Thread: Military 110 sales?

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 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.

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

Landrover told the ADF to go jam it.

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

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!

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...

Originally Posted by 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....<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!

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.