Military 110 sales?

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1103.9TDI

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 [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snatch_Land_Rover]Snatch Land Rover - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] ) the lost of the Au Mil contract was for other reasons as stated previously

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1103.9TDI

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1103.9TDI

<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/im...010/05/252.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

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.

..........I agree, if they were serious about mine/IED resistance, they should have bought these: Cougar (vehicle) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1103.9TDI

..........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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

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?

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PAT303

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