Printable View
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by PAT303
John
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.
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by VladTepes
John
just quietly, I really wanted Tatra trucks to have a go at it....
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JDNSW
The only official information I have seen is:
Quote:
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by isuzurover
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rick130
Sounds just like I was guessing!
John
I've posted that info a few times over the years too John ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by JDNSW