been some real competition and comparison.

John

All very well and good, John, but isn't the ADF exempt to most ADR's, ie no requirements for safety belts, ignition key systems, etc, so why would they have to all of a sudden conform to a euro 3 emission rules. I can also see their Mack trucks and Tanks are going to have difficulty complying, we better replace them too.

Maybe Blknight. aus could enlighten us on an estimate of the mileage an average Landrover 110 in service may have achieved. I know very few of the 110's up here have passed 80000km, most are around 40000km; barely run in.

Justification of the spares package for combat readyness is also a bit over the top, won't the Merc's need a spares package as well?

[Blknight.aus]

the highest milage LR110 I know of is not far over 200K km realistically most are under 150K Km and lots are under the 100K km mark.

The ones on amberly are very low KM but they have other issues and with the exception of a few would not reccomend purchasing those particular units.

The ADF is not Exempt from ANY of the ADR's the age of the fleet means we can sneak around some of them but any exemption we want from a Particular ADR requires a case study and justification and the powers that be can still turn it down. (some of our vehicles actually have areas we cant go into as the local government body did not sign off on the waivers to operate on the permits in their area.)

However In time of WAR or by an operational jurisdiction as the ADF is a Federal level organisation we can simply tell the local bureaucrats to go get knotted or spend some time at DFCE.

[PAT303]

In Australia all company's,wether government or private have to follow safety guidelines put foward by worksafe Australia.The ADF have to fit roll over protection,occupant restraints etc etc just like any other company and the ADF will be charged just like any other company if someone sustains an injury driveing a 110.The simple fact is the 110's do not pass basic vehicle safety rules were's the G wagons do and thats another reason why they are being replaced.The days of soldiers being told to like it or lump it are long gone. Pat

[JDNSW]

In Australia all company's,wether government or private have to follow safety guidelines put foward by worksafe Australia.

I don't think that is strictly correct.

The ADF have to fit roll over protection,occupant restraints etc etc just like any other company and the ADF will be charged just like any other company if someone sustains an injury driveing a 110.

No, but they are likely to get into political trouble!

The simple fact is the 110's do not pass basic vehicle safety rules were's the G wagons do and thats another reason why they are being replaced.

I think that is a bit extreme - but any replacement would be required to meet current standards - and note that the current Defender meets all current civilian standards, otherwise it could not be sold!

The days of soldiers being told to like it or lump it are long gone.

Again, a bit extreme - the last 110 was delivered about twenty years ago, and in terms of an ADF that has been in existence for at least 100 years, that is hardly "long gone"

Pat

Having made the above comments, while I do not think most of your comments are strictly correct, in deciding on replacements for the 110s, the ADF would most certainly be looking at a vehicle that not only meets all current civilian requirements as far as possible, but meets all the requirements that can reasonably be foreseen. I think they would do this not because failure to do so would result in charges in the event of accidents, but because it would bring the ADF into disrepute and (ultimately) cause political trouble for the Minister and party involved.

John

[PAT303]

I friend of mine just left the ADF and I got that straight from her.Soldiers are sueing over poor quality boots causing fallen arches and bad backs from crappy backpacks and as soldiers are employee's of the ADF the ADF are responsable for them.The 6wd troop carriers were retro fitted with an alloy troop compartment years ago to satisfy roll over requirements,once again this is not from me but what i've been told. Pat

[JDNSW]

I friend of mine just left the ADF and I got that straight from her.Soldiers are sueing over poor quality boots causing fallen arches and bad backs from crappy backpacks and as soldiers are employee's of the ADF the ADF are responsable for them.The 6wd troop carriers were retro fitted with an alloy troop compartment years ago to satisfy roll over requirements,once again this is not from me but what i've been told. Pat

Yes, the ADF has been taking action to reduce possibility of injuries to their personnel - but not because of legal requirements. (carrying personnel in the back of a truck was not legal in most civilian jurisdictions when the 110s were bought by the army!). Soldiers are perhaps more accurately "trying to sue", and they may be successful, but the legal relation of soldiers to the ADF is not the same as is the case with civilian employees of the ADF.

John

[Blknight.aus]

urmm, not quite JDNSW....

untill it becomes an operational requirement to break the rules to achieve a military advantage we play by all the same rules to quote the first thing you get taught...

"you must abide by all rules both Civil and Military"

you can be double dipped for an offence. If you get caught say speeding by the civy cops you can be done by the civies and then done by the defence in some circumstances.

you should see the poo fights we're having ATM over some things that we were once exempt from having to do because of a simple change in some simple legislation that made a requirement retroactive.

the ADF has been sucessfully sued by families of serving members and serving members in the past and the usual result of an attempt to sue is a new round of rules and regulations that make it the responsibility of the Chain of command to enforce and the digger on the ground to adhere to.

[VladTepes]

I'd heard (possibly erroneously but I;d be interested to know) that the new contract called for one provider for the range of vehicles... the LR replacement, light trucks (like the 'mogs) and semi trailers.. which pretty much ruled LR out of the race !

It really provided scope for only a few contenders.. Mercedes being the obvious one, but Iveco being another that could fill the bill.

Surely the RFT must be out there in the public domain somewhere .. would make interesting reading.

(RFT = Request for Tender).

Cheers

[JDNSW]

I'd heard (possibly erroneously but I;d be interested to know) that the new contract called for one provider for the range of vehicles... the LR replacement, light trucks (like the 'mogs) and semi trailers.. which pretty much ruled LR out of the race !.........
Cheers

Yes, I remember that being the case - but that is not the reason Landrover did not bid. The reason, as I said earlier in this thread is that providing military vehicles did not fit in with Landrover's image as a specialist supplier of upmarket luxury cars. Doesn't seem to be a major concern with Mercedes Benz, although it needs to be pointed out that as well as luxury cars, M-B already sell a wide variety of commercial vehicles under the same brand.

John

[Blknight.aus]

just quietly, I really wanted Tatra trucks to have a go at it....

[isuzurover]

but that is not the reason Landrover did not bid

I don't think that anyone here is in a position to definitively say why or why not Land Rover didn't submit a tender.

The only official information I have seen is:

However, it has been confirmed that Land Rover Australia pulled out of the tender process within weeks of the lodgement date and did not submit a bid."

Ian Bostock JDW Correspondent
Sydney

[rick130]

I don't think that anyone here is in a position to definitively say why or why not Land Rover didn't submit a tender.

The only official information I have seen is:

Ben, the only info I had was from ten years ago during the transition to Ford ownership and Ford officially canned military vehicle development in Oz on taking over from BMW and instigating PAG.

The then PAG managing director didn't want Defender at all in Australia, it didn't project the image he was after and he sure as hell didn't want military sales.
All development stopped immediately, including development of the TD5 to re-power the 110's to extend LOT.
Fords attitude was to sell the ADF F Series trucks.

That was directly from a good mate who was a consulting engineer/military to LRA at the time, (ex-JRA/Pernetie) and confirmed by a senior engineer at LRA at my mates wedding (also ex-JRA/Perentie and my mates old boss)

Prior to the sale, BMW were setting up Australia to be the centre of development for miltary vehicles with manufacturing to take place in South Africa with Solihull concentrating on civilian development and manufacture.
Interestingly the LRA people I knew were pretty critical of the BAe built Perenties (the second batch built in South Australia) I don't know what Dave thinks but they reckoned they were pretty shonky for the most part.

[JDNSW]

Ben, the only info I had was from ten years ago during the transition to Ford ownership and Ford officially canned military vehicle development in Oz on taking over from BMW and instigating PAG.

The then PAG managing director didn't want Defender at all in Australia, it didn't project the image he was after and he sure as hell didn't want military sales.
.........


Sounds just like I was guessing!

John

[rick130]

Sounds just like I was guessing!

John

I've posted that info a few times over the years too John ;)