Thread: G wagon hopeless

Originally Posted by Blknight.aus

base unit price is $200kish...

sustainment contract is not a complete parcel per vehicle price that I'm aware of
(could be wrong but given the spec value of the base model) guestimating the cost of parts and repair (for some of the higher cost jobs) that I've been made aware of so far if if the base unit included its sustainment value $200k might get you to 2 years and thats not counting some of the issues I'm expecting will begin to crop up within the next 5 years.

I suspect that the $200k would include the establishment parts but not the ongoing sustainment for life of type.

Right, got you. It's not uncommon for "establishment parts" contracts to be an option. Bit the Army hard on S70A parts (of course they blamed the RAAF :-))and I'd guess ARH and MRH will be no different.

Kev.

Originally Posted by slug_burner

Acquisition and support are two different and separate contracts.

Acquisition may deliver the initial batch of spares.

Not always...well yes correct they can be, but ASDEFCON templates have the option to adjust as required. I've seen them inextricably integrated and also written in such a way that they can be taken as one offer or broken into two parts.

The practical reality is....do you want to execute somebody else's plans, costing etc?

So they are, well for the first term, often one in the same, in my experience. I'm sure that isn't always the case...but you know what I mean!?

Originally Posted by Celtoid

Not always...well yes correct they can be, but ASDEFCON templates have the option to adjust as required. I've seen them inextricably integrated and also written in such a way that they can be taken as one offer or broken into two parts.

The practical reality is....do you want to execute somebody else's plans, costing etc?

So they are, well for the first term, often one in the same, in my experience. I'm sure that isn't always the case...but you know what I mean!?

Just because they are different contracts doesn't mean they are with different entities. I'd say very few would be with a different organization.

Originally Posted by slug_burner

Just because they are different contracts doesn't mean they are with different entities. I'd say very few would be with a different organization.

Hang on, didn't you infer the opposite before?....anyway... I think we are on the same page?!

Agree, they are written in a way that can be dealt with seperately or integrated...that's what I said in my last line.

But recently at least, they are written with the option for completely seperate organisations to be able to execute or for co-operatives....not sure if it's a spear being pointed at contractors.

It may be rare for that to happen and as I said before, certainly wouldn't want to be executing a contract that wasn't planned as one outcome.

Funny I looked at the rear seats on that ADF ad and thought I bet there isn't much room for the squaddie in the back (knees in the back of seat in front ) then I thought ahh they mimicked the defender.
I looked at the boxyness with a certain familiarity at certain angles and thought defender, I thought of the modern unserviceable in the field engine and thought defender
And then you get the variants same as the ADF had with defender, I guess apart from the fact it won't perform off road as a well as the previous contract as the axles don't articulate that well (putting us on even pegging with the yanks huff'n'puff) it'll do most of what it's been asked although it will be in the workshop a hell of a lot as young excited men try and drive it flat tack through the nearest swamp and its electrickery gets all sensitive and emotional just like a modern land rover up to the gunnels in mud.

Compared to the Abrams tank and the Collins class sub, this is really a highlight of defence procurement excellence.

At the end of the day, Merc was the best option of those put forward.

Even IF LR had bothered to tender, if I was spending other people's money I would definitely go for a 3L TD G-wagon with twin lockers over a 2.2L Puma.

The only valid criticism I have read so far is a lack of wheel travel - which is more than made up for by having lockers...

If you factor in inflation and the civvie vehicle cost, then the Merc is much better value than the perenties were (even accounting for the spares issues).

I suspect the ADF specifying auto trans was for similar reasons to the US Humvees being auto. an attempt to soldier proof the G Wagons. Yet they are fitted with manual difflocks that if used incorrectly can do far more damage to the drivetrain than poor gear changing techniques.

Is it definately confirmed that ADF 4x4 G Wagons have rear leaf spring suspension and drum brakes ? I've googled a bit, but can't find any mention of same in the several tech appraisals I've read.
Bill.

If anyone is interested in seeing some G's in-the-flesh and are in the area around Mansfield, Vic, in the last weekend in November, we are having our nationals there. Hopefully there will be some ADF ones as well as the mostly older models and a few new ones.

Nice time to visit the High Country too...