on the replacement for the perenties

Tom who???. Pat

Tom Sheppard

...has written more books about off road and Land Rover driving than you and I will likely ever read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PAT303

I think TATA is the defenders guardian angel.I think they will get Indian army contracts that will lead to huge numbers.What it does need is modernizing with airbags,modern assembly(not hand built) and an auto option. Pat

---

I'm not sure that "need" is the word I would use.
Airbags are a requirement, for example in Australian mining - but Landrover Australia has shown decreasing interest in selling to this or any other utility market. As far as I can see, major redesign is necessary to install airbags, and it will probably make changes in body style or additions such as bullbars much more difficult and expensive, as well as necessarily changing dimensions and losing backward compatibility of parts and accessories.

Modern assembly without apparent change in design is quite possible - it was done, for example with the RRClassic. But whether the result could be called a Defender is another matter, as it would lose its ability to be repaired and modified without much equipment, and become just another four wheel drive.

An auto option would widen the market, and could have been done at any time since the introduction of the 110 without difficulty. I can only conclude it has not been done to avoid taking sales from the RRClassic and the Discovery.

I think that if the Defender survives changes such as you suggest are likely, but whether it remains a Defender in anything except name is another matter. It would become just another four wheel drive. So I don't think I would use the word "needs" - perhaps "likely to get".

John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shonky

I have no beef with the G, but I agree with Feeny - WTF were Land Rover thinking!?!?!?!

They have had the light military market over their knee for over half a century and now they just can't be bothered?

I just don't get what thought process was behind the idea of:
"Hey lets not submit for military tenders anymore. I know that Landies have seen more military service than any other vehicle, and most armies swear by them but hey - the tender process is just so tedious and boring. I would much rather go to motor shows and **** on about the Range Rover Sport. It's okay - our flawless quality control and impeccable reputation for service will surely keep us in business with the civilian market..."

I am trying very hard to not violate the site rules here! I just want to explode in a barrage of four letter words!

ARGH! AAARGGGGHHHHH! AAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHH!

*Shonky throws computer across room, then takes two bex and goes for a lie down.*

---

Mate,
It's not all as it seems I'm afraid.
So that I don't get a visit from the official secrets police I'll talk in riddles but you'll get the idea.....

In order to present a streamlined contracting and logistics pipeline, it is common to require that as a condition of tender response, all tender respondants submit bids for 2 or 3 of the categories. This ensures that you are dealing with a minimum number of companies throughout the life of the equipment. That is why consortiums are common, as they allow this.:o

I suspect (read between the lines here), that LR was unable to directly tender for anything other than the light category and was either unwilling or unable to enter into a consortium agreement for the other categories.:mad:

This in effect might have precluded them from tendering for any category.:(

Cheers

Ralph

I have it from "yeah on a good day it might be reliable" sources that due to the existing stock lines and the fact that the LR wasnt out of life of type at the time the offer was initially put forwards that landrover was offered the chance to tender for the light vehicles.

Not sure exactly how it was worked out but the bits of info that IVe been able to garner off the vines leads me to believe that LR went..

Gee thanks but no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blknight.aus

I have it from "yeah on a good day it might be reliable" sources that due to the existing stock lines and the fact that the LR wasnt out of life of type at the time the offer was initially put forwards that landrover was offered the chance to tender for the light vehicles.

Not sure exactly how it was worked out but the bits of info that IVe been able to garner off the vines leads me to believe that LR went..

Gee thanks but no.

---

You are quite close to the truth actually, mate.
Should one, through freedom of information, obtain the specifications sent to industry, one may find that Defence was seeking some specification LR was unable or unwilling to provide...on their current product line .....perhaps it was Armour, or IED protection, or something like that.......Damn those secrecy police :twisted:


Ralph

LR can do Armour and IED protection.....

just not at the "for free as standard" price that the ADF Want....

the 6x6 LRPV has limited APers mine protection which as per all things landrover does it so well that I know of one LR hitting an AT mine and saving the crew. The vehicle was later repaired to a functional standard again.

Here are the first pics for the ADF's M-B Gwagens.
Note high-lift jack cut outs under front bumper.
http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/9...gwagon1031.jpg

http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/1...wagon10462.jpg

http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/6...wagon10662.jpg

http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/877...wagon10562.jpg

I think the most obvious reason why LR didn't provide competion was because the tender specs called for diesel automatic. The fault lay with Ford - no diesel auto option available
for Transit ergo nothing available for LR to use.

Rob W

and they're in country..

Just what every defence force needs, spare tyre covers, high mount indicators and are they black out lights to match?